Delhi District Court
Santosh Singh vs Rajender Singh & Ors. on 8 January, 2016
-::1::-
Santosh Singh vs Rajender Singh & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH.MOHINDER VIRAT
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL 1,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
SANTOSH KUMAR VS RAJENDER SINGH & ORS.
MACP NO.210/12
Sh. Santosh Kumar
S/o Sh. Dev Nath Singh
R/o L45, Gali No.39,
Sadat Pur Extension, Karawal Nagar,
Delhi110094 .........Petitioner
Through Ld.counsel Sh.R.P.Dwivedi
Mob.No. 9810517539
Versus
1. Sh.Rajender Singh
S/o Sh. Mahinder Sinhg
R/o D58/1, DBlock Shanti Nagar
Shiv Vihar
Delhi110094
2. Delhi Transport Corporation
Indraprastha Depot,
I.T.O Ring Road,
New Delhi110002
3. United India Insurance Company Ltd.
DO11, E85, Himalaya House,
23 K.G, Marg, New Delhi110001
rd
.....Respondents.
Santosh Kumar Vs Rajender Singh & Ors. MACP No.210/12 Page no.1 of Page no.23
-::2::-
Santosh Singh vs Rajender Singh & Ors.
Through Ld.counsel Sh.Ramesh Sethi.
Mobile No.9811255508
Date of institution : 19.12.2012
Date of framing of issues : 30.03.2013
Date of hearing final arguments : 18.12.2015
Date of Decision : 08.01.2016
AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. DAR in case FIR no.114/12 was filed by police on 25.9.2012.
Thereafter, the present claim petition bearing no.210/12 was filed by petitioner on 19.12.2012 and the DAR was clubbed with claim petition. The offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1(in short R1), owned by respondent no.2(in short R2) and insured with respondent no.3(in short R3).
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.7.2012 the petitioner was driving his motorcycle bearing no. DL6SAF3125 and at about 02.00 PM when he reached near Petrol Pump of H Block, Outer Circle, Connaught Place in the meantime a DTC bus bearing No.1PB6676(hereinafter called as offending vehicle) plying on route No. 729 being driven in rash and negligent manner by R1, came from Regal Cinema towards the Minto Road and hit the vehicle of petitioner while overtaking it from left side. As a result of sudden hit the petitioner fell down and sustained Santosh Kumar Vs Rajender Singh & Ors. MACP No.210/12 Page no.2 of Page no.23
-::3::-
Santosh Singh vs Rajender Singh & Ors.
injuries. The driver of the offending vehicle did not stop the bus and crushed both the legs of the petitioner. The petitioner was taken to RML hospital by Ct. Mool chand who was present on duty at the spot on that day.
3. Respondents appeared and filed their reply/written statement. R1 and R2 have filed joint written statement thereby denying the factum of accident. The averments made on merits are denied. It is stated that the offending vehicle was insured with R3 at the time of accident.
4. R3 appeared and filed its reply/written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with R3 vide policy no.0411003111P002473971 valid for the period w.e.f.03.11.2011 to 02.11.2012. It is denied that R3 is liable to pay compensation.
5. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record. My issuewise findings are as under: ISSUE NO.1 " Whether Sh.Santosh Kumar sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 30.7.2012 at about 02.00 PM near Petrol Pump, H-Block, Outer Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no.DL1PB-6676 being driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3? OPP"
Santosh Kumar Vs Rajender Singh & Ors. MACP No.210/12 Page no.3 of Page no.23
-::4::-
Santosh Singh vs Rajender Singh & Ors.
6. The onus to prove this issue was on petitioner. In order to prove the aforesaid issue, the petitioner examined himself as PW1. He adduced his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He has also proved certain documents viz.copies of ration card & election identity card Ex.PW1/1, copy of mark sheet of Junior High School Ex.PW1/2, copy of PAN card and income Tax returns Ex. PW1/3, discharge report Ex.PW1/4, copy of discharge summary for aliganj Orthopaedic & Arthroscopy Centre Mark A, medical bills Ex.PW1/5 and disability certificate Ex. PW1/6.
7. In the crossexamination the petitioner/PW1 denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to his negligence or that the driver of DTC was driving the bus at normal speed and was following traffic rules.
8. Petitioner examined SI Sanjay Kumar, IO of the case as PW2. PW2 stated that DAR in this case was filed by him on completion of investigation and chargesheet for offences under Section 279/338 IPC was filed by him in the court of Ld.MM. He further stated that he had collected the MLC of injured from RML Hospital on which opinion on the nature of injuries was given as grievious.
9. In the crossexamination PW2 stated that he had reached the spot of accident after about 20 minutes of accident. He further stated that Santosh Kumar Vs Rajender Singh & Ors. MACP No.210/12 Page no.4 of Page no.23
-::5::-
Santosh Singh vs Rajender Singh & Ors.
the site plan filed alongwith DAR Ex.PW2/R3 was prepared by him and the same was prepared at the spot.
10. Here it be seen that the involvement of the offending vehicle has been duly proved vide copies of criminal record filed alongwith DAR by police viz. copy of charge sheet, copy of FIR no.114/12, under Section 279/338 IPC, copy of statement of Ct.Mool Chand, Copy of MLC of petitioner prepared at Dr.RML Hospital, copies of mechanical inspection reports of both the vehicles.
11. Further, petitioner/injured has categorically and confidently narrated the whole incident of the accident which took place on 30.7.2012. He denied the suggestion given by respondents that the accident took place due to his negligence or that the driver of DTC was driving the bus at normal speed and was following traffic rules.
12. In order to disprove the negligence, nothing incriminating has come to the record from respondent's side as they have not led any evidence to rebut the averment of petitioner/PW1 regarding rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle. Alongwith DAR IO has also filed the photographs of offending vehicle which clearly shows its involvement in the accident. As per final report R1 has been chargesheeted for offences under Section 279/338 IPC and he has been Santosh Kumar Vs Rajender Singh & Ors. MACP No.210/12 Page no.5 of Page no.23
-::6::-
Santosh Singh vs Rajender Singh & Ors.
apprehended from the spot of accident. R1 has neither got himself examined nor brought any witness in his favour for which this Tribunal draws a negative inference against him. Though it is pleaded on behalf of R1 that he has been falsely implicated in the present case but there is nothing on record to show that the claimant had any enmity with the driver of offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate him in the case.
13. In the case titled as Cholamandalam M.S.General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh: 2009 (3) AD(Delhi) 310 adverse inference was drawn because the driver of the offending vehicle had not appeared in the witness box to corroborate his defence taken in the written statement.
14. Here, it should also be remembered that the standard of proof in a claim petition is not as rigid and as high as in a criminal case. In a criminal case proof beyond reasonable doubt is required, however, in a claim petition it is not so. In Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others (2009) 13 SC 513, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in a road accident, the strict principles of proof as in a criminal case are not attracted. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under: " 15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has Santosh Kumar Vs Rajender Singh & Ors. MACP No.210/12 Page no.6 of Page no.23
-::7::-
Santosh Singh vs Rajender Singh & Ors.
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. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties."
15. These observations were quoted with approval in the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096(Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011).
16. In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287, decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it was held that where the claimants filed either the certified copies of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of investigation by the police or issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304A IPC or the certified copy of FIR or the recovery of the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, then these documents are sufficient proof to reach to a conclusion that the driver Santosh Kumar Vs Rajender Singh & Ors. MACP No.210/12 Page no.7 of Page no.23
-::8::-
Santosh Singh vs Rajender Singh & Ors.
was negligent.
17. Recently in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goel and others, 2014(2) T.A.C. 846(Del.) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that "In a case, where FIR is lodged, charge sheet filed and specially in a case where driver after causing accident had fled away from spot, then the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that driver of offending vehicle was negligent in causing the accident Particularly when there is no defence available from the side of driver".
18. In this petition also the petitioner has proved the negligence on the part of R1 vide copies of criminal record filed alongwith the DAR by the police.
19. In the light of aforesaid discussions, observations and findings of this tribunal it has been prima facie proved that the accident has been caused because of the rash and negligent driving of R1. Issue no.1 is disposed of accordingly.
ISSUE NO.2 " Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom."
20. As issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner in Santosh Kumar Vs Rajender Singh & Ors. MACP No.210/12 Page no.8 of Page no.23
-::9::-
Santosh Singh vs Rajender Singh & Ors.
affirmative, petitioner is entitled for the compensation. Now the question arises as to how much amount has to be awarded to him and against whom?
21. Here, it would be also appropriate to refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.D.Hattangadi V/s Pest Control(India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755 wherein it was observed as under:
" In injury cases it is not easy to assess the amount of damages. The same can however be based on some element of guess work and some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of disability. However, all such elements are required to be viewed with objective standard. While assessing the damages the court can not base its opinion merely on speculation or fancy though conjectures to some extent are inevitable.
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 non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. Pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) Santosh Kumar Vs Rajender Singh & Ors. MACP No.210/12 Page no.9 of Page no.23
-::10::-
Santosh Singh vs Rajender Singh & Ors.
loss of earning or profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non-pecuniary 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 i.e. on account of injury, the claimant may not be able to walk or 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.
22. In the light of the above, the amount of just compensation shall be as under: MEDICINES AND TREATMENT
23. The petitioner in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A has averred that in the accident he sustained grievous injuries resulting in 80% permanent physical impairment in relation to left lower limb. It is stated that immediately after the accident the petitioner was admitted in Dr.RML Hospital and then he got serious problem in his amputated leg and consequently he was got discharged on 25.08.2012 and was got admitted in Aliganj Orthopedic and Arthroscopy Centre on 26.08.2012 from where he was discharged on 01.10.2012. The petitioner has filed on record the Santosh Kumar Vs Rajender Singh & Ors. MACP No.210/12 Page no.10 of Page no.23
-::11::-
Santosh Singh vs Rajender Singh & Ors.
discharge report prepared at Dr.RML Hospital which shows that he was admitted in the said hospital on 30.7.2012 and was discharged on 25.8.2012 and the diagnosis is mentioned as "Polytrauma" and his left leg was badly crushed. The petitioner has also filed the copy of discharge summary prepared at Aliganj Orthpaedic and Arthroscopy Centre which shows that he was admitted in the said hospital on 26.8.2012 and was discharged on 01.10.2012. Petitioner in his examination rely on medical bills which is Ex.PW1/5(colly). No evidence to the contrary has been adduced by respondents. The petitioner is thus awarded a sum of Rs.1,18,437/ towards his said medical bills.
PAIN & SUFFERINGS:
24. Pain and suffering is covered under non pecuniary damages. To calculate the same, nature of injuries sustained by the injured, duration during which he got the medical treatment and was confined to bed, are some of the factors which are required to be taken into account. In the present case it is apparent from the medical record proved by the petitioner that he is a case of above knee amputation of left side with fixed fractures both bones leg(right side) and bimalleolar fracture(right side) and suffering from 80% permanent physical impairment in relation to left lower limb. The mental agony which the Santosh Kumar Vs Rajender Singh & Ors. MACP No.210/12 Page no.11 of Page no.23
-::12::-
Santosh Singh vs Rajender Singh & Ors.
petitioner might have undergone at the time of accident, cannot be equated or quantified in terms of money. Physical pain which the petitioner must have undergone during the course of treatment would have been immense.
25. To compensate the petitioner under this head, I award a sum of Rs.2,00,000/(Rs. Two Lacs only) to the petitioner for pain and sufferings.
CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET
26. In para 8 of his affidavit the petitioner has stated that he spent a sum of Rs.Two Lacs towards medicines, conveyance charges and engaging attendant and also spent a sum of Rs.50,000/ on special diet. The petitioner during the course of his deposition has failed to substantiate the amount spent by him on conveyance and special diet with documentary evidence. However, considering the nature of injuries sustained by him, he would have paid repeated visits to the hospital/doctor for his follow up treatment, incurring expenses on conveyance. He must have required to take special diet to recover from the injuries sustained by him.
27. I, therefore, award a sum of Rs.30,000/(Rs.Thirty Thousand) to the petitioner towards conveyance and special diet. Santosh Kumar Vs Rajender Singh & Ors. MACP No.210/12 Page no.12 of Page no.23
-::13::-
Santosh Singh vs Rajender Singh & Ors.
ATTENDANT CHARGES
28. In para 8 of his affidavit the petitioner has stated that he spent a sum of Rs.Two Lacs towards medicines, conveyance charges and engaging attendant. The contention of counsel for respondents is that the petitioner has not proved that he had hired services of attendant. The petitioner has not proved as to who was hired by him as attendant, duration of hiring attendant and the amount paid to the attendant. Although the petitioner has not proved that he has hired services of attendant, however, looking at the nature of injuries and the fact that the petitioner has suffered amputation of left leg, notice can be taken of the fact that the petitioner might have hired services of attendant and incurred expenditure on the same. In the circumstances, a sum of Rs.20,000/(Rs. Twenty Thousand only) would be just and proper for attendant charges and is awarded accordingly. LOSS OF INCOME.
29. The petitioner in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A and claim petition has averred that at the time of accident he was self employed and was doing the job work in the name and style of M/s Deepa Enterprises ( Aluminium Fabricator) and was earning around Rs.21,000/ per month. In his cross examination the petitioner stated that he is doing fabrication work since Santosh Kumar Vs Rajender Singh & Ors. MACP No.210/12 Page no.13 of Page no.23
-::14::-
Santosh Singh vs Rajender Singh & Ors.
the year 198586.
30. In order to prove his income the petitioner has relied on income tax return for the assessment year 201112 filed on 31.3.2012 which shows the income of the petitioner as Rs.2,20,150/ and the tax payable is mentioned as NIL. The petitioner stated in the crossexamination that he is filing income tax returns for the last six years. He further stated in the crossexamination that in the ITR his income from agriculture is not mentioned as his father is doing agriculture work. The petitioner has also filed the Acknowledgment of ITR for the assessment year 201011 which shows the income of the petitioner as Rs.2,10,883/. In these circumstances the income of the petitioner, relying on the ITR for the assessment year 201112 is taken as Rs.2,20,150/i.e.Rs.18346/ per month.
31. Considering the facts and circumstances in the light of nature of injuries sustained by petitioner and looking the nature of work of petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that he must not have been in a position to attend his working pattern at least for a period of Ten months. I therefore, award a sum of Rs.1,83,460/ towards loss of income. LOSS OF INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF DISABILITY
32. The contention of counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner has Santosh Kumar Vs Rajender Singh & Ors. MACP No.210/12 Page no.14 of Page no.23
-::15::-
Santosh Singh vs Rajender Singh & Ors.
suffered amputation of left leg resulting into 80% permanent physical impairment.
33. In Raj Kumar VS Ajay Kumar & Anr.,(2011)1 SCC 343, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :
"4..........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 equitable manner. The court or tribunal have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy,though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as mush as he used to earn or could have earned as much as he used to earn or could have earned. Thus tribunal has to assess whether the petitioners suffered loss of future earning on account of permanent disability."
"6. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human- being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of Santosh Kumar Vs Rajender Singh & Ors. MACP No.210/12 Page no.15 of Page no.23
-::16::-
Santosh Singh vs Rajender Singh & Ors.
the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is till able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,1995('Disabilities Act' for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation'' . "8.......What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings(by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency)."
34. As per the above judgment, the petitioner has to be compensated for loss of functional disability i.e. loss of earning capacity on account of disability acquired by him on account of injuries sustained Santosh Kumar Vs Rajender Singh & Ors. MACP No.210/12 Page no.16 of Page no.23
-::17::-
Santosh Singh vs Rajender Singh & Ors.
in this accident. The petitioner has relied on disability certificate dated 19.3.2013 Ex.PW1/6 issued by Dr.RML Hospital which shows that the petitioner is a case of above knee amputation of left side with fixed fractures both bones leg(right side) and bimalleolar fracture(right side) and is having 80% permanent physical impairment in relation to left lower limb. In order to prove the functional disability the petitioner has examined Dr.A.K.Naik, Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, Dr.RML Hospital who stated that the petitioner is suffering from 80% permanent physical impairment in relation to left lower limb. He further deposed that due to disability the petitioner will not be able to perform jobs which require running on account of disability suffered by him. He further stated that the petitioner will not have difficulty in sitting and squatting. He also deposed that the petitioner will be able to perform desk nature of job or any job which requires performing work by sitting.
35. It is stated that the petitioner was doing fabrication work on contract basis. Though the petitioner has deposed that he does not possess any degree/certificate in aluminium fabrication work but he has also deposed that he is doing fabrication work since the year 198586.
36. In view of aforesaid, looking at the nature of injuries, disability and the avocation of petitioner, the functional disability of the Santosh Kumar Vs Rajender Singh & Ors. MACP No.210/12 Page no.17 of Page no.23
-::18::-
Santosh Singh vs Rajender Singh & Ors.
petitioner is taken as 60% in relation to whole body. The income of the petitioner has been taken as Rs.18346/ per month. The loss of earning capacity thus comes to Rs.11,008/(i.e. 60% of Rs.18346/) per month.
37. The petitioner is stated to be 37 years of age. In order to prove his age the petitioner has relied on copy of PAN which shows his date of birth as 30.7.1975. Thus the petitioner was around 37 years of age at the time of accident. The petitioner has been awarded loss of income for ten months. Hence the multiplier after the ten months of accident is to be applied and as per Sarla Verma & Ors(supra) the same is "15". In the aforesaid amount 50% is to be added towards the future prospects. Reliance is placed on Rajesh & Ors. Vs Rajbir Singh & Ors. 2013(6) Scale 563 and Munna Lal Jain and another Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others Civil Appeal No.4497 of 2015. The loss of income after addition of 50% towards future prospects comes to Rs.16512/(i.e.Rs. 11008+50% of Rs.11008/. The loss of future income after applying the multiplier of 15 comes to Rs.16512x12x15=Rs.29,72,160/ DISFIGUREMENT OF BODY
38. The contention of counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner has suffered 80% permanent physical impairment in relation to left lower limb and on that account he has suffered disfigurement of body. The disability Santosh Kumar Vs Rajender Singh & Ors. MACP No.210/12 Page no.18 of Page no.23
-::19::-
Santosh Singh vs Rajender Singh & Ors.
as suffered by petitioner has been duly proved. Looking at the extent of disability and consequent disfigurement, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ towards disfigurement of body. The total compensation is assessed as under:
Medicines and Medical treatment : Rs.1,18,437/ Pain and suffering : Rs.2,00,000/ Conveyance and Special Diet : Rs.30,000/ Attendant Charges : Rs.20,000/ Loss of Income : Rs.1,83,460/ Loss of income on account of Disability : Rs.29,72,160/ Disfigurement of body : Rs.1,00,000/ Amenities of life : Rs.50,000/ TOTAL : Rs.36,74,057/ (Rs. Thirty Six Lacs Seventy Four Thousand Fifty Seven only) INTEREST
39. Vide order dated 29.8.2014 interest on the award amount was stopped from the date of framing of issues till conclusion of PE. In this case PE was closed on 03.7.2015. Hence the petitioner shall not be entitled to interest from 30.3.2013 till 03.7.2015. The petitioner is thus awarded interest @ Rs.9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR Santosh Kumar Vs Rajender Singh & Ors. MACP No.210/12 Page no.19 of Page no.23
-::20::-
Santosh Singh vs Rajender Singh & Ors.
i.e.25.9.2012 till 29.3.2013 and from 04.7.2015 till its realization. RELEASE
40. Out of the award amount 40% shall be released to petitioner and remaining amount be kept in three FDRs of 20% each in UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, New Delhi for the period of three, six and nine years respectively.
LIABILITY
41. R3 had not proved the violation of terms and conditions of policy. Admittedly the offending vehicle was being driven by R1, owned by R2 and was insured with R3. Therefore, R1 and 2 are principal tort feasors. R3 is vicariously liable. All the respondents are held jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount. Since the vehicle was insured with R3, therefore, it shall pay the awarded amount.
42. In view of the above discussions, issue no.2 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. ISSUE NO.3.
43. In view of findings on issues no.1 and 2, this issues is also decided in favour of the petitioner and against respondents. A sum of Rs.36,74,057/(Rs.Thirty Six Lacs Seventy Four Thousand Fifty Seven) with interest, including interim award, if any is awarded in favour Santosh Kumar Vs Rajender Singh & Ors. MACP No.210/12 Page no.20 of Page no.23
-::21::-
Santosh Singh vs Rajender Singh & Ors.
of the petitioner and against the respondents.
44. R3 shall deposit the award amount directly in bank account of the petitioner at UCO Bank,Patiala House Court,New Delhi within 30 days of the passing of the award failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay. In case even after passage of 90 days from today, the R3 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.5000/.
45. On the request of beneficiary, Bank shall transfer the Saving Account to any other branch according to his convenience.
46. No cheque book shall be issued to the claimant without permission of the court. No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the fixed deposit without prior permission of the court.
47. The interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits shall be paid monthly by automatic credit of interest in the respective Savings Account of the beneficiaries.
48. Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to the Santosh Kumar Vs Rajender Singh & Ors. MACP No.210/12 Page no.21 of Page no.23
-::22::-
Santosh Singh vs Rajender Singh & Ors.
beneficiaries after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo Identity Card to the beneficiaries to facilitate identity.
49. Original fixed deposit receipt shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original pass book shall be given to the claimant along with the photocopy of the FDR. Upon the expiry of period of FDR the bank shall automatically credit the maturity amount in the saving account of beneficiary.
50. The original fixed deposit receipt shall be handed over to the claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period and shall automatically credit the maturity amount in the savings account of the beneficiary.
51. The petitioner shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach this court in case of any emergent need of money.
52. Manager, UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Complex, New Delhi is directed not to open joint account or to release the award amount in joint account.
53. R3 shall inform the petitioner through registered post that the cheques of the awarded amount are being deposited so as to facilitate the petitioner to collect his cheques.
Santosh Kumar Vs Rajender Singh & Ors. MACP No.210/12 Page no.22 of Page no.23
-::23::-
Santosh Singh vs Rajender Singh & Ors.
54. The copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld.Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi State Legal Services Authority. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the judgment titled as Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO no.842/2003 dated 12.12.2014 which has been circulated vide Circular No.1028/CivilIV/DHC dated 14.1.2015.
55. File be consigned to Records after due compliance.
56. A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 11.4.2016.
Announced in the open court. (Mohinder Virat)
on 08.1.2016 PO/MACT1, New Delhi.
Santosh Kumar Vs Rajender Singh & Ors. MACP No.210/12
Page no.23 of Page no.23