Delhi District Court
Manju Devi & Ors. vs . Mukesh Shah & Ors. on 20 February, 2021
MAC Petition No.6338/16
Manju Devi & Ors. Vs. Mukesh Shah & ors.
IN/ THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 6338/16
Manju Devi & Ors. Vs. Mukesh Shah & ors.
1. Smt.Manju Devi
W/o Sh. Laxman Mahato
2. Sh. Laxman Mahato
W/o Sh. Moti Mahato
Both R/o 54, Village Jale, Anchal Jale,
District Darbhanga847302 (Bihar) ................Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Mukesh Sah .....Driver
S/o Sh. Dinesh Sah
R/o Village Brajghata
District Muzaffarpur, ,Bihar.
2. Sh. Ranjit Kumar
S/o Sh. Muneshwar Sah
R/o B341, JJ Suraj Park Colony,
Rohini, Sector18, Delhi110085
2nd Address: Ram Crane Service,
Shop no.134, Sector25,
Transport Nagar, Panipat, Haryana.
3. Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd.
1001, Ground Floor, Arya Samaj Road,
Karol Bagh, Naiwala, Delhi110005
4. Khushbu Basfore (widow)
W/o Late Sh.Mukesh Mahato
5. Sunny Mahato
Page no.1 of total 18
MAC Petition No.6338/16
Manju Devi & Ors. Vs. Mukesh Shah & ors.
S/o Late Sh. Mukesh Mahato (Son of deceased)
6. Tulshi Mahato
D/o Late Sh. Mukesh Mahato (Son of deceased)
Respondents no.4 to 6 are R/o BRI Colony,
Siliguri (M. Corp.), Pradhan Nagar, Darjeeling734003 ...............Respondents Date of Institution : 25.04.2016 Date of Arguments : 20.02.2021 Date of Decision : 20.02.2021 APPEARANCES: Sh. Palvinder Singh, Ld.counsel for petitioners.
None for respondents no.1 and 2 the driver and owner. Sh. Rakesh Rathi, Ld.counsel for insurance company. Respondents no.4 to 6 who are proforma respondents are already exparte vide order dated 05.12.2017.
Petition under Section 166 & 140 of M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation AWARD
1. In the present claim petition the petitioners are seeking compensation for the fatal injuries suffered by the deceased Sh.Mukesh Mahato in the Motor Vehicular Accident which occurred on 09.09.2014 at about 9.30 PM at Narela Shiv Puri road, Kundali, Sonipat, Haryana within the jurisdiction of PS Kundali, Sonipat, Haryana involving the crane bearing registration no.HR67A 4600(alleged offending vehicle) being driven by respondent no.1 in rash and negligent manner. Case vide FIR no. 265/17, Under section 279/304A IPC with regard to the said accident was registered at PS Kundali, Sonipat, Haryana.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.09.2014 the deceased Sh.
Page no.2 of total 18 MAC Petition No.6338/16 Manju Devi & Ors. Vs. Mukesh Shah & ors.
Mukesh Mahato was going on crane no.HR67A4600, which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent no.1 Sh. Mukesh Shah and at about 9.30PM when the said Crane reached at Narela Shiv Puri Road, Kundali, Sonipat, Haryana, due to high speed the said crane jumped over the breaker and touched the high tension electric wires, as a result of which the deceased Sh. Mukesh Mahato suffered serious electrocution. He was removed to SRHC Hospital where he was declared dead. That the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid crane no. HR67A4600 by respondent no.1. Accident was reported to the police and case vide FIR No.265/14, under Section 279/304A IPC was registered at PS Kundli, District Sonipat, Haryana with regard to the said accident. The offending vehicle was being owned by respondent no.2 Sh.Ranjit Kumar and was insured with the Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. at the relevant time of accident.
3. Notice of the claim petition was issued to respondents. Respondents appeared and filed their respective written statement/reply. Respondents no.1/driver and respondent no.2/Registered owner filed joint written statement stating that the present claim petition has been filed just to extort money from respondents. That the petitioners are trying to take benefits of wrong act of deceased himself. That the accident was not caused due to negligence on the part of respondent no.1. That respondent no.1 was holding valid driving licence at the time of accident. The averments on merits are denied.
4. Respondent no.3/insurance company filed reply thereby admitting therein that the alleged offending vehicle bearing no. HR67A4600 was Page no.3 of total 18 MAC Petition No.6338/16 Manju Devi & Ors. Vs. Mukesh Shah & ors.
insured with it at the time of accident. It is however stated that the liability of the insurance company shall be subject to terms and conditions of insurance policy. It is stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding driving licence specifying the category of vehicle. The factum of accident is denied. That the accident has not taken place due to negligence of respondent no.1 and there is no eyewitness in the present case. That the owner of the vehicle has not informed the respondent no.3 about the accident and death of deceased Sh. Mukesh Mahto and hence the occurrence of the alleged accident is denied. The averments on merits are also denied. It is also denied that the petitioners are entitled for compensation as claimed.
5. The respondents no.4 to 6 are the widow and minor sons of deceased Sh. Mukesh Mahato. It is stated that the widow of the deceased alongwith minor children has left the house of deceased after three months of his death and they are not traceable. Record reveals that repeated notices were issued to respondents no. 4 to 6 and they have failed to appear before this tribunal, even after their service by way of publication and hence they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 05.12.2017.
6. From pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 05.12.2017;
1. Whether the deceased Mukesh Mahato died in road traffic accident on 09.09.2014 at about 9.30 PM at Narela Shiv Puri road, Kundli, Sonepat, Haryana within the jurisdiction of PS Kundli due to rash and negligent driving of Crane no.HR67A4600 by its driver Mukesh Sah/R1 Page no.4 of total 18 MAC Petition No.6338/16 Manju Devi & Ors. Vs. Mukesh Shah & ors.
which was owned by regd. Owner namely Ranjit Kumar/R 2 and insured with Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd./R3? OPP
2. Whether the LRs of deceased are entitled to any compensation? if so to what amount and from whom?
OPP
3. Relief.
7. In support of their claim, the petitioners have examined only Sh. Laxman Mahato/petitioner no.2 as PW1. No other witness was examined and petitioners closed their evidence on 24.12.2020. On the other hand respondents no.1 and 2 have not examined any witness despite opportunities and respondent no.3 insurance company examined one Sh. Rama Raman, Legal Officer of the insurance company as R3W1. No other witness was examined on behalf of respondents and RE was closed vide order dated 22.05.2019.
8. I have already heard the arguments addressed by Sh. Palvinder Singh, Ld. counsel for petitioners and Ms.Rakesh Rathi, Ld.counsel for insurance company. None has appeared to submit arguments on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2 driver and owner. I have also gone through the record. My findings on the issues are as under: ISSUE NO. 1.
9. The only witness examined on behalf of petitioners i.e. petitioner no.2 Sh. Laxman Mahato is not the eyewitness. It is argued on behalf of insurance company that the petitioners have not examined the eyewitness of the Page no.5 of total 18 MAC Petition No.6338/16 Manju Devi & Ors. Vs. Mukesh Shah & ors.
incident and in the absence of any eyewitness the negligence on the part of respondent no.1 can not be ascertained. It is argued that the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. Per contra. Ld.counsel for petitioners heavily relied upon the criminal case record in order to bring home his point that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of aforesaid crane by respondent no.1. He further argued that FIR No. 265/14 was registered at PS. Kundali Sonipat, Haryana against the driver of offending crane no. HR67A4600 for causing the accident in question, which clearly establish that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of aforesaid vehicle by respondent no. 1. In support of his submissions, Ld.counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Bimla Devi & Ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation (2009) 13 SC 530, and of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as New India Insurance Company Vs. Israr Ahmed, MAC APP. No. 482/16 and New India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Renu Devi & Ors.
10. Instead of referring to the series of decisions on the point in issue, it may be noted that it is well settled legal position as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by various High Courts in plethora of judgments delivered from time to time that in claim petitions preferred U/s 160/144 M.V Act, the claimants have to prove on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of alleged offending vehicles by its drivers. Same is the essence of legal position discussed by Hon'ble Apex Court in celebrated case of " The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Variyal & Ors.", Civil Appeal No. 5825 of 2006 decided on 02.04.2007. At the same time, it is no Page no.6 of total 18 MAC Petition No.6338/16 Manju Devi & Ors. Vs. Mukesh Shah & ors.
more resintegra that claim petition filed under relevant provisions of M.V Act, is the outcome of social welfare legislation and the proceedings are summary in nature and do not require strict compliance of rules of evidence and pleadings. It needs no emphasis that in case replies filed by respondents, are evasive then it is deemed that they have admitted the averments made by the claimants. The purpose of granting compensation is to ameliorate the sufferings of the victims of Motor Vehicle Accidents and the niceties, hyper technicalities, procedural wrangles and tangles and mystic maybes have no role to play and same should not be any ground to dismiss the claim petitions and to defeat the rights of the claimants. While saying so, I am fortified by the decisions rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases titled as "N.KV. Bros (P) Ltd Vs. M. Karumai Ammal", 1980 ACJ 435 (SC); "
Sohan Lal Passi Vs. P. Sesh Reddy", 1996 ACJ 1044 (SC) and " Dulcina Fernandes Vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz", 2013 ACJ 2712 (SC). It is also relevant to mention here that while deciding claim petition under M.V Act, it is the duty of Claims Tribunal to follow the principles of justice, equity and good conscience and to adopt more realistic, pragmatic and liberal approach.
11. The aforesaid issue recently came up for discussion before Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Vimla Devi & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors.", Civil Appeal No. 11042 of 2018, decided on 16.11.18. After referring to the previous judicial precedents on the point in issue and the fact that M.V. Act is a social welfare legislation, Hon'ble Apex Court held in para 29 of its judgment as under: Page no.7 of total 18 MAC Petition No.6338/16 Manju Devi & Ors. Vs. Mukesh Shah & ors.
"xxxxx
29. In our view, what more documents could be filed then the documents filed by the appellants to prove the factum of the accident and the persons involved therein. xxxxx"
12. In the above cited decision, the facts were almost similar and the claimants had not examined any eyewitness. Still, Hon'ble Apex Court held that in view of filing of criminal case record including chargesheet showing that driver of alleged offending vehicle had been chargesheeted for causing the accident due to rash and negligent driving of said vehicle and the driver himself did not enter into witness box, claimants were able to prove the issue of accident being caused due to rash and negligent driving of said vehicle by said driver on the basis of pre ponderance of the probabilities.
13. Now, turning back to the facts of the present case. No doubt, the petitioners have not examined any eye witness to prove the negligence on the part of driver of the alleged vehicle described above but nevertheless, there is ample material brought on record during the course of inquiry, which is sufficient to establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Crane No bearing registration no. HR67A4600 by its driver.
14. It is also pertinent to note that the respondent no.1/driver of aforesaid Crane, was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident had taken place. However, he has Page no.8 of total 18 MAC Petition No.6338/16 Manju Devi & Ors. Vs. Mukesh Shah & ors.
preferred not to enter into the 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 Crane bearing no. HR67A 4600 by him.
15. Moreover, it is an undisputed fact that FIR No. 265/14 u/s 279/304A IPC was registered at PS. Kundali, District Sonipat, Haryana with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR would show that same was registered on 10.09.2014(accident being caused on 09.09.2014). 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 crane bearing registration no. HR67A4600 at the instance of petitioners herein.
16. Not only this, copy of MLC of deceased prepared at SRHC Hospital, Delhi would show that he had been removed to said hospital on 09.09.2014 at about 10.00 PM with alleged history of electric shock and he was declared brought dead, which is consistant with the manner of accident as alleged. Further the postmortem report of the deceased also shows that he has died due to electrocution. Again, there is no challenge to the aforesaid document from the side of respondents.
17. 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 pre ponderence of probabilities that the deceased Sh. Mukesh Mehto had Page no.9 of total 18 MAC Petition No.6338/16 Manju Devi & Ors. Vs. Mukesh Shah & ors.
sustained fatal injuries, due to electrocution, on 09.09.2014 at about 9.30 PM at Narela Shiv Puri road, Kundali, Sonipat, Haryana within the jurisdiction of PS Kundali, Sonipat, Haryana due to rash and negligent driving of the crane bearing registration no.HR67A4600 by respondent no.1. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2.
18. 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.
COMPENSATION LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
19. The petitioners are the parents of deceased Mukesh Mehto. The petitioners have also impleaded the widow of deceased as respondent no.4 and minor children as respondents no.5 and 6. It is stated that the widow of deceased Smt. Khushbo has left the house of deceased after three months of his death and her whereabouts are not known. During the course of trial, repeated notices were sent to respondents no.4 to 6 but they have not cared to appear even after being served through publication and they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 05.12.2017. Though the respondents no.4 to 6 have been proceeded exparte, but it does not mean that the respondents no.4 to 6 will not have share in Page no.10 of total 18 MAC Petition No.6338/16 Manju Devi & Ors. Vs. Mukesh Shah & ors.
the award amount or were not financially dependent upon the deceased. Hence, it is held that the deceased was survived by five dependents i.e. petitioners no.1 & 2 and respondents no. 4 to 6.
20. Though the petitioners have claimed that the deceased was doing private job with Ranjit Kumar and was living at Shopno. 134, Sector25, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi with Sh. Ranjit Kumar and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/ per month. But the petitioners have not filed any documentary proof of avocation and income of deceased in the State of Delhi. During the course of arguments it is fairly conceded by Ld.counsel for petitioner that the income of the deceased be taken as minimum wages of an unskilled worker. It be noted that there is nothing on record to show that the deceased was residing or working in Delhi. Furthermore, the copy of election identity card of the deceased, relied upon by the petitioners Ex. PW1/4 shows that he was resident of Bihar State. In view of aforesaid, in the absence of any documentary proof of income, avocation and educational qualifications of deceased, the income of deceased is taken as minimum wages of an unskilled worker, as applicable in the State of Bihar, prevalent at the time of accident i.e. on 09.09.2014, which were Rs.5520/ per month.
21. It is stated that the deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of accident. The copy of Election identity card of deceased shows his year of birth as 1991. No other document showing the date of birth of deceased has been filed. Hence, the deceased was around 23 years of age at the time of accident. Thus, the multiplier of 18 would be applicable in view of recent pronouncement made by Page no.11 of total 18 MAC Petition No.6338/16 Manju Devi & Ors. Vs. Mukesh Shah & ors.
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.
22. Considering the fact that deceased was below 40 years of age and was doing private job at that time, future prospects @ 40% 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.
23. As discussed above, the deceased was survived by five dependents and hence 1/4th is liable to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs.12,51,936/(rounded of Rs.12,52,000/) (Rs.5520x3/4 X 140/100 X12X 18). Hence, a sum of Rs.12,52,000/ is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
24. After the celebrated judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. mentioned supra and recent judgment titled New India Assurance Company Limited versus Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 dated 07.09.2020 the petitioners are not entitled to be Page no.12 of total 18 MAC Petition No.6338/16 Manju Devi & Ors. Vs. Mukesh Shah & ors.
compensated under this head. Further 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
25. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020, dated 07.09.2020 I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner no.1/father of deceased, petitioner no.2 mother, respondent no.4 widow, respondents no.5 and 6 children are entitled for payment of Rs. 40,000/ each towards loss of consortium. Consequently a sum of Rs.2,00,000/ is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
26. 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. 12,52,000/
2. Loss of Love and affection Rs. NIL Page no.13 of total 18 MAC Petition No.6338/16 Manju Devi & Ors. Vs. Mukesh Shah & ors.
3. Loss of Consortium Rs. 2,00,000/
3. Loss of Estate &Funeral Rs. 30,000/ Expenses Total Rs. 14,82,000/
27. 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 has disputed its liability on the ground that the deceased was travelling as gratuitous passenger on the alleged crane at the time of accident and respondent no.1 was not holding valid driving licence to drive the crane, at the time of accident and hence the insured has violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. It be noted that though in its written statement the insurance company has pleaded that the driver of the crane no. HR67A4600 was not holding a driving licence authorising him to drive the insured vehicle but the insurance company during its evidence and final arguments has not pleaded the said defence. Further, there is copy of driving licence of respondent no.1, on record which shows that his driving licence no. 366/02 was valid from 15.07.2014 till 14.07.2017 for LMV and HGV only. In view of aforesaid, it is held that respondent no.1 was holding valid driving licence at the time of accident.
28. It is not in dispute that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle while seating in the backside portion of the alleged crane. However, it be noted that though the insurance company has claimed that the deceased was travelling as gratuitous passenger but as per the claim of petitioners and the FIR the deceased Sh. Mukesh Mehto was working with Sh. Ranjit Singh, Page no.14 of total 18 MAC Petition No.6338/16 Manju Devi & Ors. Vs. Mukesh Shah & ors.
the owner of offending vehicle. Further, the insurance policy of the alleged offending vehicle shows the seating capacity as 2+1(including driver). In the Limitation as to use it is specifically mentioned that the policy does not cover the risk of use for carrying passengers in the vehicle, except employees(other than the driver) not exceeding the number permitted in the registration document. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. In view of aforesaid discussions, I do not find any force in the contention of counsel for insurance company that the deceased was travelling as gratuitous passenger and insured violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy. Respondent no.1/driver is principal tort feasor. Respondent no.2/owner is vicarously liable for the act of respondent no.1/driver. In view of aforesaid discussions, respondent no.3 being the insurer is held liable to indemnify the insured. Hence, respondent no.3/insurance company is held liable to pay compensation amount. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
29. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 and 2(supra), I award a compensation of Rs.14,82,000/ alongwith interest @ 9% per annum in favour of petitioners and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e.25.04.2016 till the date of its realization (Reliance placed on judgment "Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Devi & Ors bearing MAC. APP. 165/2011 decided on 22.02.2016).
APPORTIONMENT
30. Statements of petitioners/claimants in terms of Clause 29 Page no.15 of total 18 MAC Petition No.6338/16 Manju Devi & Ors. Vs. Mukesh Shah & ors.
MCTAP were recorded on 16.10.2019. In view of aforesaid discussions it is held that the claim of respondents no.4 to 6 would survive(even though they are exparte). Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the statements of claimants, it is hereby ordered that out of total compensation amount, the petitioners no. 1 and 2 shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 3,00,000/(Rupees Three Lacs Only) each alongwith proportionate interest. Remaining amount alongwith proportionate interest shall be disbursed to respondents no.4 to 6, on their appearance.
31. Out of share amount of petitioner no.1 and 2, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lakh Only) each is directed to be immediately released to them through their Saving Bank Account i.e. A/c No. 6685123496 with Indian Bank of petitioner no.2 Sh.Laxman Mahato, A/c no.6723462712 with Indian bank having IFSC code no. IDIB000J014 and remaining 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.
32. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in Page no.16 of total 18 MAC Petition No.6338/16 Manju Devi & Ors. Vs. Mukesh Shah & ors.
the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and /or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank alongwith the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause(g) above.
(i) The petitioner is directed to open a Motor Accident Claims Annuity (Term) Deposit Account (MACAD) in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Hon'ble Justice J.R. Midha in case titled as Rajesh Tyagi and Others Vs. Jaibir Singh and Others F.A.O No. 842/03 as per clause 31 of MCTAP and form VIII titled as Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme as directed in the said order.
(j) Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court branch is further directed to disburse the FD amount in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme account as directed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.18, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
33. Respondent no.3/insurance company is directed to deposit the Page no.17 of total 18 MAC Petition No.6338/16 Manju Devi & Ors. Vs. Mukesh Shah & ors.
award amount with SBI, Rohini Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which it 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 aforesaid petitioners in their aforesaid saving bank accounts mentioned supra, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He is 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 respondent no.3/insurance company 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 IV A & Form V 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.
Digitally signed
DEVENDER by DEVENDER
Announced in the open KUMAR
KUMAR
JANGALA
JANGALA
Court on 20.02.2021 Date: 2021.02.26
15:27:52 +0530
(DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA)
Judge MACT2 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Certified that above award contains 18 pages and each page is signed by me.
(DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA) Judge MACT2 (North) Rohini Courts,Delhi Page no.18 of total 18