Delhi District Court
Delhi vs Sh. Nar Singh S/O Sh. Gopi Ram on 28 August, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. REKHA RANI : JUDGE : MACT :
DELHI
MACT No. : 219/08
UNIQUE ID NO. : 02404C0041912009
1 Smt Rajvati Devi W/o Late Sh. Shish Pal Singh
2 Smt. Babbli W/o Sh. Dharmender
3 Km. Babita D/o Late Sh. Shish Pal Singh
4 Km. Rajani D/o Late Sh. Shish Pal Singh
5 Master Mohit S/o Late Sh. Shish Pal Singh
6 Master Pawan Kumar S/o Late Sh. Shish Pal Singh
7 Smt. Basanti Devi M/o Late Sh. Shish Pal Singh
All R/o Village - Usrah Rasulpur,
Post Jattari, PS Tappal,
Tehsil Kher, District Aligarh U.P.
.........Petitioners
Versus
1 Sh. Nar Singh S/o Sh. Gopi Ram
R/o Ragha Badi, Rajgarh,Churu, Rajasthan.
............ Driver
2 M/s Vijay Logistics (P) Ltd.
Through its Director Sh. Ravinder Singh Dhaka
S/o Sh. Ram Mehat
At : Plot No. 511, Akash Vihar,
Nangloi, Najafgarh Road,
SUIT NO. 219/08 1/24
Delhi - 110041.
Branch Office : Village Bakarwara
Nangloi, Delhi 110041.
Also at : Plot No. 42 V.P.O.,
Sudana, District Rohtak,
Haryana.
.......... Owner
3 Reliance General Insurance
Agency Code : 293518
Branch Office : Palm Court,
G.F. 4 & 5 Sector 14,
Gurgaon, Haryana.
Regd. Office : Reliance Center
19, Walchand Hirachand Marg,
Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400 001.
......Ins. Co.
.......Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 29.07.08
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 26.07.12
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.08.12
A W A R D
1 In re: Mediana (1900) AC 113, Lord Halsbury, L. C.
Observed
"How is anybody to measure pain and suffering in moneys counted? Nobody can suggest that you can by arithmetical SUIT NO. 219/08 2/24 calculation establish what is the exact sum of money which would represent such a thing as the pain and suffering which a person has undergone by reason of an accident......But nevertheless the law recognises that as a topic upon which damages may be given."
(Quoted by Apex Court in R. K. Malik Vs. Kiran Pal 2009 ACJ 1924 at P 1930) Undoubtedly it is extremely difficult to quantify the compensation as the pain suffered on account of loss of human life is incalculable but as observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in R. K. Malik (Supra) that could not be a ground for nonpayment of any compensation. Only a humble attempt can be made to put soothing balm over the wounds of the bereaved kith and kin. 2 A petition U/s 166 read with Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act (in short the Act) was filed by legal representatives of deceased Shish pal Singh who died in road accident claiming an amount of Rs.45 lacs as compensation from respondent No. 1 (in short R1) who was driving the offending truck and from respondent no. 2 (in short R 2) who owned the said vehicle and respondent no. 3 (in short R3) insurer of the said vehicle pleading that On 26.5.2008 at about 5.00 PM deceased alongwith his SUIT NO. 219/08 3/24 brother namely Devi Charan after discharging their duty were going to their house at Durga Colony, Rohtak, Haryana on Vespa scooter bearing No. HR14A3521. The scooter was being driven by the deceased and Devi Charan was pillion rider. When they reached Hafed Chowk, Rohtak, Haryana a TATA 409 truck bearing No. HR46D1563, came from behind the scooter which was driven by R1 rashly and negligently and hit the scooter from behind. The deceased fell down on the road and the offending truck crushed his head and he died. The driver of the offending truck fled from the spot. The deceased was taken to PSIMS District Govt. Hospital where he was declared brought dead.
The deceased was working with M/s Micron Precision Screws Ltd. At 8th Mile Stone, Delhi Road, Rohtak, Haryana and was earning Rs.12,500/ + Bonus + PF and Rs.3,000/ over time every month. His legal representatives were totally dependent upon him. 3 R1 and R2 filed joint written statement. It is stated that a false FIR was registered against R1 as he did not cause any accident. He never drove the truck rashly and negligently and never hit the scooter of the deceased. It is also stated that he was having valid and effective driving license and the vehicle is insured with R3. It is SUIT NO. 219/08 4/24 denied that petitioners are entitled to any compensation from them. 4 R3 (Insurer) also filed reply. It is stated that respondent is not liable to pay any amount in case the driving license of the driver at the time of accident is not found to be valid as per terms of policy. It is also stated that insurer company will also not liable to pay in case permit is not found to be valid on the day. However, it is admitted that the offending vehicle was insured on the date of accident. It is denied that the petitioners are entitled to any compensation. 5 This reply was therefore "play it safe" reply. Attitude of insurers to "deny everything await the award syndrome" was deprecated by Karnataka High Court in Ramakrishana Reddy Vs. Manager, HMT Ltd., 2003 ACJ 105, as under :
"We may also at this stage refer to the pernicious habit of some branches of insurance companies in filling stereotyped written statements denying all and everything. They routinely deny the insurance, then alternatively plead that even if there was an insurance, there was a breach of terms of the policy, that driver did not have a valid driving licence, and lastly there was no negligence on the part of driver of the insured vehicle. They do not bother to verify whether the insurance policy covered the risk or not and whether driver had a SUIT NO. 219/08 5/24 licence or not. We recognize that insurers are sometime handicapped for want of full information, while giving instructions to their counsel and, therefore, the objections may be general in nature. We are also conscious that we cannot frown upon a party taking all permissible defences. But, applications for motor accident claims are not to be treated by insurers as normal private adversary litigation, their technical contentions can abound in pleadings and the sole intention is winning the lis. Under the policies of insurance, the insurers discharge statutory obligations towards third parties. They should do so keeping in view the objection and spirit of the Act, and the position of hapless victims of motor accidents. Insurers should balance their concerned to safeguard its financial interest with their obligations as instruments of social justice, under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The claimants are not litigants by choice, but are constrained to approach the Tribunal, because of death of the bread winner or injury to self, and because the owner and insurer of the vehicle involved, fail to pay the compensation. The insurer should bear in mind that the claimants are also handicapped in obtaining particulars of the insurance policy held by owner or driving licence held by the driver of the vehicle, and they solely depend upon the SUIT NO. 219/08 6/24 police for these particulars. The insurer should, therefore, verify whether there was any insurance policy or not, whether the insured was covered by insurance policy in regard to the claim or not, and whether the driver had a licence or not before filing its statement of objections and narrow down the area of controversy. If the insurers were to file " play it safe' written statements, without verifying these aspects and mechanically denying all petition averments, the trial gets delayed and the claimants are put to misery and injustly kept away from the direly needed compensation. It is time that insurers get rid of "deny everything await the award syndrome" and become responsible and responsive opponents in motor accident claims. We make it clear that the above observations are intended only for those officers of insurance companies who refuse to recognise their statutory obligations to third parties, under the insurance policies issued to the insured.
6 Ex. PW1/18 is copy of driving licence of R1 vide which he is licensed to drive LMV & HTV w.e.f. 23.12.02 to 22.12.22 (other than transport vehicle) and from 05.04.07 to 04.04.10 (transport vehicle.
Ex. PW1/19 is the copy of permit of the offending SUIT NO. 219/08 7/24 vehicle. During settlement process before Judge Lok Adalat R3 had in fact sought time for verification of salary of deceased and driving licence of driver of offending vehicle. R3 made no efforts to prove that driving licence or permit was not valid. (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Kumar 2012 ACJ 1268 relied) In Swaran Singh 2004 ACJ 1 Apex Court made it amply clear that breach of policy condition as envisaged u/s 149 (2) (a) has to be proved by the insurer.
7 R3 without bothering to verify the validity of driving licence of R1 or permit of offending vehicle denied its liability. May be for this reason keeping in view such vague reply my ld. Predecessor did not frame any specific issue on this point and framed only following issues :
(1)Whether on 26.05.08 at about 5.00 PM at Hafed Chowk, Civil Lines, truck No. HR46D1563 which was being driven rashly and negligently hit scooter No. HR14A3521 on which deceased Shish pal was riding and caused his death? OPP (2)Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP (3)Relief.
SUIT NO. 219/08 8/24
8 Devi Charan brother of the deceased appeared in the witness box as PW1. Widow of the deceased was examined as PW2. Sh. R. K. Gaur Personal Manager, Micron Precision Screws Ltd., was examined as PW3 and thereafter petitioners closed their evidence. 9 Respondents did not lead any evidence.
10 I have perused the material placed on record and heard Sh. R. C. Anand Advocate for the petitioners and Sh. Ravi Kumar Advocate for R3.
ISSUE NO. 1 11 It has to be borne in mind that Motor Vehicles Act does not stipulate holding a trial for petition preferred under section 166 of the Act. Under Section 168 of the Act, a Claims Tribunal holds an inquiry to determine compensation which must appear to it to be just. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. In State of Mysore Vs. S.S. Makapur, 1993 (2) SCR 943. Hon'ble Apex Court held " that tribunal exercising quasijudicial functions are not courts and that therefore they are not bound to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of actions in courts nor are they bound by strict rules of evidence. They can unlike courts, obtain all information for SUIT NO. 219/08 9/24 the points under the enquiry from all sources and through all channels, without being fettered by rules and procedure, which govern proceedings in court. The only obligation which the law casts on them is that they should not act on any information which they may receive unless they put it to the party against whom it is to be used and give him a fair opportunity to explain it. What is a fair opportunity depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but where such an opportunity has been given, the proceedings are not open to attack on the ground that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the procedure followed in courts"
12 In Bimla Devi and ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors (2009) 13 SC 530, Supreme Court held that " In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary 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 Judgment Bimla Devi (supra) was relied on by SUIT NO. 219/08 10/24 Supreme Court in its latest judgments in Parmeswari Vs. Amir Chand, (2011) 11 SCC 635 and Kusum Lata Vs. Satbir (2011) 3 SCC 646. Kaushnuma Begum & Ors Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Appeal (Civil) 6 of 2001: Special Leave Petition (Civil) 1431 of 2000 decided on 2nd July 2012.
14 In Kaushnuma Begum (Supra) the vehicle involved in the accident was a jeep which capsized while it was in motion allegedly due to bursting of the front tyre of the jeep and in the process of capsizing the vehicle hit a pedestrian who was walking on the road and subsequently that pedestrian succumbed to the injuries sustained in that accident.
The Tribunal dismissed the claim for compensation holding that there was neither rashness nor negligence in driving the vehicle and hence the driver was not liable and accordingly the owner had no vicarious liability to pay compensation to dependents of the victim of a motor accident. High Court of Allahabad dismissed the appeal saying that there was no error in the Tribunal's order. In special leave petition Apex Court, however, allowed the claim. 15 In National Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Ors. Decided on 20th December, 2007. Hon'ble Delhi SUIT NO. 219/08 11/24 High Court observed that "The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Meena Variyal. On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced (1) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No. 955/2001, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under Section 279/304A, IPC against the driver,
(iii) certified copy of FIR, 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 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." 16 In N.K. V. Brothers (P) Ltd Vs M. Karumal Ammal, AIR SUIT NO. 219/08 12/24 1980 SC 1354 Supreme Court has reminded the Claim Tribunals stating as follows:
" Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, specially, when truck and bus driver 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 bases on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitar. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here and 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".
17 Now keeping in view the fact that negligence is not required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt in an inquiry U/s 166 of the Act as is expected to be done in a Criminal Trial, let evidence on record be analysed on the touchstone of preponderance of probability as per the aforesaid law.
18 Devi Charan as PW1 stated that he alongwith his elder brother Shish Pal Singh after discharging their duty were going to SUIT NO. 219/08 13/24 their house at Durga Colony, Rohtak, Haryana on a Vespa Scooter No. HR14A3521 Shish Pal was driving the scooter and he himself was a pillion rider. He further deposed that when they reached Hafed Chowk, Rohtak, Haryana a TATA 409 bearing No. HR46D1563 came from behind the scooter, which was being driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently and it hit the scooter from behind. He alongwith his brother fell down. His brother was crushed and he died on the spot. It is further stated that driver of the offending vehicle ran away from the spot. Further it is stated that police recorded his statement and registered FIR Ex.PW1/1. It is further stated that dead body of the deceased was taken to General Hospital, Rohtak where his postmortem was conducted which is Ex.PW1/4 consisting of six pages. The criminal court record was also tendered in his evidence. 19 R1 denied that he was driving the offending vehicle rashly or negligently or hit the scooter of the deceased from behind. He even disputed that he was driving the offending truck on the date of accident. R2 who is owner of the vehicle did not state as to who else if not R1 was driving the offending vehicle on the date of accident. The seizure memo Ex.PW1/8 shows that R1 handed over registration certificate, insurance of the offending truck alongwith his SUIT NO. 219/08 14/24 driving licence to the IO.
20 Plan of site of accident was proved as Ex.PW1/6 which shows the dead body of deceased Shish Pal lying at the extreme end of the left side of the road. Devi Charan PW1 is an eye witness. Ld. Counsel on behalf of the driver cross examined him. It was suggested to him that he was not an eye witness. It was also suggested to him that accident was caused due to negligence of the deceased himself. It was further suggested to him that deceased was driving the scooter at fast speed. There is no cross examination of the complainant regarding the manner in which the accident took place. It is not denied that the offending truck came from behind the scooter and crushed the head of the deceased and thereby caused his death. R1 himself did not appear in witness box to clarify as to how head of deceased was crushed under the wheels of the offending truck. 21 Certified copy of FIR, copy of report u/s 173 Cr. PC depicted the manner of accident which was supported by site plan, R1 himself did not adduce any evidence to rebut documentary evidence. He has not given any explanation as to why he was prosecuted in the criminal case.
22 In view of documentary evidence in the form of record of SUIT NO. 219/08 15/24 criminal case namely Certified copy of FIR (Ex.PW1/1), Certified copy of report U/S 173 Cr. PC (Ex.PW1/2), Certified copy of postmortem report (Ex.PW1/4), Certified copy of site plan (Ex.PW1/6), Certified copy of seizure memo (Ex.PW1/8) and in view of testimony of eye witness PW1, it is reasonable to infer that Shishpal died on account of his scooter bearing No. HR14A3521 being hit by truck No. HR46D1563 which was being driven by R1 rashly and negligently.
23 Issue no. 1 is thus decided in favour of petitioners and against R1.
ISSUE NO. 2 QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION 24 Widow of the deceased appeared in the witness box as PW2. She deposed that her husband was an employee on a salary of Rs.12,500/ per month.
25 PW3 R. K. Gaur is Personal Manager, Micron Precision Screws Ltd. He deposed that Shish Pal Singh deceased was working as a Header Setter with the said concern w.e.f. 14.12.06. It is further stated that he was getting salary of Rs.9,000/ at the time of appointment and his last drawn salary was Rs.12,500/. It was also SUIT NO. 219/08 16/24 stated that he was promoted as Supervisor and he proved the appointment letter and salary certificate. Appointment letter is Ex.PW3/3 dated 14.12.06 vide which deceased was appointed as Header Operator at gross salary of Rs.9,000/ per month and Ex.PW3/4 is his salary slip dated 09.07.08 showing his salary at Rs. 12,500/ as Forging Supervisor. Ex. PW1/25 is wages slip dated 05.04.08 for the month of March, 2008 which again shows his wages as Rs.12,500/ and he was paid Rs.10,851/ after deduction towards provident fund, welfare fund and ESI. So his last drawn wages was Rs.12,500/ per month. It was suggested to the witness that deceased was not getting Rs.12,500/ per month as salary. Ex.PW1/26 is the original certificate issued on the letter head of Micron Precision Screws Ltd. and reads that Shish pal was drawing a salary of Rs. 12,500/ per month in cash and was working as Forging Supervisor. PW3 who is an employee of the said concern was never confronted with this document. Accident took place on 26.05.08 so it is reasonable to infer that deceased's salary was Rs.12,500/ per month on the date of accident.
26 In Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. DTC & Another:Civil Appeal No. 3483 of 2008 vide its order dated 15.04.09 Hon'ble Apex Court SUIT NO. 219/08 17/24 observed that future prospects of advancement in life and occupation should also be calculated in terms of money to augment the annual contribution of the dependents if the deceased had permanent job the court can take note of the prospects of the future and that it will be unreasonable to estimate the loss of dependency on the actual income of the deceased at the time of death.
In Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., (Civil appeal No. 3723 of 2012 arising out of SLP (C No. 24489 of 2010) Hon'ble Apex Court on 23.04.12 granted 30% addition towards future prospects to the income of even a person who is self employed or is paid fixed wages.
27 Regarding future prospects of the deceased PW3 clearly stated that deceased was promoted as Supervisor. The salary certificate Ex.PW1/26 also shows the designation of the deceased as Supervisor in 2008 at salary of Rs.12,500/ whereas he was appointed as Header operator in 2006 on salary of Rs.9000/. So he had earned one promotion from 2006 to 2008. The letter of appointment Ex.PW1/22/ Ex.PW3/3 shows the age of retirement of the deceased at the age of 58 years, It is not even disputed that deceased was not having a stable job.
SUIT NO. 219/08 18/24 28 Ex.PW1/27 which was not disputed shows date of birth of Shish Pal Singh as 03.05.1969. It is High School Examination Certificate. The deceased was 39 years on the date of accident. In Sarla Verma (Supra) it was observed that "We are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years."
29 50% of actual salary comes to Rs.6,250/ per month. After addition of 50% of actual salary towards future prospects his salary come to Rs.18,750/.
30 It is not disputed that deceased left behind his widow, three daughters, two sons and his widowed mother. During the course of arguments counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioner no. 2 was married at the time of death of deceased. All the legal heirs except petitioner no. 2 who is married daughter were indisputably dependent on the deceased.
31 There is no evidence that petitioner No. 2 Babbli who is married was dependent on the deceased and not on her husband. Therefore, the number of LRs dependent on the deceased were six. As SUIT NO. 219/08 19/24 per Sarla Verma (Supra), deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/4th where the dependentfamily members is 4 to 6.
32 1/4th deduction comes to Rs. 4687/50 rounded off to Rs. 4700/. Rs.4700/ is deducted as per personal and living expenses of the deceased. After such deduction the contribution to the family (dependent) is determined as Rs.14050/. The multiplier will be 15 having regard to age of the deceased at the time of death (39 years).
In Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors Vs. NIC & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3397 of 2012 vide its order dated April 04, 2012 Hon'ble Apex Court observed that "the selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of dependent. There may be number of dependents of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of dependents has no nexus with the computation of compensation."
33 Therefore, the total loss of dependency would be 14050 X 12 X 15 = 25,29,000/. In addition the claimants will be entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/ under the head of loss of estate, love and affection, Rs.5,000/ towards funeral expenses. The widow will be SUIT NO. 219/08 20/24 entitled to Rs.10,000/ as loss of consortium. Thus the total compensation will be Rs. 25,69,000/. The overall compensation awarded in tabulated hereunder :
S. N0. Compensation under Awarded amount
various heads
1 Loss of dependency Rs.25,29,000/
2 Loss of love & affection Rs. 25,000/
3 Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/
4 Funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/
Total Rs.25,69,000/
R3 is liable to satisfy the award in fulfillment of its statutory liability u/s 149 of the Act. It was submitted during the course of arguments that Babita and Rajni daughters of the deceased got married after his death and they are living with their husbands. As they were dependent on the deceased on the date of his death they are held entitled to an amount of Rs.50,000/ each. 34 Mother of the deceased Basanti Devi be given an amount SUIT NO. 219/08 21/24 of Rs. Two lacs.
35 Sons of the deceased namely Master Mohit and Master Pawan are minor children who are stated to be studying. They require major part of the amount for their upbringing and education. They are held entitled to Rs. Five lacs each.
36 In view of the guidelines issued by Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631 for appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to their ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered: 37 R3 is directed to deposit the cheques of the awarded amount with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of filing of petition to the date of deposit in Union Bank of India at 63, 1st Floor, C.S.C.II, Sector9, Rohini, Delhi through its Branch Manager in the accounts to be opened by the petitioners, within 30 days from today 31 Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the Union Bank of India at 63. 1st Floor, C. S. C.II, Sector9, Rohini, Delhi is directed to comply with the following directions: 38 Rs.50,000/ each be released to Babita and Rajni. Rs. One SUIT NO. 219/08 22/24 lac be kept in FDR for one year and Rs. 50,000/ for two years in the name of Basanti Devi. Remaining Rs.50,000/ be released to her. The amount of Rs. Five lacs each in favour of Master Mohit and Master Pawan be kept in FDRS till they attain the age of majority. Widow is held entitled to an amount of Rs.12,19,000/ (after deduction of interim award of Rs.50,000/). An amount of Rs. Ten lacs be kept in ten FDRs of Rs. One lac each. FDR of Rs. One lac for one year, FDR of Rs. One lac for two years, FDR of Rs. One lac for three years, FDR of Rs. One lac for four years, FDR of Rs. One lac for five years, FDR of Rs. One lac for six years, FDR of Rs. One lac for seven years, FDR of Rs. One lac for eight years and FDR of Rs. One lac for nine years, Rs. One lac for ten years and remaining amount of Rs.2,19,000/ be released to her. The fixed deposit on its maturity may be renewed at the discretion of the petitioner or deposited in her saving bank accounts. 39 The interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits shall be paid monthly by automatic credit of interest in the Saving Account of the petitioners.
40 The petitioners shall not be having any facility of loan or advance on these FDRs. However, in case of emergent need, they may approach this court for premature withdrawal of any amount. SUIT NO. 219/08 23/24 41 No cheque book be issued to the petitioners without the permission of this court.
42 The Bank shall issue Fixed Deposit Pass Book instead of the FDRs to the petitioners and the maturity amount of the FDRs be automatically credited to the Saving Bank Account of the beneficiaries at the end of the FDRs.
43 On the request of the petitioners, Bank shall transfer the Saving Account to any other branch according to their convenience. 44 The petitioners shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account to the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India at 63, Ist Floor, C.S.CII, Sector9, Rohini, Delhi. No joint account be opened in their names.
45 Copy of this order be given to parties for compliance. Copy of this order be also sent to Branch Manager, Union Bank of India at 63, Ist Floor, C.S.CII, Sector9, Rohini, Delhi. 46 Petition is disposed of on aforesaid terms. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (REKHA RANI)
COURT ON 28.08.2012 JUDGE/MACT:ROHINI
DELHI
SUIT NO. 219/08 24/24
SUIT NO. 219/08 25/24