Delhi District Court
Ramesh S/O Lt. Heera Lal vs Sh. Malik Singh (Driver) on 3 October, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SURESH KUMAR GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER-MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, SHAHDARA, KKD, DELHI
Unique Case ID No. 02402C0167352014
MAC No. : 135/14(New MAC No. 1048/16)
1. Ramesh S/o Lt. Heera Lal
R/o E-4/324, Nand Nagari,
Delhi-110093
2. Sh. Om Prakash S/o Heera Lal
R/o E-4/324, Nand Nagari,
Delhi-110093
3. Smt. Chameli W/o Sh. Sonpal
R/o 229, Qutab Ke Sarai,
Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh
.........Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Malik Singh (Driver)
S/o Sh. Gurunam Singh
R/o Village-Samana Bau,
Tehsil-Nilocadi, Distt. Karnal,
P.S. Butana, Haryana
MAC No. 1048/16 & 691/16 1/25
2. Sh. Devender Kumar
S/o Sh. Prabh Dayal
R/o 5-G, Kisan Basti,
Nilocadi, Karnal, Haryana
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
RO II, 2-E/9, Jhandewalan Extn.,
New Delhi
Policy no. 42050031136765001356
Valid from 27.07.2013 to 26.07.2014
..........Respondents
Unique Case ID No. 02402C0167322014
MAC No. : 136/14(New MAC No. 691/16)
Padmawati W/o Late Sh. Brij Lal
R/o E-4/329, Block E4, Nand Nagari,
Delhi-93
.........Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Malik Singh (Driver)
S/o Sh. Gurunam Singh
R/o Village-Samana Bau,
Tehsil-Nilocadi, Distt. Karnal,
MAC No. 1048/16 & 691/16 2/25
P.S. Butana, Haryana
2. Sh. Devender Kumar
S/o Sh. Prabh Dayal
R/o 5-G, Kisan Basti,
Nilocadi, Karnal, Haryana
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
RO II, 2-E/9, Jhandewalan Extn.,
New Delhi
Policy no. 42050031136765001356
Valid from 27.07.2013 to 26.07.2014
..........Respondents
Date of institution : 02.06.2014
Date of arguments : 20.09.2017
Date of Judgment : 03.10.2017
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall dispose off two petitions as both of them are arising of the same accident involving the same vehicles.
2. The facts common to both the petitions are like this. Smt. Padmavati gave her statement to the police that on 28.11.2013, MAC No. 1048/16 & 691/16 3/25 she reached at bus stop no. 212 of Nand Nagari where her neighbour Bhoodevi was sitting on footpath. Bhoodevi will accompied her. They were crossing the road at 11.45 a.m. from 212 Bus Stop towards Red light GTB Hospital(towards Nand Nagari side) where one vehicle came in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and hit against both of them as a result they fell down and sustained injuries. Police officials reached on the spot. They were taken out from under the vehicle. They were brought to GTB Hospital for medical treatment. The driver of the vehicle disclosed his name as Malik Singh. FIR No. 722/13, PS, Nand Nagari, Delhi was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. The accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle.
3. The petitioners in petition no. 135/14 (new number 1048/16) have alleged that the injured has remained admitted to hospital till 28.11.2013. Bhoodevi has expired on 10.01.2014 due to grievous injuries sustained in the accident. The deceased was 74 years old at the time of accident who was house wife. They were dependent upon her.
4. DAR no. D-92/14 pertains to petition no. 1048/16 was filed which has been clubbed with this petition.
5. The petitioner in petition no. 136/14 (new number 691/16) has alleged that she has sustained grievous injuries. She has MAC No. 1048/16 & 691/16 4/25 remained admitted to hospital from 28.11.2013 till 03.12.2013. She has sustained permanent disability. She was 82 years old at the time of accident. She was house maker. She has to suffer great pain, shock and mental torture. Respondent no. 1 is driver, and respondent no. 2 is owner of the offending vehicle which is duly insured with respondent no. 3. Hence, all of them are liable to pay the compensation.
6. DAR no. D-93/14 pertains to petition no. 691/16 was filed which has been clubbed with this petition.
7. The respondent no. 1 and 2 have filed the written staement to the effect that no accident has taken place with their vehicle no. HR-05S-5621. The allegations of the petitioners are denied. The vehicle is duly insured with the insurance company.
8. The respondent no. 3 has filed the written statement to the effect that accident has not taken place due to negligence of respondent no. 1. The respondent no. 1 was driving the vehicle with the fake driving licence. The investigating officer has filed the driving licence verification report duly issued by DTO, Wokha, Nagaland which shows that DL no. 98334/NW/PROF/2010 does not tally with the office record hence it may be assured to be a fake driving licence. The offending vehicle no. HR-05S-5621 is duly insured with the respondent vide policy no. 420500/31/13/6765001356 valid till 26.07.2014. The respondent MAC No. 1048/16 & 691/16 5/25 is entitled for all the defences available under section 140 and 166 MV Act. The respondent is not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
9. The separate issues are framed in both the petitions on 05.02.2015 which are like this:-
In MAC No. 135/14(New No. 1048/16)
1. Whether the deceased Smt. Bhoo Devi suffered fatal injuries in the accident occurred on 28.11.2013 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. HR-05S-5621 being driven by respondent no. 1? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
In MAC No. 136/14(New No. 691/16)
1. Whether the petitioner Smt. Padmawati suffered injuries in the accident occurred on 28.11.2013 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. HR-05S-5621 being driven by respondent no. 1? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP MAC No. 1048/16 & 691/16 6/25
3. Relief.
10. Both the petitions are arising out of the same accident so both the petitions are consolidated. The MAC no. 1048/16 is treated as main petition in which evidence is recorded vide order dt. 05.02.2015.
11. Petitioners have examined three witnesses in all whereas respondent no. 3 has examined two witnesses.
12. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record. My issuewise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1 (This issue is common in all the petitions.)
13. This issue is common in both the petitions and hence taken up for disposal together. PW-1 Padmavati is petitioner of petition no. 136/14 (New No. 691/16). PW-2 Ramesh is petitioner of petition no. 135/14 (New No. 1048/16). They have filed their affidavits Ex.PW-1/A and 2/A wherein they have repeated the version already set out in the beginning while briefing the facts.
Ex.PW-1/5 is the detailed accident report. During cross- examination by respondents, PW-1 stated that there was no zebra crossing. There was smooth flow of traffic. She was crossing the road. The offending vehicle was going towards Babarpur. The suggestion is denied that accident has taken place due to her MAC No. 1048/16 & 691/16 7/25 negligence as there was no zebra crossing to cross the road or she was crossing the road in a negligent manner or there was no negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle.
14. During cross-examination by respondents, PW-2 stated that he is not an eye witness.
15. I have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record. PW-1 is victim. Her testimony is material in nature. She has categorically stated that on 28.11.2013, she along with Bhoodevi was crossing the road at 11.45 a.m. from 212 Bus Stop, where one offending vehicle came in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and hit against both of them as a result they fell down and sustained injuries. They were removed them to GTB Hospital for medical treatment. Bhoodevi has died on 10.01.2014 due to grievous injuries. FIR was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. The accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle.
16. FIR has been registered against driver of offending vehicle. Respondent no. 1 is the driver of offending vehicle who is the best person to controvert the testimony of PW-1. PW-1 along with Bhoodevi was crossing the road. It is the duty of the person behind the wheels to be careful about the traffic and pedestrians on the road. It is not the case of respondents no. 1 and 2 that both of them have suddenly come in front of the vehicle or how they MAC No. 1048/16 & 691/16 8/25 were negligent in crossing the road. The hitting of the pedestrians itself shows that vehicle was driven not only in the high speed but also in the negligent manner. FIR has been registered against respondent no. 1. He has not filed any complaint against IO in case he has not caused the accident. The respondents have failed to shatter her during the course of cross-examination. Her testimony on material points is consistent with the version recorded in her statement by the police. There is no enmity with respondent no.1 and 2. Her testimony is relied upon. Her testimony clearly shows that respondent no.1 / driver was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit against them as a result both of them sustained injuries. The accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1/ driver. The issue no. 1 is decided against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2 (in MAC No. 691/16)
17. PW-1 has filed her affidavit Ex.PW-1/A wherein she has corroborated the version of petition as set out in the beginning while briefing the fact. She further added that she has sustained fracture of both bones left leg, ankle, tibia and other injuries on the body. She has remained admitted to hospital form 28.11.2013 till 03.12.2013. She was operated upon. She has remained on bed for six months due to plaster on her leg. She has spent Rs. 1 lac on her treatment. She has sustained 68% permanent disability.
MAC No. 1048/16 & 691/16 9/25She could not do any work due to disability sustained by her in the accident. Ex.PW-1/1 is the original treatment record, Ex.PW-1/2 is discharge summary, Ex.PW-1/3 is the disability certificate, Ex.PW- 1/4 is the photocopy of her ID card. During cross-examination by R3, she stated that she was not again admitted to hospital. There are no medical bills on record. Ex.PW-1/3 is the temporary disability certificate.
18. PW-3 Dr. Mohit Arora is one of the members of Disability Board to assess the disability of the petitioner. The petitioner was assessed by the Board. The petitioner has sustained 40% permanent disability in relation to the left upper limb and left lower limb. The disability certificate Ex.PW-3/A bears his signature at point A. The condition of petitioner is non-progressive.
19. Heard and perused the record. The support has to be drawn from the case law decided by Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court to determine the quantum of compensation in case of disability.
20. In Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, it was held by their Lordship that "Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum MAC No. 1048/16 & 691/16 10/25 bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights of Full Participation) Act, 1995 ('Disabilities Act' for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in the motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation."
21. I have gone through the record of the case and heard Ld. Counsel for the parties. It is clear from the discharge summary Ex.PW-1/2 that she has sustained fracture both bones left leg with fracture humerous left elbow. Debridement with close reduction was done. A/k cast and A/e slab was put. She has remained admitted to hospital from 28.11.3013 till 03.12.2013. Her OPD treatment continued thereafter. She has sustained severe injuries. She has undergone enormous pain and sufferings during the course of her treatment. To my mind, she is entitled for MAC No. 1048/16 & 691/16 11/25 compensation of Rs. 60,000/- on account of pain and sufferings.
22. The petitioner has sustained fracture both bones left leg and fracture elbow. The petitioner has suffered 40% disability in relation to left upper limb and left lower limb. Ex.PW-3/A is permanent disability certificate though earlier temporary disability certificate Ex.PW-1/3 was issued. She has suffered disability in both limbs. The testimony of PW-1 shows that she is house maker. The disability will definitely affect her working ability as use of both the limbs is required in doing the house hold work. The disability will affect her more as she is a lady of more than 80 years old. In these circumstances, her functional disability of the entire body is taken as 40%.
23. The testimony of PW-1 shows that she is house maker. The educational qualification of petitioner is not on the record. She is entitled for minimum wages of a non- matriculate as prevailing in NCT of Delhi as on date of accident. The minimum wages for non-matriculate in November, 2013 was Rs. 8,918/-. Support is drawn from Royal Sundarama Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Master Manmeet Singh and ors" 2012 ACJ 721".
24. The Voter ID card Ex.PW-1/4 shows that her age is 77 MAC No. 1048/16 & 691/16 12/25 years as on 01.01.2009. The accident has taken place on 28.11.2013. The age of deceased was more than 80 years on the day of accident. There will be no addition in the assumed income in terms of the law laid down in "Royal Sundarama Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Master Manmeet Singh and ors"
SUPRA.
25. The age of petitioner was more than 80 years at the time of accident. The loss of future income due to disability is calculated by multiplying the annual income of the petitioner with the percentage of disability and multiplier. The multiplier of 5 is applicable. Support is drawn from "Sarla Verma vs DTC", 2009 ACJ 1298. The annual income of the petitioner comes to Rs. 1,07,016/- p.a. (Rs. 8,918 x 12). The loss of future earning on account of disability comes to Rs. 2,14,032/-(Rs. 1,07,016 x 5 x 0.40). The petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs. 2,14,032/- on account of loss of income due to permanent disability.
26. The petitioner has sustained fracture so she was unable to do her daily chores. Some family member must have attended to her during this period. The petitioner is entitled for compensation for the attendant charges @ Rs. 3500/- per month for a period of 3 months.
27. The petitioner has visited the hospital number of times for treatment. She must have taken special diet in order to heal the MAC No. 1048/16 & 691/16 13/25 wound. She is entitled for compensation towards special diet and conveyance which are assessed to Rs.15,000/-.
28. There is permanent disability. There is loss of amenities and enjoyment of life so petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs. 40,000/-.
29. There is disfigurement of both lower limbs. She has suffered permanent disability of 40% in relation to both limbs. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation towards disfigurement of Rs. 40,000/-.
30. The petitioner has not place on record any medical bills.
31. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that petitioner is entitled for the compensation as under :-
1 Compensation towards pain Rs. 60,000/-
and sufferings 2 Loss of earning capacity due to disability Rs.2,14,032/- 3 Attendant charges for 3 months Rs. 10,500/-
4 Special diet and conveyance Rs. 15,000/-
5 Compensation towards loss of Rs. 40,000/-
amenities and enjoyment of life 6 Compensation towards disfigurement Rs. 40,000/-
TOTAL Rs.3,79,532/-MAC No. 1048/16 & 691/16 14/25
ISSUE NO. 2 (in MAC No. 1048/16)
32. PW-2 Sh. Ramesh is son of deceased Bhoodevi. His affidavit Ex.PW-2/A shows that petitioners are the sons and daughters of deceased. His mother Bhoodevi has expired on 10.01.2014 due to the injuries sustained in the accident dated 28.11.2013. His mother was a house wife. Ex.PW-2/1 is the original death certificate, Ex.PW-2/2 is the photocopy of ration card of deceased, Ex.PW-2/3 is the photocopy of ration card of petitioner no. 3 Chameli, Ex.PW-2/4 is the copy of driving licence of petitioner no. 2 Om Prakash. During cross-examination by respondents, he stated that all the petitioners are independent and earning separately. They are maintaining their respective families. The deceased was not working. The deceased was residing with him. He does not have any documentary proof regarding the treatment and medical expenses of his deceased mother. The postmortem on the body of deceased was not conducted. The suggestion is denied that his mother has not expired due to the injuries sustained in the accident.
33. Heard and perused the record. The treatment record shows that deceased Bhoodevi was removed to GTB Hospital. She has sustained fracture lower third shaft femur with displacement. She has sustained abrasions all over the body. The accident has taken place on 28.11.2013. The death certificate Ex.PW-2/1 shows that MAC No. 1048/16 & 691/16 15/25 she has expired on 10.01.2014. She has expired within a period of one and half months after the accident. It is correct that postmortem on the body of deceased was not conducted. The deceased has expired allegedly due to the injuries sustained in the accident. No other cause regarding her death is brought on record by the respondents. There is nothing on the record that she was suffering from any disease. There is not too much gap between the date of injuries and her death. The deceased was 80 years old and possibility cannot be ruled out that she has expired due to the injuries sustained in the accident.
34. The petitioners are married children of the deceased. They are having separate families. They have been residing separately.
They are not dependent upon the income of the deceased but they can be compensated on account of the loss of gratuitous services rendered by their deceased mother. Support is drawn from "Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Tamil Selvi and ors., 2016 ACJ 996.
35. The deceased was a house maker. There is no educational document of deceased so she is entitled for a minimum wages of a non-matriculate prevailing in the NCT of Delhi at the time of accident. Her year of birth is recorded as 1976 in Ration card Ex.PW-2/2 issued on 27.12.2005. She was 67 years old at the time of accident. Support is drawn from Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. and etc. vs Mast. Manmeet Singh MAC No. 1048/16 & 691/16 16/25 & Ors. MANU/DE/0377/2012. The minimum wages for non- matriculate as prevailing in NCT of Delhi on the date of accident was Rs. 8918/- per month. There will be no addition in the assumed income rather there will be deduction of 50% from her assumed income in terms of the law laid down in "Royal Sundarama Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Master Manmeet Singh and ors" SUPRA.
36. The monthly income after deduction of 50% out of the assumed income comes to Rs.4459/-. The 1/3rd of the income is deducted towards personal and living expenses. The monthly income comes to Rs.2973/-. The annual income comes to Rs. 35,676/- (Rs. 2973 x 12). Reliance is placed upon "IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Master Shivam and anr." MAC App. No. 526/16 and CM Appl 25472/17 decided on 13.07.2017 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Gauba.
37. Her year of birth is recorded as 1946 in Ration card Ex.PW-
2/2 issued on 27.12.2005. She was 67 years old at the time of accident. Keeping in view the law laid down in Sarla Verma vs DTC", 2009 ACJ 1298 the multiplier of 5 is adopted. The total compensation on account of loss of estate comes to Rs. 1,78,380/-.(Rs. 35,676/- x 5).
38. The petitioners are also entitled for non-pecuniary claim.
The deceased has left behind her children. The children are deprived of the love, care and guidance of their mother. In view of MAC No. 1048/16 & 691/16 17/25 these facts, petitioners are entitled for claim for the loss of care and guidance. The petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs. 50,000/- for funeral expenses. Reliance is placed upon "Smt. Pramila Devi & Anr. Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors." MAC Appeal no. 953/16 decided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Gauba on 21.08.2017.
39. The petitioners are entitled for the following compensation under the following heads : -
S. No. Name of heads Amount
1. Loss of estate Rs. 1,78,380/-
2. Loss of love and affection Rs. 1,00,000/-
3. Funeral expenses Rs. 50,000/-
TOTAL Rs. 3,28,380/-
LIABILITY
40. The respondent no. 3 has examined two witnesses. R3W1 Syed Mirza Ghalib, AO, Legal has stated that offending vehicle is insured with the insurance company vide policy Ex.R3W1/F. Notice U/o 12 Rule 8 Ex.R3W1/A and B were issued to driver and owner by post and postal receipts are Ex.R3W1/C and D. The AD card duly signed by the owner is received back, which is Ex.R3W1/E. DAR has been filed by adding section 3/181 MV Act. Page 17 of the DAR is with respect to the verification report of the MAC No. 1048/16 & 691/16 18/25 driving licence wherein it is mentioned that driving licence does not tally with the office record hence, it may be assured to be a fake driving licence. The copy of driving licence is Ex.R3W1/G. The driver was not holding a valid driving licence. There is violation of terms and condition of insurance policy so insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
41. R3W2 Smt. Laxmi Banerjee, PS to Resident Commissioner, Nagaland stated that she is a summoned witness. She has been authorized by DTO, Wokha, Nagaland. She has brought the affidavit of DTO, Wokha, Nagaland with respect to driving licence no. 98334/NW/PROF/10 issued in the name of Malak Singh. The validity of the driving licence, category of vehicle and renewal / endorsement are not mentioned in affidavit Ex.R3W2/1.
42. The report is directly send to the court by DTO, Wokha, Nagaland which is Ex.R3W2/2. The driving licence has been issued on 14.01.2010 till 13.01.2013 for motorcycle/LMV and renewed on 13.01.2016 as per report dt. 24.08.2016 received by the Tribunal. There is no specific report that licence has been again renewed on 28.11.2013 but report shows that it has been renewed upto 13.01.2016.
43. Heard and perused the record. Respondent no.1 is the driver of offending vehicle bearing no. HR-05S-5621. Notices U/o 12 Rule 8 Ex.R3W1/A and B were issued to driver and owner to MAC No. 1048/16 & 691/16 19/25 produce the documents of the vehicles as well as driving licence. The notices have been duly served upon them at the available address. Driving licence is required to driver the vehicle. The respondent no. 1 is holding a driving licence bearing no. 98334/NW/PROF/2010 dt. 14.01.2010 Ex.R3W1/G. The investigating officer has got the same verified which shows that the information does not tally with the office record so it can be assumed to be a fake driving licence.
44. The report of IO is contrary to the testimony of R3W2. The testimony of R3W2 shows that affidavit Ex.R3W2/1 has been given by DTO, Wokha, Nagaland which shows that the licence bearing no. 98334/NW/PROF/10 is a genuine licence which has been converted into smart card bearing no. NL0520100010687. The letter dt. 24.08.2016 issued by DTO, Wokha, Nagaland is also to the same effect. The copy of letter has been sent to this Tribunal.
45. A letter dt. 07.06.2016 is received by the Tribunal from DTO, Wokha, Nagaland which shows that licence issued to respondent no. 1 is genuine. Letters dt. 22.01.2016 and 07.06.2016 along with verification reports of driving licence are received by this Tribunal which show that licence has been renewed upto 13.01.2016.
46. The report of DTO, Wokha, Nagaland shows that the MAC No. 1048/16 & 691/16 20/25 respondent no. 1 is having a valid driving licence which has been converted into smart card. The report of IO is not relied upon in view of the report received from DTO, Wokha, Nagaland.
47. The offending vehicle is duly insured with respondent no. 3. Respondent no. 3 has failed to prove that there is violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The insurance company shall pay the compensation to the petitioners.
RELIEF
48. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 and 2 above, both the petitions are allowed. The respondent no. 3 is directed to pay the compensation to petitioners within one month from today with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization to the petitioners. The respondent no. 3 is directed to deposit the said amount including interest with UCO Bank, KKD within 30 days from the date of passing of award. The respondent no. 3 is directed to give notice regarding deposit of said amount to the petitioners and their counsel.
AWARD IN MAC No. 691/1649. The petition of petitioner is allowed. The respondent no. 3 is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,79,532/- within one month from today with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of MAC No. 1048/16 & 691/16 21/25 the petition till the date of realization to the petitioner.
50. The statement of petitioner was recorded with respect to financial need.
51. The awarded amount to petitioner shall be disbursed in the following manner :-
The Manager, UCO Bank or of any other bank shall prepare 20 FDR of Rs. 15,000/- out of the award amount for a period of 1 to 20 months in the name of petitioner. The balance amount shall be credited to his savings bank account after opening the bank account or transfer to the existing bank account, if any of the petitioner after taking relevant documents.AWARD IN MAC No. 1048/16
52. The petition of petitioner is allowed. The respondent no. 3 is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,28,380/- within one month from today with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization to the petitioners. The petitioners are entitled for the compensation in a following proportion with interest:-
(a) The petitioner no. 1 to 3 will get award amount in the equal proportion along with corresponding interest.MAC No. 1048/16 & 691/16 22/25
53. The statement of petitioner no. 1 has been recorded with respect to financial need.
54. The awarded amount to each of the petitioners shall be distributed in the following manner :-
Petitioner no. 1 to 3 The Manager, UCO Bank or of any other bank shall prepare one fixed deposit of half of the award amount (of their share) for a period of one year in the name of each petitioner and balance amount shall be released or credited to their saving bank account, if any, after taking relevant documents or else to open fresh bank account on filing relevant documents.
55. The withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be after due verification by the bank and the bank shall issue photo identity cards to the petitioner to facilitates the identity.
56. The original fixed deposit receipt shall be retained by the bank in the safe custody. However, the original pass book shall be given to the petitioner along with photocopy of the FDR.
57. The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to the petitioner on the expiry of the period of the FDRs. The amount after maturity of FDR be credited to bank accounts of petitioners.
MAC No. 1048/16 & 691/16 23/2558. No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipt without the permission of the court. The bank shall not open joint account of the petitioner.
59. The bank shall not open joint account of the petitioners. The bank shall prepare FDR in its own name on the receipt of the award amount from the respondents till the date petitioners approach for the release of amount and thereafter amount along with interest shall be released to the petitioners as per order of the court.
60. On the request of the petitioner, the bank shall transfer the saving account to any other branch of UCO bank according to the convenience of the petitioner.
61. The petitioner shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the saving bank account and fixed deposit account to Nodal Officer, UCO Bank, KKD, Delhi.
62. On the request of the petitioners, the bank shall transfer the saving account to any other branch of UCO bank or any other bank according to his convenience.
63. Original judgment be kept in MAC No. 1048/16 and a copy in other file.
MAC No. 1048/16 & 691/16 24/2564. A copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the parties concerned.
65. Copy of Form IV duly filled shall be treated as part of this award.
66. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open (Suresh Kumar Gupta)
court on 03.10.2017 PO-MACT/SHD/KKD
DELHI
MAC No. 1048/16 & 691/16 25/25