Delhi District Court
Poonam vs Shri Sikandar Chauhan on 18 July, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJIV JAIN PO : MACT : SOUTH DISTRICTII
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI.
In Suit No. 769/10
1. Poonam
W/o. Late Sh. Sanjay @ Sanjay Singh
2. Akanksha
D/o. Late Shri Sanjay @ Sanjay Singh
3. Master Anurag
S/o. Late Sh. Sanjay Singh
4. Raj Mati
W/o. Sh. Mahadeo Singh
5. Mahadeo Singh
S/o. Late Sh. Ram Surat Singh
All R/o : Village Poore Visen,
P.O. Begum Ganj, Distt. Gonda, U.P..
At present C6/5, Gali No.3,
Saddatpur Extension,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi110094.
( Petitioner No. 2 and 3 are represented through their mother /
petitioner No. 1 being natural guardian. )
...... Petitioners
Versus
1. Shri Sikandar Chauhan
S/o. Sh. Bechan Chauhan
R/o. Village Jaspalpur,
At present :16DSIDC,
Okhla Industrial Area,
PhaseI, New Delhi110020. (Driver)
Suit No. 769/2010 Page No. 1/25
2
2. Girish Bansal
S/o Sh. B.K. Bansal
R/o R7, Patel Marg, Ghaziabad, U.P.
Temporary Address : Village & P.O. Sikandarpur,
Distt. Gurgaon, (Haryana). ( Owner )
3. M/S. S.B. Transport Co. 636/37,
Faridabad (Haryana)
At present 16DSIDC Industrial Area,
PhaseI, Okhla, New Delhi20 ( Insurance Policy Holder )
4. The New India Insurance Company
CDU312000B401, Ansal ChamberI,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066, (Insurer)
.......Respondents
Date of Institution : 12.09.2006
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 18.07.2011
Date of pronouncement : 18.07.2011
JUDGMENT:
1. The petitioners have claimed compensation of Rs.40 Lacs ( Rupees Forty Lacs ) vide claim petition filed under Section 166 and 140 of M.V. Act 1988, as amended upto date ( hereinafter referred to as Act ) for fatal injuries received by the deceased Sanjay S/o Sh. Mahadeo Singh.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.12.2005 at about 9.05 PM, the deceased, a Generator Mechanic working with M/s. Sahil Power Systems, after getting loaded a Generator from Rajvidha Kendra, Chhatarpur, for Mori Gate, on a Truck bearing No. HR55B, 1856 (HTV), was coming on his Suit No. 769/2010 Page No. 2/25 3 motor cycle bearing No. DL8S AG0993 Hero Honda. When the truck reached at Satbari C.S. Camp, its upper portion having the generation loaded thereon, struck with the High Tension Electric Wires on the road. As a result thereof, the electric wires and the electric pole fell down on the deceased who was coming on his motorcycle behind the truck. The deceased was electrocuted by High Voltage Electric Wire. The deceased was immediately taken to AIIMS hospital in PCR van where he was declared as "brought dead''. It is stated in the claim petition that deceased Sanjay @ Sanjay Singh was 25 years of age, working as Generator Mechanic with Sahil Power System and getting salary of Rs. 6,000/ per month.
3. Respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are the driver, registered owner/ insurance policy holder and insurer respectively of the offending vehicle.
4. All the respondents were summoned. Respondent No. 3 and 4 filed their written statement denying the contents of the claim petition. However, it was admitted that the offending truck No. HR55B1856 (HTV) was insured with R4.
5. On pleadings of the parties, on 28.03.2007 the following issues were framed for consideration :
1. Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in an accident which took place on 18.12.2005 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR55B1856 on the part of R1 ?
2. To what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom ?
3. Relief.Suit No. 769/2010 Page No. 3/25 4
6. (i) Petitioner No. 1 Smt. Poonam examined herself as PW 1 by tendering in evidence her affidavit. In crossexamination by the insurance company, PW 1 admitted that she was not the eye witness to the accident.
(ii) PW 2 Dinesh Kumar, MRT, AIIMS, Delhi brought the postmortem report Ex.PW1/2 No. 1559/05 conducted on the body of the deceased Sanjay Singh on 19.12.2005 by Dr. Arvind Kumar.
(iii) PW3 ASI Raj Singh conducted the investigation of the case FIR No. 762/05 and filed the charge sheet against R1, Sikander Chauhan, the driver of the truck. He proved the copy of FIR Ex.PW1/5, charge sheet Ex. PW1/6. Site plan Ex.PW1/7, copy of the mechanical inspection report Ex.PW1/8, copy of the driving license of R1 Ex.PW1/10, copy of the insurance cover note ExPW1/12 and the copy of notice u/s.133 M.V. Act given to M/S. S.B. Transport Company Ex.PW1/15. He stated that he had recorded the statement of Sunil Gupta Ex.PW1/16 and taken the photographs of the place of the accident Ex.PW1/21. In his cross examination he stated that the offending truck had not struck against the electric pole rather the over hanging electric wire got entangled with the offending truck and because of the pulling, the electric pole came off and fell on the motorcyclist. He stated that he did not give any notice to the electric department as the company was not at fault. He also stated that motorcycle was not hit by the offending truck.
(iv) Respondent No. 4 examined Mukesh Kumar as R4W1. He brought the record of the permit No. 951/HTV/2005 in respect of truck No. Suit No. 769/2010 Page No. 4/25 5 HR55B1856 (HTV). It was valid from 14.09.2005 to 13.09.2010 vide receipt No. 59473/89 dated 14.09.2005. He stated that permit was valid for the state of Haryana only. He proved the extract of the register ExR4W1/1.
7. I have heard the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
8. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that petitioners were emotionally and financially dependent on the deceased. The deceased was 25 years of age at the time of accident and would have gone on to earn much more than what he was earning at the time of his death to support his family. It is contended that deceased was the sole earning member in their family, whose sudden demise due to negligent driving by R1, has brought miseries to their lives. It is submitted that none of the petitioners is working anywhere or earning any amount, therefore it has become very difficult for them, after the death of Sanjay @ Sanjay Singh to meet their needs.
9. On the other hand, it is contended by Ld. Counsel for the Insurance Company that income of deceased has not been substantiated by any documentary evidence. It is contended that loss of dependency be calculated on the basis of minimum wages prevailing at the time of accident, without considering the future prospects as no evidence to that effect was brought on record.
10. My issuewise finding is as under : Suit No. 769/2010 Page No. 5/25 6 ISSUE NO. 1:
Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in an accident which took place on 18.12.2005 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR55B1856 on the part of R1 ?
11. Standard of proof of negligence required in order to dispose off the claim stands on a much lesser footing than what is required in a criminal case or in a civil case. It was held in " Ranu Bala Paul and Ors. V/s Bani Chakraborty and Ors., 1999 ACJ 634 by Hon'ble Guahati High Court :
"In deciding a matter Tribunal should bear in mind the caution struck by the Apex Court that a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is neither a criminal case nor a civil case. In a criminal case in order to have conviction, the matter is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and in a civil case the matter is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence, but in a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the standard proof is much below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in a civil case. No doubt before the Tribunal, there must be some material on the basis of which the Tribunal can arrive or decide things necessary to be decided for awarding compensation. But the Tribunal is not expected to take or to adopt the nicety of a civil or of a criminal case. After all, it is a summary inquiry and this is a legislation for the welfare of the society."
12. In N.K.V.Bros(P) Ltd. V/s M.Karumai Ammal & Others, (1980) 3 SCC 457, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, specially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent Suit No. 769/2010 Page No. 6/25 7 victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. We are emphasizing this aspect because we are often distressed by transport operators getting away with it thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter of careful driving. The heavy economic impact of culpable driving of public transport must bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their 'neighbour'. Indeed, the State must seriously consider no fault liability by legislation."
13. In the backdrop of above case law, the evidence of the petitioners is required to be considered.
14. Petitioner no. 1 has filed her affidavit Ex.PW1/1 and stated that on 18.12.2005 at about 9.05 PM the deceased, who was a Generator Mechanic working with M/s. Sahil Power Systems after getting loaded a Generator on Truck bearing No. HR55B, 1856 (HTV), was coming on his motor cycle bearing No. DL8S AG0993 Hero Honda. When the truck reached at Satbari C.S. Camp, the upper portion of the truck having the generation loaded thereon, struck with the High Tension Electric Wires on the road. As a result thereof, the electric wires and the electric pole fell down on the deceased who was coming on his motorcycle behind the said truck. The deceased was electrocuted by High Voltage Electric Wire. It was also stated that driver of the truck was driving the truck at a high speed without caring the traffic rules. She stated that her husband was taken to the hospital where he was declared brought dead. PW2 proved the Post Mortem Report as per which Suit No. 769/2010 Page No. 7/25 8 the cause of death was due to electrocution vide report Ex. PW1/2. Petitioner also examined the IO who proved the FIR, chargesheet u/s. 173 Cr.P.C. and the mechanical inspection report, site plan etc. He also collected the Insurance Policy, Driving License of the driver which was valid. He also collected the permit of the vehicle.
15. Although PW1 has stated that she did not see the accident with her own eyes but she has categorically denied the suggestion that accident was not caused due to the negligence of the truck.
16. From the testimony of the IO PW3 and the record, it is clear that accident had taken place due to rash and negligence of the driving of the truck driver i.e. R1 as he was carrying a big generator on the truck without caring that the generator or its chimney could touch the high tension wires above the road. In the present case the top of the generator struck with the high tension wires resulting falling of electric wires and the electric pole on the person of the deceased who was coming on the motorcycle. Site plan and the documents on record also corroborate this fact. It is also the duty of driver of every motor vehicle using public road to comply with the rules and regulations not only for his own safety but also for the safety of others.
17. It has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled ''National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pushpa Rana'' reported as 2009 ACJ 287, that whenever criminal proceedings are placed on record on completion of investigations by the police, then that in itself is sufficient proof of the negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle involved in Suit No. 769/2010 Page No. 8/25 9 the accident.
18. Petitioners besides placing on record the certified copies of criminal proceedings, through deposition of PW1 have been able to establish that respondent No. 1 failed to adhere to his duties and had driven the offending vehicle in a negligent manner.
19. It has already come up on record that after the accident, deceased was taken to AIIMS hospital where he was declared as 'Brought Dead'.
20. Petitioners thus, have been able to establish that accident took place due to negligence of respondent No. 1 which resulted in the death of deceased Sanjay @ Sanjay Singh.
21. Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners.
I S S U E N o. 2 To what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom ?
22. As issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners in affirmative, petitioner thus become entitled for the compensation. Quantum of the compensation however is required to be calculated.
23. It has been held in a catena of judgments that emphasis in cases of personal injury and fatal accident should be on awarding substantial, just and fair compensation and not a token amount. General principle in calculating such sum of compensation, should be so as to put the injured or legal heirs of a deceased in case of fatal accident, in the same position as he would have been, if accident had not taken place. In examining the question of damages for personal injury, pecuniary or nonpecuniary Suit No. 769/2010 Page No. 9/25 10 damages are required to be taken into account.
24. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in R.O. Hattangadi V/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755 that: "Broadly speaking, while fixing the amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas nonpecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as nonpecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters ie. on account of injury, the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit ; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, ie. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
25. In order to calculate the amount of compensation, the sum is required to be considered under the various heads :
(a) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY :
26. Petitioner No. 1 Poonam during the course of her deposition as PW1 deposed that she being widow alongwith her two children and parentsin law are the only legal heirs of the deceased Sanjay @ Sanjay Singh. This fact has not been disputed by the respondents and no contrary evidence to that effect has been brought on record. No one else has challenged the claim petition filed by the petitioners, therefore, deposition of PW1 is to be Suit No. 769/2010 Page No. 10/25 11 believed on this aspect.
27. PW1 Smt. Poonam has stated that her husband was 25 years of age at the time of accident. Her husband was working as Generator Mechanic with M/s. Sahil Power System, 3682/55 and getting salary of Rs. 6,000/ per month. She however, has admitted that she does not have any documentary evidence with respect to the income of her husband. In absence of any documentary evidence on record, regard is to be had to the minimum wages prevailing at the time of accident with respect to a "skilled worker"as the deceased was doing private job.
28. Minimum wages with respect to a 'skilled person" prevailing at the time of accident i.e. 18.12.2005 were Rs. 3589.90/which for the purposes of calculation are rounded off to Rs. 3600/.
29. Ld. Counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that there is no evidence on record with respect to the future prospects of the deceased, therefore the same cannot be taken into account. He contended that by adopting a normal method of calculating the income of the deceased with appropriate multiplier after deducting the personal expenses out of the total income, the exact loss of dependency can be assessed.
30. Although, there is no evidence on record with respect to future prospects, however, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled "Narender Bishal & Another V/s Sh. Ramit Singh & Ors." bearing MAC.App. No. 100708/2006 decided on 20th February 2008. had considered the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in "General Manazger Kerala Transport Suit No. 769/2010 Page No. 11/25 12 Road Corporation V/s. Susamma Thomas" reported as 1994 ACJ 1 (SC) as well as in Smt. Sarla Dixit & Ors. V/s Balwant Yadav & Ors. Reported as AIR 1996, SC1274" and held :
"As would be evident from catena of judgments of the Supreme Court, the future prospects have no correlation with the price index, inflation or denunciation of currency value. The future prospects would necessarily mean advancement in future career, earnings and progression in one's life. It could be considered by seeing, from which post a person began his career, what avenues or prospects he has while being in a particular avocation and what targets he/she would finally achieve at the end of his career. The promotional avenues, career progression, grant of selection grades etc. are some of the broad features for considering one's future prospects in one's career.
The minimum wage, in the very context of economy has a correlation with the growth and development of the nation's economy, postulating increase in the price index, reduction of purchasing power with the denunciation of currency value and consequent fixation of minimum wages giving some periodical increase so as to ensure sustenance and survival of the workman class. Keeping this in view, under no circumstance the revision of minimum wages can be treated on the same footing with the factor of future prospects.
For instance, minimum wages of unskilled workman in the year 2000 were Rs.2524/ under the Minimum Wages Act. The said minimum wages in the year 2007 for the same class of unskilled workman came to be Rs.3470/ under the Act. This increase is not due to any promotion of unskilled workman or any kind of advancement in his career but the same are due to Suit No. 769/2010 Page No. 12/25 13 increase in price index and cost of living which are the determining factors taken into consideration for increasing the wages under the Minimum Wages Act. The nature of the job of unskilled workman will not change as the same shall remain unchanged. The same principle may be true even in the case of business or trade or other such allied activities where the future prospects of the deceased can be considered on the basis of his assets, income tax return, wealth tax return, balance sheet etc. But as far as the increase in the minimum wages is concerned the same takes into consideration the price index and the inflationary trends and the same have no correlation with the future prospects of a skilled, semiskilled or an unskilled workman."
31. In view of above and considering the fact that minimum wages gets doubled in a ten years time, therefore for the purposes of calculation of the average gross salary of the deceased, the criteria laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Smt. Sarla Dixit & Ors. V/s. Balwant Yadav & Ors. Case (supra) is to be applied.
32. In the present case, minimum wages prevailing at the time of accident with respect to a skilled person were Rs. 3589.90/ which are rounded off to Rs. 3600/. Taking into account the denunciation in the value of currency, gross monthly income of the deceased comes out to Rs. 3600 + Rs. 7200= Rs. 10,800 : 2= Rs. 5400/.
33. Out of this average gross income of deceased Sanjay @ Sanjay Singh and considering that five petitioners including his wife, two children & Suit No. 769/2010 Page No. 13/25 14 parents, were dependent on the deceased, then he by no stretch of imagination could have spent more than onefourth of his earning on himself. In view thereof, monthly loss of dependency of the petitioners would come out to Rs. 54001350[1/4th of 5400] = Rs. 4050/. Yearly loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 4050 x 12 = Rs. 48,600/
34. Perusal of postmortem report of deceased Sanjay @ Sanjay Singh makes it evident, that he was 25 years of age at the time of his death. In view thereof and considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Smt. Sarla Verma vs. DTC 2009 (6) SCALE 129 Case", a multiplier of '18' in this case is required to be applied.
35. In view thereof, actual loss of dependency would comes out to Rs. 48,600 x 18 = Rs.8,74,800/ which is rounded off to Rs. 8,75,000/ I therefore, award a sum of Rs. 8,75,000/ to the petitioners towards "Loss of Dependency".
(b) LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION :
36. Petitioner No. 1 Smt. Poonam at this stage of her life had lost her husband on whom she was emotionally and financially dependent. The loss of love and affection which she would have got from her husband can not quantified in terms of money. Love and affection lost by the children of deceased is not capable of any assessment, much less on any pecuniary scale. Care, love and affection which old and feeble parents of deceased had required from their son at the fag end of their lives can not be measured or assessed. It has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled Suit No. 769/2010 Page No. 14/25 15 as Kailash Kaur vs. New India Insurance Company bearing M.A.C. Pet.. No. 318/08 decided on 24.03.2009 that compensation towards loss of love and affection should be granted at the rate of Rs. 25,000/ per petitioner.
37. In view thereof, I award a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/ @ Rs. 25,000 x 5 to the petitioners towards "Loss of Love and Affection".
(c) LOSS OF CONSORTIUM :
38. I award a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the petitioner No. 1 on account of "Loss of Consortium".
(d) FUNERAL EXPENSES
39. I award a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the petitioners on account of "Funeral Expenses" .
(e) LOSS OF ESTATE :
40. I award a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the petitioners on account of "Loss to Estate".
: LIABILITY :
41. As the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 1 therefore primary liability to compensate the petitioner is that of respondent No. 1. As the offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2 therefore, he becomes vicariously liable to compensate the petitioner. It is an admitted position on record that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3 insurance company. Therefore, respondent No. 3 Insurance Company becomes contractually liable to indemnify the petitioner for the above mentioned awarded amount to the extent of liability Suit No. 769/2010 Page No. 15/25 16 of the insured.
42. Ld. Counsel for the Insurance Company, however, in his quest to have the Insurance Company exonerated of its contractual obligation contended that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms of the contract. He contends that the Respondent No1 was driving the truck in violation of the permit conditions which provides that vehicle could ply in the State of Haryana only. In the present case, the accident had occurred in the area of Delhi. Thus, the insured had committed the breach of contract.
43. I find force in the contention of Ld. Counsel that the truck was being driven in the area of Delhi in violation of permit conditions. Thus, there was a breach of contract by the insured as he had permitted the driver i.e. Respondent No. 1 to drive the offending vehicle in the area of Delhi in violation of the terms of the policy.
44. The Legislatures being conscious of the magnitude of the plight of the victims of road accident have introduced the present beneficial provisions to protect the interest of third parties i.e. victims of road accident so as to enable them to claim compensation from the driver/ owner of the vehicle. Legislature in its wisdom has made it a statutory obligation for every owner to have his vehicle insured against the third party risk so that victims of road accident even after being granted compensation from the court, should not run from pillar to post to have the orders of the court executed and to facilitate them to get the same from the Insurance Company.
Suit No. 769/2010 Page No. 16/25 17
45. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh" reported as AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1531, has enumerated the defences which an insurance company can raise. Hon'ble Apex court has also made it clear that the insurance company cannot be exonerated of its liability, merely by raising its defence, as the onus to prove the same lies on them. In the present case it is proved from the testimony of R4W1 that the permit No. 951/HTV/2005 was issued in respect of the truck HR55B1856 which was valid from 14.09.2005 to 13.09.2010 vide receipt No. 59473/89 and the said permit was for the State of Haryana only. This very act on the part of respondent No. 1 and Respondent no. 2 amounts to breach of conditions of the permit / policy. Consequently the Insurance Company has been able to establish that Respondent No1 has violated the permit conditions. It was incumbent upon the Respondent No2 the owner of the vehicle to see that the vehicle should ply in consonance with the terms of the permit / policy and not in breach thereof. Thus, the liability to compensate the petitioner remains with that of Respondent No1 and Respondent No. 2 i.e. driver / owner of the offending vehicle.
46. However, balancing the "twin interest" of the Insurance Company at one hand and that of the third party i.e. petitioners, for whose benefit the present legislation was brought on the statute book, it is directed that the Insurance Company shall pay the compensation awarded to the petitioner Suit No. 769/2010 Page No. 17/25 18 within the time given in this award and shall have the right to recover the same from respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2.
47. In view thereof, I grant "recovery rights' to the Insurance Company to get the awarded amount recovered from respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2.
48. Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly in favour of the petitioners.
R E L I E F
49. In view of my finding on issue No. 1 and 2, petitioners are entitled to the following compensation :
1) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY = Rs. 8,75,000 /
2) LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION = Rs. 1,25,000/
3) LOSS OF CONSORTIUM = Rs. 10,000/
4) FUNERAL EXPENSES = Rs. 10,000/
5) LOSS OF ESTATE = Rs. 10,000/
Total = Rs. 10,30,000/
50. Petitioners are thus awarded a sum of Rs. 10,30,000/ alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date filing of petition till realization of the amount.
51. Perusal of record reveals that interim award of Rs. 50,000/ was Suit No. 769/2010 Page No. 18/25 19 granted to the petitioners under section 140 of the M.V. Act vide orders dated 05.09.2007. The same is required to be deducted from the final awarded amount. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to get balance awarded amount of Rs. 9,80,000/ alongwith proportionate interest thereon.
: RELEASE OF THE AWARDED AMOUNT : In the share of Petitioner No. 1 Smt. Poonam : (widow of deceased Late Sh. Sanjay @ Sanjay Singh).
52. A sum of Rs. 4,80,000/ alongwith the proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to petitioner No. 1 Smt. Poonam, being wife of deceased Sanjay @ Sanjay Singh.
53. Out of this awarded amount, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/ be deposited in the form of FDR in the name of petitioner No. 1 Smt. Poonam in the following phased manner :
(a) A sum of Rs. 50,000/ for a period of 2 years
(b) A sum of Rs. 50,000/ for a period of 3 years.
(c) A sum of Rs. 50,000/ for a period of 4 years.
(d) A sum of Rs. 50,000/ for a period of 5 years.
(e) A sum of Rs. 50,000// for a period of 6 years.
In the share of Petitioner No. 2 Akanksha and Petitioner No. 3 Master Anurag : (minor children of deceased Sanjay @ Sanjay Singh
54. A sum of Rs. 1,75,000/ each alongwith proportionate interest Suit No. 769/2010 Page No. 19/25 20 thereon, is awarded to petitioner No. 2 Akanksha and petitioner No. 3 Master Anurag being minor children of the deceased Sanjay @ Sanjay Singh. This awarded amount shall be kept in the form of separate FDR's in the respective names of Petitioner No. 2 and Petitioner No. 3 till they attain 18 years of age.
In the share of Petitioner No. 4 & 5 : (parents of deceased Late Sh. Sanjay @ Sanjay Singh)
55. A sum of Rs. 75,000/ each along with proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to petitioner No. 4 Smt. Rajmati and Petitioner No. 5 Sh. Mahadeo Singh, being parents of deceased Late Sh. Sanjay @ Sanjay Singh.
Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
56. In terms of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in case titled "
Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors." bearing FAO number 842/2003 decided on 08.06.20009, UCO Bank/ State Bank of India has agreed to open a Special Fixed Deposit Account for the victims of road accidents.
57. As per orders of Hon'ble High Court in case titled " New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Ganga Devi & Ors bearing MAC. App. 135/2008" as well as in another case titled as " Union of India V/s Nanisiri" bearing M.A.C. Appeal No. 682/2005 dated 13.01.2010, directions were given to the Claims Tribunal to deposit part of the awarded amount in fixed deposit in a phased manner depending upon the financial status and financial needs of the Suit No. 769/2010 Page No. 20/25 21 claimants.
58. In consonance to the idea by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit / savings account by Hon'ble high Court, Insurance Company is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioners with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of :
1. Smt. Poonam, W/o. Late Sh. Sanjay @ Sanjay Singh
2. Akanksha D/o. Late Sh. Sanjay @ Sanjay Singh
3. Master Anurag S/o. Late Sh. Sanjay @ Sanjay Singh
4. Smt. Rajmati W/o. Sh. Mahadeo Singh
5. Sh. Mahadeo Singh S/o. Late Sh. Ram Surat Singh within a period of 30 days from today, failing which respondent No. 3 Insurance Company shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period)
59. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank fo India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "fixed deposit / saving account'' in the following manner:
(i) Rs.2,50,000/ in the name of Petitioner No.1 Smt. Poonam in a phased manner as stated in para no. (supra).
(ii) Remaining amount of the share of petitioner no.1 Smt. Poonam shall be transferred to her savings account, so as to facilitate her to withdraw the same, as per her needs.
(iii)Awarded Amount of Rs. 1,75,000/ each alongwith proportionate interest thereon, in favour of petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 3 be kept in the form of two separate FDR's, in the respective names of Suit No. 769/2010 Page No. 21/25 22 these petitioners, till they attain 18 years of age.
(iv) Petitioner No. 2 Akanksha and Petitioner No. 3 Master Anurag, minor children of deceased are also entitled to get monthly / quarterly interest on the FDR's prepared in their names, through their mother / natural guardian / petitioner No. 1 Smt. Poonam.
(v) The amount awarded to Petitioner No. 4 Smt. Rajmati and Petitioner No. 5 Sh. Mahadeo Singh shall be transferred to their savings account, so as to facilitate them to withdraw the same, as per their needs.
(vi) The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioners / claimants by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank accounts with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
(vii) Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to claimants / petitioners after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants / petitioners to facilitate identity.
(viii)No cheque book be issued to claimants / petitioners without the permission of this Court.
(ix)The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the claimants / petitioners alongwith the photocopy of the FDR's .
(x) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to claimants / petitioners at the end of the fixed deposit period. Suit No. 769/2010 Page No. 22/25 23
(xi)No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.
(xii) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
(xiii) On the request of claimants / petitioners, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
(xiv) Claimants / petitioners shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi DIRECTIONS FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANY
60. The Insurance company is directed to file the compliance report of their having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this tribunal within a period of 45 days from today.
61. The Insurance Company is directed to furnish a copy of this award alongwith the cheques of the awarded amount to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, so as to facilitate the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch to have the identification of the claimants/ petitioners in whose favour the award has been passed.
62. The Insurance Company is further directed to furnish the claim Suit No. 769/2010 Page No. 23/25 24 petition number and name of the parties at the back side of the cheques of the awarded amount, so that the same be not misplaced.
63. The Insurance Company shall intimate to the claimants / petitioners about their having deposited the cheques in favor of the petitioners in terms of the award, at the address of the petitioners mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate them to withdraw the same.
64. Copy of this award / judgment be given to the petitioners who are directed to furnish the same to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch for necessary compliance after their having received the notice of the deposit of awarded amount from the Insurance company.
65. Copy of this Award / Judgment be given to counsel for the Insurance Company for necessary compliance.
66. File be consigned to record room after receipt of the compliance report from the Insurance company.
Announced in the open court on 18th Day of July , 2011 (SANJIV JAIN) PO : MACT02, SOUTH DISTRICT 18.07.2011 Suit No. 769/2010 Page No. 24/25 25 POONAM & ORS .VS. SIKANDAR CHAUHAN & ORS.
Suit No. 769/10
18.07.2011
Present: Counsel for the parties.
Vide separate order of even date a compensation of Rs.10,30,000/ ( Rupees Ten Lacs Thirty Thousand only ) with interest @ 9 % is passed in favour of petitioners. Copy of the award be given to the parties.
Put up on 07.09.2011 for compliance report.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(SANJIV JAIN) PO : MACT : SDII 18.07.2011 Suit No. 769/2010 Page No. 25/25