Delhi District Court
Smt. Meena Devi vs Sh. Naveen Kumar on 1 October, 2018
MACP No. 4180/16 (Old No. 261/14) FIR No. 82/14 ; PS Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana DOD: 01.10.2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIDYA PRAKASH, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 4180/16 (Old MAC Petition No. 82/14)
1. Smt. Meena Devi
Widow of Late Sh. Dinesh
(Widow of deceased)
2. Master Rahul Dahiya
S/o Late Sh. Dinesh
( Minor son of deceased)
Both R/o H.No. 222, Gali No. 7,
Sanjay Colony, Narela, Delhi40.
3. Smt. Shakuntla Devi
W/o Sh Mukhtiyar Singh
(Mother of deceased)
4. Sh. Mukhtiyar Singh
S/o Sh Bheem Singh
(Father of deceased)
Both R/o Village & Post Office Gadhi Abaspur,
Police Station Kundli, Tehshil & Distt. Sonipat, Haryana.
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Naveen Kumar
S/o Sh Ranbir Singh
R/o H.No. 158, Pocket22,
Rohini, Delhi.
(Driver)
2. Sh. Mukesh Kumar
S/o Sh.Balwan Singh
R/o Village Safiabad,
Distt. Sonipat, Haryana.
Smt Meena Devi & Ors. Vs. Naveen Kumar & Ors. Page 1 of 16
MACP No. 4180/16 (Old No. 261/14) FIR No. 82/14 ; PS Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana DOD: 01.10.2018
3. Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd.
60, Okhla Industrial Area,
PhaseIII, Opp. SBI Bank,
New Delhi20.
(Insurer) ...............Respondents
Date of Institution : 26.04.2014
Date of Arguments : 17.09.2018
Date of Decision : 01.10.2018
APPEARANCES: Sh. A.N Shukla Adv for petitioners.
None for respondents no.1 & 2.
Sh. S.K Tyagi Adv for respondent no. 3.
Petitions under Section 166 & 140 of M.V. Act, 1988
for grant of compensation
AWARD
1. The petitioners have filed the present claim petition U/s 166/140 M.V Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,00,000/ alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. against the respondents for the fatal injuries sustained by Dinesh in Motor Vehicular Accident which occurred on 07.04.2014 at 8.45 am near Village Garhi Wala within the jurisdiction of PS Kundli, Distt. Sonipat, Haryana, involving Car bearing registration no. DL4CS6284 (alleged offending vehicle) being driven by R2 in rash and negligent manner and without caring for the traffic rules. It is averred in the claim petition that Dinesh ( since expired) was aged 44 years old; he was serving with Delhi Police as Constable and was getting salary of Rs. 38,768/ per month besides agricultural income @ Rs. 1,00,000/ per annum at the time of accident. It is further averred that on the aforesaid date, time and place, Dinesh was coming from Village Garhi Wala and was proceeding towards Village Ladpur for his duty on motorcycle bearing no. DL8SNC2418. In the meantime, one Car bearing registration no. DL4CS6284 (alleged offending vehicle) which was being driven by respondent no. 2 in rash and negligent manner and without caring for the traffic rules, came and hit against the motorcycle of deceased Smt Meena Devi & Ors. Vs. Naveen Kumar & Ors. Page 2 of 16 MACP No. 4180/16 (Old No. 261/14) FIR No. 82/14 ; PS Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana DOD: 01.10.2018 from its front side with great force. As a result thereof, he fell down on the road and received severe head injuries and died at the spot itself. FIR No. 82/14 U/s 279/304A IPC was registered at PS Kundli, Distt Sonipat, Haryana with regard to the said accident. Postmortem was got conducted on the body of deceased at Govt Hospital on 07.04.2014. It is further averred that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of Car bearing registration no. DL4CS6284 by respondent no. 2. It is claimed that car was owned by R1 and it was insured with Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd/respondent no. 3 during the period in question.
2. The respondents no. 1 & 2 i.e. driver & regd owner have filed their joint WS, wherein they have claimed that the petitioners have concealed the material facts from this Claims Tribunal. It is claimed that the accident occurred due to carelessness and negligence of deceased himself and there was no rashness or negligence on the part of R2. They have further claimed that Car bearing registration no. DL4CS6284 was standing on the curve at left side of the kaccha rasta and parking light was blinking but the deceased while driving on his motorcycle at high speed and in rash and negligent manner and without observing proper look outs, came and collided with the said car with full force. As a result thereof, he had sustained grievous injuries and died. Alternatively, they have claimed that R2 was holding valid DL and Car bearing registration no. DL4CS6284 was duly insured with R3, vide policy no. 1305532311009996 having validity upto 16.10.14. On merits, they have simply denied the averments made in the claim petition and have prayed for its dismissal.
3. Respondent no. 3/insurance company has filed its WS, wherein it has raised statutory defence as provided in Section 149(2) M.V Act by claiming that there was violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy on the part of insured. It has claimed that the petition is bad for nonjoinder of owner and insurer of motorcycle no. DL8SNC2418. However, it has admitted Smt Meena Devi & Ors. Vs. Naveen Kumar & Ors. Page 3 of 16 MACP No. 4180/16 (Old No. 261/14) FIR No. 82/14 ; PS Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana DOD: 01.10.2018 that Car bearing registration no. DL4CS6284 was insured with it in name of R2, vide Certificate cum Policy No. 1305532311009996 having validity from 16.10.13 to 15.10.14. On merits, the averments made in the claim petition have been simply denied for want of knowledge and prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. From pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by Ld Predecessor vide order dt. 10.02.2015:
1) Whether the deceased Dinesh suffered fatal injuries in road traffic accident on 07.04.2014 at about 8.45 am near Village Garhiwala, District Sonepat, Haryana within the jurisdiction of PS Kundli Distt. Haryana due to rashness and negligence on the part of the R2 who was driving car bearing registration no. DL4CS6284 Ascent, owned by R1 and insured with R3?OPP.
2) Whether the petitioners/Lrs of deceased are entitled to any compensation if so, to what amount and from whom?OPP.
3) Relief.
5. In support of their claim, the petitioners have examined three witnesses i.e. PW1 Ms. Meenu @ Meena (widow of deceased), PW2 Sh Bijender Singh ( alleged eye witness) and PW3 ASI Ranbir Singh (official from the office of employer of deceased). They closed their evidence through their counsel on 14.09.17. On the other hand, the respondents did not lead any evidence and closed their respective evidence through their respective counsels on 23.03.2018.
6. I have already heard the arguments addressed by ld counsels for the parties. I have also gone through the record. Both the sides were directed Smt Meena Devi & Ors. Vs. Naveen Kumar & Ors. Page 4 of 16 MACP No. 4180/16 (Old No. 261/14) FIR No. 82/14 ; PS Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana DOD: 01.10.2018 to submit their respective submissions in Form IV A vide order dated 17.09.2018. However, none of the parties submitted the same on record till date. My findings on the issues are as under: Issue No. 1
7. For the purpose of this issue, the testimony of PW2 is relevant. In his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A), PW2 deposed that on 07.04.2014, he had gone to his field for inspecting his crop and during that period, he saw one Car bearing No. DL4CS6284 of white colour make Hyndai Accent, coming from Village Ladpur side and proceeding towards Garhi Wala, being driven at very high speed by R2. He further deposed that he also found one motorcycle make Bajaj Pulsar coming from Village Garhi Wala side and proceeding towards Village Ladpur side at very moderate speed. The motorcyclist was wearing helmet and was driving on left side of the road. He also deposed that Accent Car became out of control due to its high speed on single road; went towards wrong side of the road and hit against the said motorcycle from its front side. The aforesaid car took turtle after twothree spins in air and got upside down. He rushed to the place of accident and came to know that said motorcycle was driven by his brother. He deposed that driver of said offending car ran away from the spot. He further deposed that his younger brother who was present at some distance in another field, also reached at the spot on his motorcycle. He rushed to Villge Garhi Wala to fetch his car and to remove his injured brother to Govt hospital, Sonepat. However, his brother was declared brought dead by the concerned doctor. He further deposed that police had recorded his statement on 07.04.14 itself. During his cross examination, he deposed that he was real brother of deceased. He denied the suggestion that he was called at the place of accident or that he had not seen the accident taken place or that he was deposing falsely being real brother of deceased. He also denied the suggestion that deceased himself had hit Car bearing registration no. DL4CS6284 which was standing besides Smt Meena Devi & Ors. Vs. Naveen Kumar & Ors. Page 5 of 16 MACP No. 4180/16 (Old No. 261/14) FIR No. 82/14 ; PS Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana DOD: 01.10.2018 the road on kaccha side or that his brother was not wearing helmet at the time of accident or that motorcycle was being driven by deceased at very high speed and in rash and negligent manner. He admitted that there was sharp curve near the place of accident and distance between said sharp curve and place of accident was approximately 100 meters. He admitted that road was single road having width of 20/25 feet and both the vehicles were coming from opposite directions. He further deposed that offending car while coming from opposite side, had hit the vehicle of deceased after going on wrong side. He admitted that this fact of offending car having travelled to wrong side while hitting the motorcycle of deceased, is not mentioned in the FIR.
8. It is quite evident from the aforesaid discussion that the respondents have not been able to impeach the testimony of PW2 Sh Bijender Singh despite the fact that he was cross examined at length. The presence of said witness at the place of accident, stands established from the fact that FIR No. 82/14 supra is also shown to have been registered on the basis of statement made by him to the police. The contents of said FIR ( which is part of criminal case record Ex PW1/1 colly) would reveal that the witness has narrated therein the same sequence of facts leading to the accident in question, as deposed by him during the course of inquiry. The respondents have not led any evidence in order to rebut the testimony of this witness during the course of inquiry. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged and uncontroverted testimony of this witness made on oath.
9. It is also pertinent to note that the respondent no.2/driver was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident had taken place. However, he preferred not to enter into witness box during the course of inquiry. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Car bearing registration no. DL4CS6284 by him.
Smt Meena Devi & Ors. Vs. Naveen Kumar & Ors. Page 6 of 16MACP No. 4180/16 (Old No. 261/14) FIR No. 82/14 ; PS Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana DOD: 01.10.2018
10. Moreover, it is an undisputed fact that FIR no. 82/14 (supra) was registered at PS Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR as also the copy of charge sheet arising out of said FIR(which are part of criminal case record Ex. PW1/1 colly), would show that FIR was registered on 07.04.14. Thus, FIR is shown to have been registered promptly and without any delay. Hence, there is no possibility of false implication of respondent no. 1 and/or false involvement of Car bearing registration no. DL4CS6284 at the instance of petitioners herein. Not only this, the respondent no. 2 namely Mukesh Kumar S/o Sh Balwan Singh (accused in State case) has been charge sheeted for offences punishable U/s 279/304 A IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending Car bearing registration no. DL4CS 6284 by him. Same would also point out towards rash and negligent driving of aforesaid vehicle by respondent no. 2.
11. Apart from this, in response to notice U/s 133 M.V Act ( which is part of criminal case record Ex PW1/1 colly) served upon respondent no. 1 i.e. regd owner of Car bearing registration no. DL4CS6284, he gave written reply that said car was being driven by his brother in law Mukesh Kumar (R2) on 07.04.14. Same would also corroborate the testimony of PW2. It may also be noted here that the offending Car bearing registration no. DL4CS6284 is also shown to have been seized by the police from the place of accident itself on 07.04.14, as per copy of its seizure memo ( which is part of criminal case record Ex. PW1/1 colly).
12. Furthermore, copy of mechanical inspection report dt. 08.04.14 ( which is part of criminal case record Ex PW1/1 colly) of Car bearing registration no. DL4CS6284 (alleged offending vehicle) shows fresh damage i.e. its front bumper was broken; its left side head light, bonnet were found damaged and there were scratches found on it; its front side glass was found Smt Meena Devi & Ors. Vs. Naveen Kumar & Ors. Page 7 of 16 MACP No. 4180/16 (Old No. 261/14) FIR No. 82/14 ; PS Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana DOD: 01.10.2018 broken and its left side window screen glass was also found broken, etc. Likewise, copy of Mechanical Inspection Report dt. 08.04.14 ( which is also part of criminal case record Ex PW1/1 colly) of motorcycle no. DL8SNC2418 of deceased, would show fresh damage i.e. its front wheel shocker were found damaged; its mudguard and head light were also found broken, its right side oil tank was found bended; its leg guard, gear lever were also found bended, etc. The said documents, which have gone unchallenged and unrebutted from the side of respondents, also corroborate the ocular testimony of PW2 as discussed above.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that Dinesh had sustained fatal injuries in road accident which took place on 07.04.2014 at 8.45 am near Village Garhi Wala, District Sonepat, Haryana, within the jurisdiction of PS Kundli District Haryana due to rash and negligent driving of Car bearing no. DL4CS 6284 by respondent no. 2. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 214. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
15. As already stated above, the claimants were the widow, one minor son and parents of deceased. PW1 Ms. Meenu @ Meena ( widow of deceased) has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that deceased was serving with Delhi Police as Constable and was earning Rs.
Smt Meena Devi & Ors. Vs. Naveen Kumar & Ors. Page 8 of 16MACP No. 4180/16 (Old No. 261/14) FIR No. 82/14 ; PS Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana DOD: 01.10.2018 38,768/ per month at the time of accident. She further deposed that all the petitioners were totally dependent upon the earning of deceased. She has relied upon the following documents: Sr. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Certified copies of Ex PW1/1 (colly) criminal case record
2. Copy of Salary Slip of Mark A deceased
3. Copy of Ration Card Ex. PW1/5 4. Copy of Fard Ex. PW2/4
5. Copy of Aadhar Card of Ex. PW1/2 petitioner no. 2
6. Copy of her Election I Ex. PW1/9 Card
16. During her cross examination, she deposed that her deceased husband was filing I.T Returns. She admitted that said returns have not been placed on record. She denied the suggestion that said returns were not placed on record as deceased was not assessed to Income Tax. She also denied the suggestion that parents of deceased were not financially dependent upon income of deceased or that deceased was not earning Rs. 38768/ per month or that he was not working as Constable with Delhi Police. She deposed that she was getting monthly pension of Rs. 15,000/ from police department.
17. PW3 is the official from the employer of deceased. He produced Pay Slip of deceased Dinesh for the months of January 2014 to April 2014 alongwith his Annual Salary Statement for period 20132014 and exhibited the same as Ex. PW3/1 (colly). He deposed that had Ct. Dinesh not died in road accident, he would have been entitled to benefits of 7 th Pay Commission and his basic pay would have been Rs. 40,400/ per month w.e.f 01.07.16. He also deposed that deceased would have also got promotion from time to time Smt Meena Devi & Ors. Vs. Naveen Kumar & Ors. Page 9 of 16 MACP No. 4180/16 (Old No. 261/14) FIR No. 82/14 ; PS Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana DOD: 01.10.2018 depending upon review and assessment of his job performance by Departmental Promotion Committee. During his cross examination, he admitted not to have produced Service Book and Personal File of deceased. He could not disclose about the amount deducted on account of TDS from salary of deceased during the relevant period but clarified that TDS is deducted on Basic Pay, Grade Pay, DA, HRA and Tuition Fee.
18. After referring to the testimonies of PW1 and PW3 and the documentary evidence brought on record, counsel for petitioners vehemently argued that the monthly income of deceased should be taken as Rs. 35,768/ to calculate the loss of dependency. He further argued that future prospects @ 30% should be awarded as deceased was Govt employee being posted as Constable with Delhi Police. On the other hand, counsel for insurance co vehemently argued that the petitioners could not prove monthly income of deceased through cogent evidence. He further argued that PW3 did not produce Service Book and Personal File of deceased, without which it cannot be proved that deceased was regular employee of Delhi Police or that he was having monthly salary of Rs. 35,768/ at the time of accident or not. He therefore, urged that notional income as per Minimum Wages Act, should be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating the loss of dependency.
19. After considering the aforesaid submissions raised on behalf of both the sides, I find force in the submissions made on behalf of claimants. The ocular testimony of PW3 and the documentary evidence produced by said witness on record, have gone unchallenged and unrebutted from the side of respondents who have failed to lead any evidence in rebuttal to create any doubt on the authenticity and genuineness of documents Ex. PW3/1 (colly). The said record would clearly establish that deceased was having gross monthly salary of Rs. 35,768/ at the time of accident in question. He was Govt employee being posted as Constable in Delhi Police. His age as mentioned in Pay Slips ( Ex. PW3/1 colly) is 14.11.1970. Even in the copy of Service I Card Smt Meena Devi & Ors. Vs. Naveen Kumar & Ors. Page 10 of 16 MACP No. 4180/16 (Old No. 261/14) FIR No. 82/14 ; PS Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana DOD: 01.10.2018 ( Ex. PW1/3) of deceased, similar age is mentioned. Said age is not disputed by either of the respondents at any point of time throughout the inquiry. Date of accident is 07.04.2014. Hence, the age of deceased comes out to be somewhere between 4344 years at the time of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 14 would be applicable in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17.
20. Considering the fact that deceased is shown to be Govt employee , future prospects @ 30% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, as well as in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.17.
21. Considering the fact that there were three dependents ( There being no cogent evidence that petitioner no. 4 namely Sh Mukhtiyar Singh was dependent upon the earning of deceased at the time of accident), there has to be deduction of 1/3rd as held in the case of Pranay Sethi mentioned supra. During the A.Y 20152016 (corresponding to the F.Y 20142015), the annual income upto Rs. 2,50,000/ was totally exempted from Income Tax, whereafter income above Rs. 2,50,000/ till Rs. 5,00,000/ was taxable @ 10%. Thus, the net annual income of deceased after deducting the Income Tax during the said Financial Year shall come out to Rs. 4,11,294/ ( 4,29,216 - 17,922). Thus, total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 49,90,367.20 paise (rounded off) (Rs. 4,11,294 X 2/3 X 130/100 X 14). Hence, a sum of Rs. 49,90,368/ is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
22. After the celebrated judgment of "National Insurance Company Smt Meena Devi & Ors. Vs. Naveen Kumar & Ors. Page 11 of 16 MACP No. 4180/16 (Old No. 261/14) FIR No. 82/14 ; PS Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana DOD: 01.10.2018 Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", mentioned supra, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", mentioned supra, has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the constitution bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other nonpecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
23. In view of celebrated judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", mentioned supra delivered by Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court, a sum of Rs. 40,000/ is awarded in favour of petitioner no. 1 Smt. Meena @ Meenu (being widow of deceased) towards loss of consortium.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
24. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 15,000/ each is awarded in favour of petitioners on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses.
The total compensation is assessed as under:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 49,90,368/
2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/
3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Expenses Rs. 30,000/ Total Rs. 50,60,368/ Rounded Off to Rs. 50,61,000/
25. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Respondent no. 3/insurance company did not adduce any evidence since it had no statutory defence. It is nowhere the case of insurance company that any term or Smt Meena Devi & Ors. Vs. Naveen Kumar & Ors. Page 12 of 16 MACP No. 4180/16 (Old No. 261/14) FIR No. 82/14 ; PS Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana DOD: 01.10.2018 condition of insurance policy was breached/violated by insured. Keeping in view the existence of valid insurance policy, respondent no. 3/insurance company becomes liable to pay the compensation amount, as insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured. Issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 3 (RELIEF)
26. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 & 2, I award a sum of Rs. 50,61,000/ (including interim award amount if any) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f date of filing the petition i.e. 26.04.2014 till the date of its realization, in favour of Lrs of deceased/petitioners and against the respondents jointly and severally (Reliance placed on judgment "Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Devi & Ors" bearing MAC. APP. 165/2011 decided on 22.02.2016). Issue no. 3 is decided accordingly in all these cases.
APPORTIONMENT
27. Statements of legal heirs of deceased in terms of Clause 27 MCTAP were recorded on 17.09.2018. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of their statements, it is hereby ordered that the petitioner no. 1 namely Smt. Meena Devi shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 30,00,000/ (Rs. Thirty Lacs Only) alongwith proportionate interest, the petitioner no. 2 namely Master Rahul Dahiya shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 15,00,000/ (Rs. Fifteen Lacs Only) alongwith proportionate interest, the petitioner no. 3 namely Smt. Shakuntla Devi shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 3,61,000/ (Rs Three Lacs & Sixty One Thousand Only) alongwith proportionate interest and the petitioner no. 4 namely Sh Mukhtiyar Singh shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ (Rs Two Lacs Only) alongwith proportionate interest.
Smt Meena Devi & Ors. Vs. Naveen Kumar & Ors. Page 13 of 16MACP No. 4180/16 (Old No. 261/14) FIR No. 82/14 ; PS Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana DOD: 01.10.2018
28. Out of the share amount of petitioner no.1, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ (Rs. Three Lacs Only) is directed to be immediately released to her through her Saving Bank Account No. 96562250017441 with Syndicate Bank, Narela Delhi, Bawana Road, Narela Branch having IFSC Code No. SYNB0009025 and remaining share amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/ each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
29. The entire share amount of petitioner no. 2 shall be kept in the form of FDR till he attains the age of majority. However, monthly interest is allowed to be withdrawn by him through his mother/natural guardian to be used for his welfare and upbringment.
30. Out of the share amount of petitioner no. 3, a sum of Rs. 50,000/ (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) is directed to be immediately released to her through her Saving Bank Account No. 90252250005033 with Syndicate Bank, Narela Delhi, Bawana Road, Narela Branch having IFSC Code No. SYNB0009025 and remaining share amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 10,000/ each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
31. Out of the share amount of petitioner no. 4, a sum of Rs. 25,000/ (Rs. Twenty Thousand Only) is directed to be immediately released to him through his Saving Bank Account No. 90252250005000 with with Syndicate Bank, Narela Delhi, Bawana Road, Narela Branch having IFSC Code No. SYNB0009025 and remaining share amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 10,000/ each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative Smt Meena Devi & Ors. Vs. Naveen Kumar & Ors. Page 14 of 16 MACP No. 4180/16 (Old No. 261/14) FIR No. 82/14 ; PS Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana DOD: 01.10.2018 interest.
32. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:
(i) Original fixed deposit receipts be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, a passbook of the FDRs alongwith photocopies of the FDRs be given to the claimants/petitioners. At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be automatically credited in the savings bank accounts of the Claimants/petitioners.
(ii) No cheque book/Debit Card be issued to the claimants/petitioners without permission of the Court.
(iii) No loan, advance or withdrawal be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(iv) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank accounts or fixed deposit account of the victims.
(v) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank before the Tribunal.
33. During the course of hearing of final arguments, all the claimants submitted that they are entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS as their annual income do not exceed from the taxable limit prescribed under the law. They have also furnished Form Nos. 15G/15H on record.
34. Respondent no. 3, being insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with SBI, Rohini Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the respective share amounts directed to be released immediately to petitioners nos. 1,3 & 4 in their aforesaid saving bank accounts mentioned supra, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He be further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioners and also Smt Meena Devi & Ors. Vs. Naveen Kumar & Ors. Page 15 of 16 MACP No. 4180/16 (Old No. 261/14) FIR No. 82/14 ; PS Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana DOD: 01.10.2018 to counsel for the insurance company alongwith original Form Nos. 15 G/15H of claimants (after retaining photocopies thereof on record) for compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbooks and copy of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance. Form V & Form IVA in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as AnnexureA. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP.
Announced in the open
Court on 01.10.2018 (VIDYA PRAKASH)
Judge MACT2 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Smt Meena Devi & Ors. Vs. Naveen Kumar & Ors. Page 16 of 16