Delhi District Court
Raja S/O Dasarat Kumar vs Sh. Mahesh Prasad S/O Sh. Babu Lal on 24 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KR SINGH:
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL :02
(CENTRAL):DELHI
Case No.: 482/14
Unique ID No. 02401C0062812012
Raja S/o Dasarat Kumar
R/o H. NO. 1085,
Sadar Bazar, Delhi.
................Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Mahesh Prasad S/o Sh. Babu Lal
R/o H.No. 652, Ali Ganj Estate,
Near HPL Fatak, Jung Pura,
Bhogal, Delhi. ( driver)
2. Sh. Harvinder Singh S/o Sh. Bhagat Singh,
R/o 758, Mathura Road, Jang Pura,
Bhogal, Delhi. (owner)
3. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.
101008-K-18, IInd Floor Lajpat Nagar-II,
New Delhi-24 ( insurer)
......... Respondents
Date of Institution: 07/02/2012 Date of reserving order/judgment: 30/03/2015 Date of pronouncement : 24/04/2015 AWARD
1. This is a claim for compensation arising out of Detailed Accident Report u/s 158 (6) MV Act filed by P.S. Pahar Ganj in respect of injuries suffered by the petitioner in the road traffic accident on 24/10/2011 and same is treated as claim petition u/s 166 MV Act, 1988.
2. The case of the petitioner is that on 24/10/2011 at about 11.00 PM the petitioner was coming with his brother in law from his house and when they reached at Sadar Thana Suit No. 482/14 Page No. 1/14 Road suddenly a Truck bearing No. HR-55A-6312 which was being driven by its driver/ respondent No. 1 came at a very high speed in rash and negligent manner, in violation of all traffic rules and norms and hit the petitioner from behind with forceful impact. As a result of aforesaid accident, the petitioner sustained straddle fracture pelvic bone, sustained serious injury in rectal wall and urethral injury and other grievous injuries all over his body as per MLC and other medical record. In total, the petitioner has claimed Rs. 50,00,000/- as compensation on account of the injuries sustained by the injured in the accident.
3. The written statement was filed by respondents No.1 & 2 in which they have categorically denied the contents of the petition to be false one.
4. The written statement was filed by respondent no.3/ insurance company wherein it was admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with it as on the date and time of accident.
5. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed for consideration on 16/09/2013:-
1.Whether the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries in road traffic accident which took place on 24.10.2011 within the jurisdiction of PS: Pahar Ganj, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing registration NO. HR-55A-6312 by the Driver?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom.
3. Relief.
6. In order to establish its claim, the petitioner examined himself as PW-1, eye witness Sh. Rajesh Kumar as PW-2, Sh. Jitin Kumar as PW-3, Sh. Rajesh Kumar as PW-4 and Dr. Satish Kumar as PW-5 respectively.
7. The respondents did not adduce any evidence in their defence.
8. I have thoroughly gone through the testimony of the witness and perused the record. I have also given thoughtful consideration to the arguments addressed by learned Suit No. 482/14 Page No. 2/14 counsel for the parties.
My findings on various issues are as under :-
9. ISSUE NO. 1The present petition is under Section 166 of M V Act and as such, it was the duty of the petitioner to prove that the respondent No.1 was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle at the time of accident.
10. The police has filed the Detailed Accident Report (DAR) on record pertaining to the case FIR no. 157/11 PS Pahar Ganj u/s. 279/338 IPC including chargesheet etc.
11. The petitioner explained the mode and manner of the accident in his affidavit, Ex. PW1/A to the effect that on the date of accident when the petitioner was coming with his brother in law from his house and when they reached at Sadar Thana Road suddenly a Truck bearing No. HR-55A-6312 which was being driven by its driver/ respondent No. 1 came at a very high speed in rash and negligent manner, in violation of all traffic rules and norms and hit the petitioner from behind with forceful impact. As a result of aforesaid accident, the petitioner sustained straddle fracture pelvic bone, sustained serious injury in rectal wall and urethral injury and other grievous injuries all over his body as per MLC and other medical record. PW-2 (Eye Witness) has also deposed on the same lines as stated by the PW-1. The cross-examination carried on by the respondents is not suggestive of anything which may discard the claim of the petitioner thats the driver of the offending vehicle was not rash and negligent at the time of accident.
12. While determining the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, I am being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2009 ACJ 287, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana wherein in the Hon'ble High Court held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR or in addition the recovery memo on the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It was further held Suit No. 482/14 Page No. 3/14 that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard.
Further, in Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would made the petition maintainable under section 166 and 140 of the Act.
13. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be construed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one.
14. Further recently the Hon'ble High of Delhi in MAC App. No.200/2012 in case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vd. Smt. Rinki @ Rinku & Ors decided on 23/07/2012 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under:-
"The Claims Tribunal was conscious of the fact that negligence is a sine qua non to a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act). It is also true that the proceedings for grant of compensation under the Act are neither governed by the criminal procedures nor are a civil suit. A reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court Bimla Devi and Ors. V Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors, (2009) 13 SC 530 where it was held as under:
"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of any accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimant. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
Suit No. 482/14 Page No. 4/1415. Therefore,after considering all the documents filed by the petitioner as a whole, it is clear that respondent no. 1 was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
16. The issue no. 1, therefore, goes in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
17. NATURE OF INJURIES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF MEDICAL BILLS:
As per the copy of discharge report Mark C the petitioner sustained rectal wall injury with urethral injuries and pelvic fracture. The petitioner has filed the medical bills to the tune of Rs. 24,372/. I hereby award a sum of Rs. 24,372/- towards medical bills keeping in view the nature of injuries and medical bills placed on record.
COMPENSATION ON ACCOUNT OF DISABILITY& OTHER HEADS.
18. It is now settled law that it is the percentage of functional disability arising out of physical disability which matters while arising the compensation arising out of disability. On this aspect, I place reliance upon judgment titled as Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 254 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the case of disability of an engineering student. The Supreme Court observed that while awarding compensation in personal injury cases, an attempt should be made to put the injured in the same position as he was as far as money is concerned. In para 9 Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"9.We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury. Suffice it to say that the basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was insofar as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered."
19. Further in Niazam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka & Ors; (2009) 6 SCC 1, the Supreme Court emphasized that cases of serious injuries in motor vehicle accident are wrose than the death cases because the victim and his family Suit No. 482/14 Page No. 5/14 suffers throughout life. Para 90 of the report is extracted hereunder:-
"90. At the same time we often find that a person injured in an accident leaves his family in greater distress vis-a-viz a family in greater distress vis-a-vis a family in a case of death. I n the latter case, the initial shock gives way to a feeling of resignation and acceptance, and in time, compels the family to move on. The case of an injured and disabled person is, however, more pitiable ad the feeling of hurt , helplessness, despair and often destitution enures every day. The support that is needed by a severely handicapped person comes at an enourmous price, physical, financial and emotional, not only on the victim but even more so on his family and attendants and the stress saps their energy and destroys their equanimity."
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar & Anr., reported in 2011(1) SCC 324 also held as under:
"11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of th permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings(by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation ( see for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2010(10) SCC 254 and Yadava Kumar v D. M. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2010(10) SCC 341."
14. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry . On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of ' loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be Suit No. 482/14 Page No. 6/14 shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emolument, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity."
21. The disability certificate Ex PW5/A issued by Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi suggests that petitioner had sustained injury to the pelvis & Urethra. He has undergone multiple operations for urethral injury and further staged multiple operations to the done later in life. He has erectile disfunction also. He is still on suprapubic cystostomy for drainage of urine and colostomy for evacuation of feacal material even after three years following sustaining injury. It further depicts that equating with posttrauma Neurogenic bladder guidelines (book on Disability Ministry of Social justice and empowerment June 2011) where retention of urine means 100% disability. It means he has 100% disability at present. However, the disability certificate depicts that the the status can be reviewed after two years, but Dr. Satish Kumar PW-5 has deposed that the petitioner was found to contain 100% permanent disability in relation to his whole body because of the conditions mentioned in the the disability certificate and he has lost his day to day working as well as earning capacity. He has further deposed in cross examination that the urethral injury and sexual dis function/erection will not recover even after two years. He has further deposed that there is a possibility of some improvement in the function of colostomy to divert the feacal material to its natural passage. For this purpose he needs multiple operations in a specialized hospital.
22. I am also fortified by the view of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled Sanjay Vs. Suresh Chand & Ors , FAO No. 445/2000 decided on 03/08/2012, wherein it was held as under:-
"11. The Appellant's photograph on the disability certificate Ex. P-70 and the another photograph on Trial Court record would simply reveal not only immense pain and suffering but humiliation which the Appellant has to suffer day in and day out when he walks to the Hospital with a tube just above his male organ and a catheter to pass urine. It is established that the Appellant cannot carry out any work whatsoever. The loss of earning capacity in his case would be 100%."Suit No. 482/14 Page No. 7/14
23. Keeping in view the testimony of the Doctor who have categorically stated that the patient/petitioner was having 100% permanent disability will effect the whole body. Keeping in view the testimony of doctor and guidance from aforesaid judgment in Sanjay's case, it appears to me that 100% permanent disability shall have 100% effect the earning capacity of the petitioner.
24. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sanjay's case(supra) gave certain observation and awarded a sum which are detailed down as under:-
Sr. Compensation under various heads Awarded by this No. Court
1. Loss of Earning Capacity (on the salary of Rs. 3,43,137/-
matriculate)(1222/+ 30%(inflation)x 12x18)
2. Pain and suffering Rs. 1,50,000/-
3. Loss of Amenities Rs. 1,50,000/-
4. Disfigurement and Loss of Marriage Rs. 1,00,000/-
prospects
5. Special Diet upto the date of Award ( Rs. Rs. 50,000/-
25,000/-) Conveyance upto the date of Award
6. Future Conveyance Rs. 50,000/-
7. Future Special Diet Rs. 50,000/-
8. Future Treatment (including Rs. 80,000/- for Rs. 1,50,000/-
one surgery as per the estimate given by Apollo Hospital
9. Medical Treatment upto the date of the Rs. 50,000/-
award
Total Rs. 10,93,137/-
25. As per the copy of Adhar Card Ex PW1/1, the year of birth of the petitioner is 1980. The date of accident was 24/10/2011. Accordingly, the age of the petitioner was 31 years as on the date of accident.
26. In the present matter, the petitioner was stated to be doing the business of trading in Garment Buttons and and was stated to be earning Rs. 30,000/- .The petitioner has not filed any document with respect to his monthly earning nor have proved the same.
Suit No. 482/14 Page No. 8/14The petitioner has also got examined PW-3 Jitin Sohar and PW-4 Rajesh Kumar S/o Late Sh. Ramesh Chand to prove the fact that he had been doing job work with them, but they did not produce any document in this regard. In these circumstances, the income of the petitioner can very well be assessed on the basis of the chart available in the Minimum Wages Act. The date of accident was on 24/10/2011 which the minimum wages for Unskilled Workers were Rs. 6,656/-.
27. Ld. Counsel for petitioner requested for balancing the income of the victim on the basis of inflation trends and requested that 50% increase be made in the income of the victim on the basis of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors 2013(6) Scale 563, but per contra Ld. counsel for the insurer objected to same.
28. I have considered the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for petitioner and have perused the record.
29. Initially, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'Santosh Devi Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors' in Civil Appeal No. 3723 of 2012 decided on 23/04/2012case had held as under:-
"14. We find it extremely difficult to fathom any rationale for the observation made in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma's case that where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death a departure from this rule should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstance. In our view, it will be nave to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is self- employed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., would remain the same throughout his life. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board. It does not make any distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are self-employed or who get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst affected people. Therefore, they put extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families. The salaries of those employed employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have also increased manifold. Till about two decades ago, nobody could have imagined that salary of Class IV employee of Suit No. 482/14 Page No. 9/14 the Government would be in five figures and total emoluments of those in higher echelons of service will cross the figure of rupees one lac. Although, the wages/income of those employed in unorganized sectors has not registered a corresponding increase and has not kept pace with the increase in the salaries of the Government employees and those employed in private sectors but it cannot be denied that there has been incremental enhancement in the income of those who are self-employed and even those engaged on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can take judicial notice of this fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling on the latter category periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this context, it may be useful to give an example of a tailor who earns his livelihood by stitching cloths. If the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase the cost of his labour. So will be the cases of ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason etc. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verma's judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self-employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self-employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserved to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation".
30. However,in a recent case decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors 2013(6) Scale 563" wherein three Hon'ble Judges bench held that
11. Since, the court in Santosh Devi's case (Supra) actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid in Sarla Verma's case (Supra) and to make it applicable also to self- employed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30 % always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self-employed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30 % in case the deceased was in age group of 40 to 50 years.
31. Since the deceased was 31 years of age as on the date of accident, 50% of income towards the future prospects is required to be added in terms of aforesaid judgment in Rajesh's case(supra). Hence after averaging out, the income of deceased comes out to be Rs. 9,984.( Rs. 6,656/-+ 50% of Rs. 6,656).
32. Accordingly the petitioner was 31 years of age as on the date of accident for which the relevant multiplier 16 as mentioned in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC decided on Suit No. 482/14 Page No. 10/14 15.4.2009 in C.A. No. 3483/08. Therefore, the total loss of earning capacity comes out to be Rs. 19,16,928/- ( Rs. 9,984 X 12 X 16). In view of the aforesaid discussion, case laws and the circumstances of the case, I award him the compensation as tabulated hereunder:
Sr. Compensation under various heads Awarded by this No. Court
1. Loss of Earning Capacity Rs. 19,16,928/-
2. Pain and suffering Rs. 1,50,000/-
3. Loss of Amenities Rs. 1,50,000/-
4. Disfigurement and loss of enjoyment Rs. 1,00,000/-
5. Special Diet upto the date of Award Rs Rs. 50,000/-
25,000) Conveyance upto the date of Award
6. Compensation towards medical bills Rs. 24,372/-
7. Future Conveyance Rs. 50,000/-
8. Future Special Diet Rs. 50,000 Total Rs. 24,91,300/-
RELIEF:
33. I award Rs. 24,91,300/-(Rupees Twenty Four Lac Ninety One Thousand Three Hundred Only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum including interim award, if any from the date of filing the petition i.e., 07/02/2012 till the notice under Order 21 Rule 1 is given by the insurance company, in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents on account of their liability being joint and several.
34. Acting on the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India G.M Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v/s S.Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176 in order to avoid the money being frittered away, Sixty percent (60%) of the amount awarded to aforementioned petitioner shall be kept in 5 FDRs of almost equal amount for a period of 1,2,3,4 & 5 years. No loan or advance shall be allowed against the said fixed deposit. Petitioner can withdraw the interest quarterly from the said FDRs.Suit No. 482/14 Page No. 11/14
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY:
35. The Respondent No: 3 being the insurer, its liability is joint and several with other respondents. Accordingly, Respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the award amount within a period of 30 days. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at a rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
36. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment in Union of India and Another Vs. Nanisari and Others MACA 682/2005 decided on 13.1.2010 have given certain guidelines and directions to the Motor Accident Tribunals to the effect that henceforth the Tribunals shall direct the insurance companies to deposit the award amount in the bank within 30 days with further direction as to the disbursement of the same in terms of the award and case be kept pending till the compliance is placed on record. The directions given by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as mentioned and endorsed in the said order has already been re affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in order dated 17.12.2009 in SLP (C) No. 11801-11804/2005 which contains certain schemes initiated for the benefit of the victims of the road accidents after the award amount is passed. The para no.18 of the judgment of the Hon'ble High court of Delhi runs as under:-
"19. To protect and preserve the compensation amount awarded to the families of the deceased victim special schemes may be considered by the insurance companies in consultation with the Life Insurance Corporation of India, State Bank of India or any other Nationalized Banks under which the compensation is kept in fixed deposit for an appropriate period and interest is paid by the Bank monthly to the claimants without any need for claimants having to approach either the Court or their counsel or the Bank for that purpose. The scheme should ensure that the amount of compensation is utilized only for the benefit of the injured claimants or in case of death, for the benefit of the dependent family. We extract below the particulars of a special Scheme offered by a nationalized Bank at the instance of the Delhi High Court:
(i) The fixed deposit shall be automatically renewed till the period prescribed by the Court.
(ii) The interest on the fixed deposit shall be paid monthly.
(iii) The monthly interest shall be credited automatically in the saving account of the claimant.Suit No. 482/14 Page No. 12/14
(iv) Original fixed deposit receipt shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original pass book shall be given to the claimant along with the photocopy of the FDR.
(v) The original fixed deposit receipt shall be handed over to the claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period.
(vi) Photo identity card shall be issued to the claimant and the withdrawal shall be permitted only after due verification by the Bank of the identity card of the claimant.
(vii) No cheque book shall be issued to the claimant without permission of the Court.
(viii) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the fixed deposit without permission of the Court.
(ix) The claimant can operated the saving bank account from the nearest branch of UCO Bank on the request of the claimant, the bank shall provide the said facility."
37. It was further held in the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Nanisiri case (Supra) that "The State Bank of India and UCO Bank have formulated special schemes for the victims of the road accident on the above terms and, therefore, the order for the deposit should be made presently to State Bank of India through its Nodal Officer Mr. Chandra Mohan Ojha Relationship Manager, Tis Hazari Branch, Tis Hazari (Mb: 09412341376) or to UCO Bank through Mr. M M Tandon, Member- Retail Team, UCO Bank Zonal, Parliament Street, New Delhi (Mobile No.09310356400) as per the convenience of the victim /legal representatives of the victim. However, if any other bank agrees to provide the special scheme for victims of the road accident on the above terms, the deposit be permitted to be made in that Bank subject to the convenience of the victim/legal representative of the victim of the road accident".
38. In terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi the insurance company shall deposit the award amount in the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch, Delhi in the name of the petitioner/ petitioners in terms of the award and shall file the compliance report. It is made clear that at the time of the deposit of the award amount with the bank, the insurance company shall specifically mention the suit Suit No. 482/14 Page No. 13/14 no. of the case, title of the case as well as date of decision with the name of court on the back side of the cheque. The insurance company shall also file the attested copy of the award attested by its own officer to the bank at the time of deposit of the amount with the bank.
39. The copy of this award be given to the insurance company as well as to the petitioner free of cost. The petitioner shall approach the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch, Delhi for opening the account.
40. The Manager of the Bank is directed to comply the award. The Bank Manager is directed to release the award amount to the petitioners. However, in case the amount is ordered to be kept in the FDR, the said amount should not be released unless the FDR is matured.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 24/07/2015, to be fixed by insurance company.
Announced in the open court
on this 24th April day of 2015 (SANJEEV KR. SINGH)
PO: MACT-02 (CENTRAL): DELHI
Suit No. 482/14 Page No. 14/14
Suit No. 482/14
24.04.2015
Present: None.
Judgment announced vide separate sheets of even date. This file be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 24/07/2015, to be fixed by insurance company.
(SANJEEV KR. SINGH ) PO: MACT-02(CENTRAL) : DELHI Suit No. 482/14 Page No. 15/14