Delhi District Court
Arun Kumar Gupta S/O Sh. Late Sh. Brij ... vs Kailash Mandal S/O Sh. Abal Mandal on 12 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. RAVINDER BEDI : PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL : KARKARDOOMA
COURTS : EAST DISTRICT : DELHI
MAC PETITION NO. 214/14
UNIQUE CASE I.D. NO. 02402C0256792012
1. Arun Kumar Gupta S/o Sh. Late Sh. Brij Mohan
2. Miss. Akansha Gupta D/o Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta
3. Miss Deepali Gupta, D/o Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta
All R/o H.No.H427, Sarojni Nagar, New Delhi. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Kailash Mandal S/o Sh. Abal Mandal
R/o Vill. Majhauli, Benibad, PS Gaighat,
Distt. Muzaffar Nagar, Bihar ... Driver
2. Smt. Madhuri Devi W/o Sh. Jitender Kumar
R/o H.No.D78, Shiv Durga Vihar, Faridabad, Haryana
Also at : H.No.163, Pocket "C" Sarita Vihar, New Delhi. ... Owner
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.
Off. Shop No.102, Ist Floor, DDA Market,
J&K Block, Dilshad Garden, New Delhi95. ... Insurer
... Respondents
MAC Petitions No.213/12 & 214/12 Arun Kumar Gupta V/s. Kailash Kumar Mandal & Ors. Page : 1/18
MAC PETITION NO. 213/12
UNIQUE CASE I.D. NO. 02402C025672012
Arun Kumar Gupta S/o Sh. Late Sh. Brij Mohan
R/o H.No.H427, Sarojni Nagar, New Delhi. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Kailash Mandal S/o Sh. Abal Mandal
R/o Vill. Majhauli, Benibad, PS Gaighat,
Distt. Muzaffar Nagar, Bihar ... Driver
2. Smt. Madhuri Devi W/o Sh. Jitender Kumar
R/o H.No.D78, Shiv Durga Vihar, Faridabad, Haryana
Also at : H.No.163, Pocket "C" Sarita Vihar, New Delhi. ... Owner
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.
Off. Shop No.102, Ist Floor, DDA Market,
J&K Block, Dilshad Garden, New Delhi95. ... Insurer
... Respondents
Date of Institution : 29.05.2012
Order reserved on : 05.09.2014
Announced on : 12.09.2014
J U D G M E N T
1. By a common judgment, I am disposing of the afore mentioned two MAC Petitions No. 214/12 & 213/12 filed by petitioners. In MAC No. 214/12, petitioners have claimed compensation for the fatal injuries sustained by MAC Petitions No.213/12 & 214/12 Arun Kumar Gupta V/s. Kailash Kumar Mandal & Ors. Page : 2/18 Smt. Indu Bala Gupta in a road accident dated 01.05.2012. In MAC No. 213/12, petitioner Arun Kumar Gupta suffered grievous injuries.
2. The facts briefly stated are that on 01.05.2012 at 05:30 AM, Smt. Indu Bala Gupta was sitting on Scooter bearing registration No. DL7SQ2777 as pillion rider, which was driven by her husband Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta. Suddenly, a Maruti Wagon R Car bearing No. HR51AJ0396 driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, hit the scooter from behind with forceful impact. The couple fell down and was taken to GTB Hospital. Smt. Indubal Gupta succumbed to her injuries. A case FIR no. 125/12 at PS Vivek Vihar was registered under Section 279/337/304A IPC against the Respondent no. 1.
3. In MAC No. 213/12, Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta, who was driving the scooter, suffered grievous injuries in the accident.
4. The respondent no.1 is the driver, respondent no.2 is the owner and respondent no.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. It is stated that they all are jointly and severally liable to make the payment of compensation to the petitioners.
5. The respondents no. 1 & 2 filed joint Written Statement in which they stated that the accident had not taken place due to the rashness or negligence of the offending vehicle; that respondent no.1 was falsely implicated by the police in the accident. The respondent no. 3 has not MAC Petitions No.213/12 & 214/12 Arun Kumar Gupta V/s. Kailash Kumar Mandal & Ors. Page : 3/18 filed the Written Statement.
6. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor on 02.07.2013 in MAC No. 214/12 :
1.Whether petitioners prove that they are the LRs of deceased Smt. Indu Bala Gupta?
2. Whether petitioners prove that Smt. Indu Bala Gupta suffered fatal injuries in road side accident on 01.05.2012 including vehicle No. HR51AJ0396 driven allegedly in a rash and negligent manner by R1?
3. To what amount of compensation, if any, the petitioners are entitled to and from whom?
4. Relief.
Following issues were framed in MAC No. 213/12 :
1. Whether petitioner suffered injuries in road side accident on 01.05.2012 involving vehicle bearing No. HR51AJ0396 being driven allegedly in a rash and negligent manner by R1?
2. To what amount of compensation, if any, the petitioner is entitled to and from whom?
3. Relief.
7. In MAC No.214/12, Petitioner no.1 examined himself as PW1 and filed his affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon the documents i.e. DL as Ex.PW1/1, copies of education documents of his daughters as Ex.PW1/2, ration card and voter I card of petitioners as Ex.PW1/3 (colly.), education documents of deceased Smt. Indu Bala as Ex.PW1/4, receipt Ex.PW1/5, MAC Petitions No.213/12 & 214/12 Arun Kumar Gupta V/s. Kailash Kumar Mandal & Ors. Page : 4/18 death certificate of deceased as Ex.PW1/6, voter I Card and PAN Card of deceased as Ex.PW1/7 and attested Criminal Case Record as Ex.PW1/8 (colly.).
8. In MAC No.213/12, petitioner examined himself as PW1 and filed his affidavit Ex.PW1/X. He relied upon the documents i.e. Attested Criminal Case Record as Ex.PW1/A (colly.), original physiotherapy bills of Rs.
4,000/ as Ex.PW1/B, Emergency Certificate issued from MAX Hospital as Ex.PW1/C, treatment record and medical bills as Ex.PW1/D, medial bills amounting to Rs.50,411/ as Ex.PW1/E and Certificate issued from his office regarding bills of treatment as Ex.PW1/F. Petitioner also examined PW2 Sh. P.C. Dalakoti, Administrative Officer of his office India Meteorological Department, who brought the documents i.e. leave record of petitioner as Ex.PW2/1, computerized attested record of salary slips for the month of May 2012 to August 2012 as Ex.PW2/2 (colly.), original bills of petitioner submitted to the office for reimbursement as Ex.PW2/3 (colly.). He deposed that petitioner submitted bills amounting to Rs.73,075/ out of which, the office only passed the bills of Rs.35,252/ and remaining balance amount of Rs.37,823/ was not reimbursed. Respondents have not examined any witness in support of their case.
9. I have heard Ld. Counsel for parties, perused the entire material carefully in the light of relevant statutory provisions of law, my findings on the MAC Petitions No.213/12 & 214/12 Arun Kumar Gupta V/s. Kailash Kumar Mandal & Ors. Page : 5/18 issues are as follows : ISSUE NO.1 (IN MAC NO.214/12) :
Whether petitioners prove that they are the LRs of deceased Smt. Indu Bala Gupta?
10.In order to decide this issue, the statement of PW1 Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta, husband of deceased Smt. Indu Bala is important. In support of his testimony, he has produced the ration card, voter I card of all petitioners as Ex.PW1/4 (colly.) voter I card and PAN Card of deceased as Ex.PW1/7 (colly.). His testimony is corroborated by the DAR filed by IO wherein the names of all the petitioners have been specified as legal representatives of deceased. On the other hand, no evidence contrary to the testimony of PW1 has been brought on record by respondents. In such circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW1. This issue is decided accordingly.
FOLLOWING ISSUES ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER :
IN MAC NO.214/12 :
Whether petitioners prove that Smt. Indu Bala Gupta suffered fatal injuries in road side accident on 01.05.2012 including vehicle No. HR51AJ0396 driven allegedly in a rash and negligent manner by R1?
MAC Petitions No.213/12 & 214/12 Arun Kumar Gupta V/s. Kailash Kumar Mandal & Ors. Page : 6/18 IN MAC NO.213/12 :
Whether petitioner suffered injuries in road side accident on 01.05.2012 involving vehicle bearing No. HR51 AJ0396 being driven allegedly in a rash and negligent manner by R1?
11.In MAC No.213/12, PW1 Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta by way of affidavit stated that on 01.05.2012 at 05:30 AM, his wife Indu Bala Gupta was sitting as pillion rider on a Scooter, driven by him. A Maruti Wagon R Car bearing No. HR51AJ0396 driven by respondent no.1 at a high speed, hit the scooter from behind with a forceful impact, due to which they both fell down and sustained injuries. This Court has looked into the criminal case record, mechanical inspection report as well as Chargesheet. The FIR was registered on the statement of Raj Kumar Jindal, Maternal Soninlaw of deceased, who was also coming on his motorcycle behind the Scooter. The family was coming after attending a wedding. The facts are corroborated by IO of the case who had conducted the investigation in the matter. In Ranu Bala Paul & Ors. v. Bani Chakraborty & Ors.1999 ACJ 634, the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court has observed as under :
"..... 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 MAC Petitions No.213/12 & 214/12 Arun Kumar Gupta V/s. Kailash Kumar Mandal & Ors. Page : 7/18 evidence, but in a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal the standard of 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 the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vijay Laxmi & Ors. MAC APP. No. 375/06 dated 05.07.12, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as under :
"8. In Bimla Devi and Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors., (2009) 13 SC 530, the Supreme Court held that in a petition under Section 166 of the Act, the Claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition under the Motor Vehicles Act. Para 15 of the report is extracted hereunder :
"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
13.The report in Bimla Devi (Supra) was relied on by the Hon'ble Supreme MAC Petitions No.213/12 & 214/12 Arun Kumar Gupta V/s. Kailash Kumar Mandal & Ors. Page : 8/18 Court in its latest judgments in Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand (2011) 11 SCC 635 and Kusum Lata v. Satbir, (2011) 3 SCC 646."
14.In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana & Ors. : 2009 ACJ 287, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that :
"..... On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced: (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No.955 of 2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle; (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of chargesheet under Sections 279/304A, Indian Penal Code against the driver; (iii) certified copy of F.I.R., wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of the driver".
15.In MAC No.213/12, petitioner Arun Kumar Gupta deposed that he was driving the Scooter when accident happened. He sustained grievous injuries after his scooter was hit by the offending car. In the case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamlesh : 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310, an adverse inference was drawn because the driver of the offending vehicle had not appeared in the witness box to corroborate MAC Petitions No.213/12 & 214/12 Arun Kumar Gupta V/s. Kailash Kumar Mandal & Ors. Page : 9/18 his defence taken in the written statement. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners had any enmity with the driver of offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate him in the case.
16.The issue thus stands decided in favour of petitioners holding that the accident happened as a result of negligent driving by respondent no.1.
1. ISSUE NO.3 :
To what amount of compensation, if any, the petitioners are entitled to and from whom?
17.In MAC No.214/12, PW1 Arun Kumar Gupta deposed that his wife was taken to the GTB Hospital. The injuries had proved fatal to her. As per PM Report of GTB Hospital, the cause of death is shown as 'shock as a result of antemortem injuries to head produced by blunt force impact with all injuries are recent in duration'. PW1 stated that deceased was a Graduate and engaged in Handicrafts/Painting Business. She was running the said business from her house and was earning around Rs.
15,000/ per month. She was an income tax payee. However, in the absence of any record in respect of the job or avocation of deceased, the minimum wages prevalent for Graduate as on the date of accident can be taken into consideration. Thus, monthly income is taken as Rs.9,282/. As per PAN Card of deceased, her Date of Birth is 08.01.1961. She was 51 years of age as on date of accident.
MAC Petitions No.213/12 & 214/12 Arun Kumar Gupta V/s. Kailash Kumar Mandal & Ors. Page : 10/18
18.In the judgment of "Royal Sunderam Alliance Insurance Company & Ors. Vs. Master Manmeet Singh & Ors. decided on 30.01.2012 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it was held that the loss of dependency on account of gratuitous services rendered by a housewife shall be taken as minimum wages as per the qualification of deceased with no addition where the age of the home maker is more than 50 years. Turning to the facts of present case, accident took place on 01.05.2012. Deceased was 51 years of age and was a Graduate. In view of judgment rendered in Amrit Bhanushali & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. decided on 04.04.2012 by Hon'ble Apex Court; in Mohd. Hasnain & Ors. Vs. Jayram Meena & Ors. and in "Cholamandalam General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Issak Khan & Ors. (both decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 24.03.2014 and 26.03.2014 respectively), while assessing the dependency, the age of deceased is to be taken for selecting the correct multiplier. The multiplier applicable would be 11. The loss of dependency would be Rs.(9,282.00 x 12 x 11) which comes to Rs. 12,25,224/.
19.The petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ towards loss of love and affection, Rs.1,00,000/ towards loss of Consortium, Rs.10,000/ towards Loss of Estate, Rs.25,000/ towards funeral expenses. MAC Petitions No.213/12 & 214/12 Arun Kumar Gupta V/s. Kailash Kumar Mandal & Ors. Page : 11/18
20.The petitioners are entitled for the total amount of compensation towards all the heads, which is as follows : S.No. On Account of Amount (Rs.) 1 Loss of dependency Rs.12,25,224.00 2 Loss of Love and affection Rs. 1,00,000.00 3 Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,00,000.00 4 Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000.00 5 Funeral Expenses Rs. 25,000.00 Total Rs.14,60,224.00 I accordingly award an amount of compensation of Rs.14,60,224/ in favour of petitioners and against respondents.
IN MAC NO.213/12 :
21.In the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr., MANU/SC/1018/2010, Civil Appeal No. 8981/2010 decided on 18.10.2010, following principles were laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for determining compensation payable to road traffic accident victims :
i) The compensation payable to the petitioner who is a victim of road accident should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the petitioner to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equatable manner.
ii) Compensation payable in injury cases is payable under two MAC Petitions No.213/12 & 214/12 Arun Kumar Gupta V/s. Kailash Kumar Mandal & Ors. Page : 12/18 heads. They are pecuniary damages (special damages) and non pecuniary damages. Pecuniary damages have three sub heads which are : (i) expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) (a) Loss of earning (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising of loss of earning during the period of treatment and (b) loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability (iii) Future medical expenses. Nonpecuniary damages (General Damage) are (iv) damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of injuries (v) loss of amenities and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and (vi) loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
iii) In routine personal injury cases compensation is awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the petitioner, that compensation is granted under any of the heads (ii) (b), (iii) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospectus of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
22.Soon after the accident, Arun Kumar, Petitioner was taken to GTB Hospital and thereafter shifted to Max Hospital and was admitted there. He sustained fracture left clavicle, scalp wounds over right frontal region/scalp laceration. Considering the overall circumstances, the nature of injuries and the period of treatment, the petitioner is awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/ for pain and suffering.
23.As per Ex.PW2/3, petitioner has submitted bills of Rs.73,075/ to his MAC Petitions No.213/12 & 214/12 Arun Kumar Gupta V/s. Kailash Kumar Mandal & Ors. Page : 13/18 office out of which, the bills of Rs.32,252/ were reimbursed and the remaining balance amount of Rs.37,823/ is claimed by him. Besides, he underwent physiotherapy from 26.6.2012 to 3.7.2012 from Ash's Physiotherapy Services. Thus he is awarded an amount of Rs.37,823/ and Rs.4,000/ for Cost of Treatment/physiotherapy.
24.Petitioner stated that he was working as Assistant Meteorologist Gr.II in India Meteorological Department, Office of The Director General of Meteorology. Petitioner availed some leaves in the form of Earned Leaves and Commuted leaves from 1.5.2012 to 31.12.2012 but there is no deduction of these leaves from his salary. The income of the petitioner is shown as Rs.30,096/ for the month of May 2012. Because of the injuries, he had to be on leave for a period of two months for getting treatment. Thus, he was constrained to apply for leave. The fact that he has received salary for this period is not a ground to contend that he is not entitled to get compensation for loss of earnings for this period. (B. Anandhi V/s. R. Latha & Anr. 2002 ACJ 233, Decided on 31.08.2001) With the kind of injuries suffered, he is entitled for loss of wages for a period of two months. He is awarded compensation for two months i.e. Rs.60,000/ for Loss of Wages.
25.A victim of an accident has to be compensated in terms of money even if MAC Petitions No.213/12 & 214/12 Arun Kumar Gupta V/s. Kailash Kumar Mandal & Ors. Page : 14/18 gratuitous services are rendered by a family member. In Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Lalita, AIR 1981 Delhi 558, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that there cannot be any deduction if domestic help is obtained from a family member. This judgment was again relied upon by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Narayan Bahadur v. Sumeet Gupta and Anr., MAC APP.No.762/11 dated 04.07.12. Therefore, on a lumpsum basis, the petitioner is awarded a compensation of Rs.7,000/ as Attendant's Charges.
26.The petitioner is also awarded compensation of Rs.7,000/ towards Special Diet and Rs.7,000/ for Conveyance Charges. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, I consider the following amount to be the just compensation to the petitioner :
1 Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000.00 2 Towards servant/attendant charges Rs. 7,000.00 3 Towards conveyance and special diet (without bills) Rs. 14,000.00 4 Towards medical bills Rs. 41,823.00 5 Towards loss of Wages for two months Rs. 60,000.00 Total = Rs.1,72,823.00 Therefore, in my opinion the petitioner is entitled to Rs.1,72,823/ which shall be the just compensation to him.
MAC Petitions No.213/12 & 214/12 Arun Kumar Gupta V/s. Kailash Kumar Mandal & Ors. Page : 15/18 LIABILITY
27.There being no evidence to support the defence U/s. 149(2) of the M.V. Act, no case is made out for granting the recovery rights to the respondent no.3. Therefore, respondent no.3/Insurance Company shall make good the compensation in terms of the accepted policy.
RELIEF IN MAC NO.214/12 :
28.The respondent no.3 is liable to pay compensation of Rs.14,60,224/ (inclusive of interim compensation) to the petitioners within one month. Following the judgment of Smt. Bishekha Devi & Anr. Vs. Mohd. Afsar & Ors. MAC. APP. 1087/2012 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the respondent No.3 shall also pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioners. The amount be deposited by the Company in UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts Complex, Delhi, in the name of Court.
29.Out of total amount of award, Rs.1,60,224/ shall be released to the petitioner no.1 Arun Kumar Gupta (husband of deceased) forthwith.
30.An amount of Rs.4,00,000/ in the name of petitioner no.1 shall be kept in two FDRs for a period of one to five years with release of periodical interest to him.
31.Remaining amount of Award shall be awarded to petitioners no.2 and 3 MAC Petitions No.213/12 & 214/12 Arun Kumar Gupta V/s. Kailash Kumar Mandal & Ors. Page : 16/18 and the same be kept in two equal FDRs for a period of one to three years with release of periodical interest to them.
32.The interest on the aforesaid Fixed Deposits shall be paid monthly by Automatic Credit of Interest in the Savings Account of petitioners.
33.Withdrawal from the said Account shall be permitted to petitioners after due verification and Bank shall issue Photo Identity Card to petitioners to facilitate Identity.
34.The original Fixed Deposit Receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, original Passbook shall be given to the petitioner / beneficiary with photocopy of FDRs. On expiry of period of each FDR, the Bank shall automatically credit the maturity amount in Savings Account of beneficiaries.
35.No loan, advance, withdrawal shall be allowed on the said FDRs without permission of this court.
36.Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this court.
37.On request of petitioner, Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch.
RELIEF IN MAC NO. 213/12 :
38.The respondent no.3 is liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,72,823/ to the petitioner Arun Kumar Gupta within one month alongwith interest @ 9% MAC Petitions No.213/12 & 214/12 Arun Kumar Gupta V/s. Kailash Kumar Mandal & Ors. Page : 17/18 p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of DAR Claim till realization to him.
39.The award amount alongwith interest be deposited by respondent no. 3/Insurance Company, within 30 days in the court. In case, even after passage of 90 days from today, the Insurance Company fails to deposit this compensation with proportionate interest, in that event, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal, 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of the Insurance Company with a cost of Rs.10,000/.
List for reporting compliance on 27.10.2014.
Announced in the open court Dated :12th September, 2014 (MS. RAVINDER BEDI) PRESIDING OFFICER MACT (EAST) DISTT COURTS/DELHI.
MAC Petitions No.213/12 & 214/12 Arun Kumar Gupta V/s. Kailash Kumar Mandal & Ors. Page : 18/18 MAC No.: 213/12 & 214/12 12.09.2014 Present : Ld. Counsel for parties.
Vide separate common judgment announced in open court today, both petitions stand allowed in the manner indicated thereunder.
The respondent no.3 is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 14,60,224/ (inclusive of interim compensation) to the petitioners within one month. Following the judgment of Smt. Bishekha Devi & Anr. Vs. Mohd. Afsar & Ors. MAC. APP. 1087/2012 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the respondent No.3 shall also pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioners. The amount be deposited by the Company in UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts Complex, Delhi, in the name of Court.
Out of total amount of award, Rs.1,60,224/ shall be released to the petitioner no.1 Arun Kumar Gupta (husband of deceased) forthwith.
An amount of Rs.4,00,000/ in the name of petitioner no.1 shall be kept in two FDRs for a period of one to five years with release of periodical interest to him.
Remaining amount of Award shall be awarded to petitioners no.2 and 3 and the same be kept in two equal FDRs for a period of one to three years with release of periodical interest to them.
The interest on the aforesaid Fixed Deposits shall be paid monthly by Automatic Credit of Interest in the Savings Account of petitioners.
Withdrawal from the said Account shall be permitted to petitioners after due verification and Bank shall issue Photo Identity Card to petitioners to facilitate Identity.
The original Fixed Deposit Receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, original Passbook shall be given to the petitioner / MAC Petitions No.213/12 & 214/12 Arun Kumar Gupta V/s. Kailash Kumar Mandal & Ors. Page : 19/18 beneficiary with photocopy of FDRs. On expiry of period of each FDR, the Bank shall automatically credit the maturity amount in Savings Account of beneficiaries.
No loan, advance, withdrawal shall be allowed on the said FDRs without permission of this court.
Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this court.
On request of petitioner, Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch.
RELIEF IN MAC NO. 213/12 :
The respondent no.3 is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 1,72,823/ to the petitioner Arun Kumar Gupta within one month alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of DAR Claim till realization to him.
The award amount alongwith interest be deposited by respondent no.3/Insurance Company, within 30 days in the court. In case, even after passage of 90 days from today, the Insurance Company fails to deposit this compensation with proportionate interest, in that event, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal, 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of the Insurance Company with a cost of Rs.10,000/.
List for reporting compliance on 27.10.2014.
(MS. RAVINDER BEDI) PO MACT (EAST)/KKD./DELHI/12.08.2014 MAC Petitions No.213/12 & 214/12 Arun Kumar Gupta V/s. Kailash Kumar Mandal & Ors. Page : 20/18