Delhi District Court
Ms. Poonam (Wife Of The Deceased) vs Mr. Desh Raj (Driver) on 27 May, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. REKHA, PO : MACT-01 (SOUTH-
WEST DISTRICT), DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
MACP No. : 360/2017
CNR No. -DLSW01-002804-2017
FIR NO. 0297/16
P.S.- Tauru, Distt-Mewat, Haryana
1. Ms. Poonam (wife of the deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Krishan Kumar
2. Ritik (Minor son of the deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Krishan Kumar
3. Nitin (Minor son of the deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Krishan Kumar
4. Bimla (mother of the deceased)
W/o Sh. Mohan Singh
5. Sh. Ram Singh (Father of the deceased)
S/0 Sh. Mohan Singh
All resident of:- VPO- Goonti,
District- Alwar, Rajasthan-301701 ...........Petitioners
V/s
1. Mr. Desh Raj (Driver)
S/o Sh. Sardara Ram Yadav
R/o Bhagat Pura Ki Dhani, Todiya Ka Baas,
Tehsil- Bansur, District- Alwar,
Rajasthan .........Respondent No. 1
2. Mr. Sourabh Goyal (Owner)
S/o Sh. Kamlesh Goyal
R/o 1/9477B, Gali No. 7,
West Rohtas Nagar,
Delhi-110032 ..........Respondent No. 2
3. The HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
MACP No 360/2017. Poonam & Ors. Vs. Desh Raj & Ors. 1
Through its authorized representative having its office at:-
Unit No. 502, 504, 506,
5th Floor, Mahatta Tower-54,
B-1 Block, Community Centre,
New Delhi-110058 .....Respondent No. 3
Date of institution of the case - 21.03.2017
Date of pronouncement of judgment - 27.05.2023
J U D G M E N T:
1. The present Petition Under Section 163A and 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed on behalf of petitioners against respondents for grant of compensation in respect of death of Mr. Krishan Kumar caused in a road traffic accident on 19.10.2016.
2. The brief facts in narrow compass, relevant and necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that on 19.10.2016 at about 06:00 P.M. the deceased-Krishan Kumar alongwith respondent no. 1-Desh Raj and one person namely Vikas S/o Sh. Har Singh were going to Ghaziabad on ICHER Canter bearing No. DL-1M-8376 (hereinafter referred as offending vehicle) which was being run by the respondent no. 1. When the deceased and others reached at K.M.P. Road via Panchgava, the respondent No. 1 was driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligence manner with high speed on which the deceased- Krishan Kumar advised the respondent No. 1 to slow down the speed and drive the vehicle properly as per the traffic rules and regulations but he did not mend his ways by not slowing down the speed of the offending vehicle. When they reached near MACP No 360/2017. Poonam & Ors. Vs. Desh Raj & Ors. 2 village Dhulawat then the respondent No. 1 hit the vehicle from back side to a Trolla Truck which was in normal speed, due to which the deceased sustained fatal multiple injuries and he died on the spot.
It is also stated that the said accident occurred due to the sole negligency of the Respondent No. 1 who was driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligence manner with high speed, due to which an innocent person died on the spot.
It is also stated that the deceased was working as a helper of ICHER Canter bearing NO. DL-1M-8376 and was earning Rs. 15000/- per month.
It is further state that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 30 years and was only earning members in his family and all the family members were solely dependent upon the income of the deceased.
It has been prayed that an award for a sum of Rs. 25,00,000(Rs. Twenty Five Lacs only/) may be passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
3. DEFENCES:
Written Statement filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 in which allegations levelled in the Petition have been denied and certain preliminary objections have been taken. It is stated that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3 which was valid at the time of alleged accident and respondent no. 1 has valid driving license to driver the vehicle and the alleged accident did not cause due to the negligence of the answering MACP No 360/2017. Poonam & Ors. Vs. Desh Raj & Ors. 3 respondent. It is also stated that the deceased was never employed with the answering respondent nor he was working as helper of the answering respondent. Further, present petition has been filed to extort money. Hence, the answering respondent is not liable to pay damages/claim.
Written statement filed on behalf of respondent no. 3/insurance company in which it is stated that respondent no. 1/driver shall prove that driver was holding valid and effective driving license, the alleged offending vehicle was not being driven in contravention of insurance policy and the all offending vehicle was being driven under valid permit covering date of accident and fitness certificate in view of Sec. 106 of Indian Evidence Act.
It is also stated that the vehicle bearing no. DL-01-M-8376 (CANTER) Goods carrying vehicle-medium was insured with the answering respondent no. 3 vide policy no. 2315-2012-1810- 1401-000 for a period from 24.09.2016 to 23.09.2017 in the name of Sh. Sourabh Goyal on certain terms and conditions.
4. ISSUES:
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether Krishan Kumar sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident dt. 19.10.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL-1M-8376 being driven by respondent no. 1 Desh Raj, owned by respondent no. 2 Sourabh Goyal and insured by respondent no. 3 HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd?... OPP
2. Whether the petitioner in the above-mentioned case is MACP No 360/2017. Poonam & Ors. Vs. Desh Raj & Ors. 4 entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom?...OPP
3. Relief.
5. PETITIONER EVIDENCE:
To prove their case, the petitioner no. 1- Smt. Poonam examined herself as PW1 who tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. PW1 relied upon the following documents:
S. No. No. of Details of Document
Exhibits
1. Ex. PW1/1 Copy of the Criminal documents
(colly)
2. Ex. PW1/2 Copy of the PM Report of deceased
(colly)
3. Ex. PW1/3 Copy of the Death Certificate of deceased
(colly)
4. Ex. PW1/4 Copy of ID proof of Poonam
6. RESPONDENT EVIDENCE:
It is relevant to pen down here that the respondents did not come forward to lead evidence. Hence, vide order dated 17.12.2019, the RE was ordered to be closed.
7. I have heard the arguments and perused the material available on record.
MACP No 360/2017. Poonam & Ors. Vs. Desh Raj & Ors. 5
8. The issuewise findings are as under :ISSUE No. 1
Whether Krishan Kumar sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident dt.
19.10.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL-1M-8376 being driven by respondent no. 1 Desh Raj, owned by respondent no. 2 Sourabh Goyal and insured by respondent no. 3 HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd?... OPP The onus to prove this issue was conferred upon the petitioners.
At the very outset, it must be observed that the present petition has been filed U/s 163A MV Act, 1988 and therefore, the petitioners are not required to plead or prove the ingredients of rashness or negligence in order to seek compensation in respect of the unfortunate death of deceased in the relevant motor vehicular accident. However, the language used while framing this issue seems to convey that the petitioners are supposed to prove rashness and negligence of R−1. Apparently, it is a clerical error. Since the present petition has been filed U/s 163A MV Act, this Tribunal shall restrict itself to adjudicating as to whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in an accident arising out of the use of the offending vehicle.
In order to discharge the said onus , the petitioner No. 1 Poonam has examined herself as PW1. She deposed that due to sudden demise of deceased, the petitioners are helpless as there MACP No 360/2017. Poonam & Ors. Vs. Desh Raj & Ors. 6 is no source of income and they are financial problem and other irreparable losses. She further deposed that at the time of accident, the respondent no. 1 was the driver of the offending vehicle and the respondent no. 2 was the owner of the offending vehicle and the respondent No. 1 was working under the control and supervision of respondent no. 2. the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no. 3 at the time of accident. Therefore, all the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners for untimely death of the deceased, jointly or severally as per rules. She relied upon Ex. PW1/1(colly) i.e. copy of Criminal Record, Ex. PW1/2 (colly), Ex. PW1/2 (colly) i.e. copy of PostMortem Report, EX. PW1/3 i.e. copy of death certificate of deceased.
The important fact is that this witness i.e PW1Poonam was cross examined on behalf respondent No. 3/insurance company (since crossexamination on behalf of R1 & R2 is nil despite opportunity given), but nothing material has come on record which could assail the credibility or trustworthiness of this witness.
It is also pertinent to mention that the respondent no.1/driver of aforesaid offending vehicle 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 preferred not to enter into the witness box during the course of inquiry/trial. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question occurred due to involvement of Offending vehicle bearing Registration MACP No 360/2017. Poonam & Ors. Vs. Desh Raj & Ors. 7 No. DL1M8376.
Not only this, as per copy of ChargeSheet filed, the respondent No. 1 namely Desh Raj (accused in the State case) has been charge sheeted for offences punishable U/s 279/304(A) IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question had occurred due to involvement of offending vehicle by him. Same would also point out towards involvement of offending bearing Registration No. DL1M8376 by respondent no. 1.
Furthermore, as per the copy of PostMortem Report of the deceased, cause of death is due to multiple trauma. All injuries are antemortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in normal course of life.
It is to note here that the respondent no. 3 has also admitted issuance of insurance policy in respect of abovesaid vehicle number vide abovementioned policy and its validity at the time of accident.
In the case in hand, the accident took place with the ICHER Canter on which deceasedKrishan Kumar was sitting and received injuries. This being a petition u/s. 163A MV Act no rashness/negligence is to be proved on the part of offending vehicle and it is sufficient for grant of compensation U/s 163A MV Act that there is an accident involving a motor vehicle and as a result of such accident death or permanent disability results to the victim.
MACP No 360/2017. Poonam & Ors. Vs. Desh Raj & Ors. 8 In view of abovedecision and considering facts and circumstances of the case, it stands proved that deceased Krishan Kumar sustained fatal injures and died in motor accident dated 19.10.2016 due to involvement of the offending vehicle No. DL1M8376 which was being driven by respondent no. 1Desh Raj, owned by respondent no. 2Sourabh Goyal and and insured with R3/ HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. at the time of accident.
In light of above, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against respondents by holding that victimKrishan Kumar died in a vehicular accident due to involvement of the offending vehicle bearing No. DL1M8376 driven by respondent no. 1.
9. ISSUE No. 2:
Whether the petitioner in the above-
mentioned case is entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom?...OPP The onus to prove this issue was conferred upon the petitioners.
In order to discharge their onus, the petitioner No.1 Poonam examined herself as PW01. As per her testimony, at the time of accident, the respondent no. 1 was the driver of the offending vehicle and the respondent no. 2 was the owner of the MACP No 360/2017. Poonam & Ors. Vs. Desh Raj & Ors. 9 offending vehicle and the respondent No. 1 was working under the control and supervision of respondent no. 2. the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no. 3 at the time of accident. Therefore, all the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners for untimely death of the deceased, jointly or severally as per rules.
In the present case, from the material and evidence on record, it is clear that Krishan Kumar received fatal injuries & died in motor vehicle accident dated 19.10.2016 due to involvement of offending vehicle which was being driven by R 1Desh Raj.
It is relevant to pen down here that PW01Poonam deposed that her husband was employed as a helper with the respondent no. 2 and was earning a sum of Rs. 15,000/ per month.
It is relevant to pen down here that no document has been proved on record to show that the deceased Krishan Kumar was employed as a helper with the respondent no. 2 and was earning a sum of Rs. 15,000/ per month. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary proof, the case will be decided on the basis of applicable minimum wages.
Now question which requires consideration here is that whether a claim petition U/s 163A of M.V. Act wherein the claimant has claimed annual income of deceased more than Rs.40,000/ per annum is maintainable or not.
MACP No 360/2017. Poonam & Ors. Vs. Desh Raj & Ors. 10 This issue has been dealt by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in para no. 15 of the case titled as Rumkani Devi Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Another 2009 ACJ 2202 which is reproduced as under:
15. As regards grant of compensation in all such cases under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the same is payable as indicated in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act to the legal heirs of the victim or to the victim of the accident itself, as the case may be. The Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act places restriction at Rs. 40,000/ per annum while no such restriction is there under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Can such a restriction placed in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act prohibit filing of the claim petition itself where the income is pleaded at more than Rs. 40,000/ per annum. In my considered view, the answer has to be in the negative, it is not merely by pleading a particular income that the right to file petition under Section 163-A can be denied. In a particular case which is otherwise covered within the ambit and scope of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claim petition cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that the income pleaded therein in the petition is more than Rs. 40,000/ per annum. It is ultimately the proof of income which would determine the grant of relief under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, but restriction of Rs. 40,000/ per annum as indicated in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot also be taken as a cap as the government has failed to revise the structural formula of the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act as mandated by Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act was to be revised from time to time keeping in view the cost of living by an appropriate notification in the official gazette by the Central Government but since the time of its insertion w.e.f. 14.11.1994 no revision has taken place even after lapse of about more than 13 years. Since the criteria of revision was based on the cost of living, therefore, this Court has taken a consistent view by taking the help of Minimum Wages Act to revise the minimum wages after taking into account rise in the price index and inflation rates. There has been an average increase of up to 4% to 6% in the price index each year and within a gap of about 10 years there has been an increase of wages in the Minimum Wages Act, which comes out as more than double of the wages comparing the wages in MACP No 360/2017. Poonam & Ors. Vs. Desh Raj & Ors. 11 the year 1994. For instance wages of an unskilled worker in the year 1994, when the IInd Schedule came into effect, was Rs. 1420/ which came to be Rs. 3312/ in the year 2006, the year in which the award was made. This would show an increase of 233.2% and based on the same analogy, it can be said that such an increase can be taken into consideration without considering the said cap of Rs. 40,000/ per annum in the structural formula of the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Further this issue has also considered by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in another case titled as Smt. Suman Malhotra & Anr. Vs. Gulfam and Ors., MAC. APP. 44/2011 where it was held as under:
6. The issue whether the claim petition filed under Section 163A is maintainable if the annual income of the deceased is more than Rs.40,000/ per annum. This court has categorically opined that taking the interpretation of Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, the clear intention of the legislation was to come to rescue of all those who, in the absence of any evidence, are not in a position to file a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. Where death of the victim or permanent disablement of victim was required to be proved by establishing the factum of negligence in favour of the offending vehicle resulting into causing the accident under Section 163A, the requirement of proving the negligence has been dispensed with. Even otherwise, the issue before the Supreme Court in Deepal Girishbhai (Supra) was whether two petitions filed by the claimants simultaneously under Sections 166 and 163A are maintainable. In para 51 of the aforesaid judgment, it is recorded that it does not contain any provision providing for set off against a higher compensation unlike Section 140. In terms of the said provision, a distinct and specified class of citizens, namely, persons whose income per annum is Rs.40,000/ or less is covered thereunder whereas Sections 140 and 166 cater to all sections of society.
7. In Rukmani Devi (supra), the aforesaid case was considered and finally answered that the Tribunal has to consider the claim petition whether the income of the deceased was more than Rs.40,000/ per annum; but it is nowhere said that if in any petition the income of the deceased MACP No 360/2017. Poonam & Ors. Vs. Desh Raj & Ors. 12 was claimed more than Rs.40,000/, than a victim of the accident cannot file the claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
In the light of the above discussion, this Tribunal proceeds to decide the present petition despite the fact that income of the deceased might be more than Rs. 40,000/ per month.
As such, the petitioners, being the LRs of deceased Krishan Kumar have become entitled to claim compensation for death of the said deceased.
Now, the question arises as to how much amount is to be awarded in favour of the claimant in the present petition filed U/s 163A of M.V Act. It may be noted here that recently, Govt of India has issued Notification No. S.O. 2022 (E) dated 22.05.2018, whereby Second Schedule appended to Motor Vehicles Act, has been substituted with new Second Schedule. The amended Second Schedule clearly stipulates that in case of fatal accident, the compensation payable shall be fixed amount of Rs. 5,00,000/ ( Rs. Five Lacs Only). Considering the fact that Motor Vehicular Act is beneficial legislation enacted by Parliament with object to alleviate the sufferings of the victims of road accidents and to restore them to their original position as far as possible, the amended Second Schedule shall be applicable to the pending proceedings also. Accordingly, the compensation amount of Rs. 5,00,000/(Rs.Five Lacs) is awarded in favour of claimants/petitioners in the present proceedings.
10. NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS:
MACP No 360/2017. Poonam & Ors. Vs. Desh Raj & Ors. 13 It is not disputed during arguments that petitioner No. 1Poonam is wife of the deceased, petitioner No. 2Ritik and petitioner no. 3Nitin are minor sons of the deceased and petitioner no.4Bimla and petitioner No. 5Ram Singh are mother and father of the deceased respectively.
So far as petitionerRam Singh (father) is concerned, he cannot be said to be dependent upon the deceased in view of the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. Civil Appeal No. 3483 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.8648 of 2007) decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15.04.2019 wherein it is held that "Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependent".
In light of above, only the petitioner no.1 to 4 have become entitled to claim compensation for the death of said deceased in the above-said accident.
11. LOSS OF ESTATE In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi1, a sum of ₹16,500/ is awarded towards the head 'loss of estate'.
1MACP No 360/2017. Poonam & Ors. Vs. Desh Raj & Ors. 14
12. FUNERAL EXPENSES Further, in terms of the law /guidelines laid down in the case National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi2, a sum of ₹ 16,500/ is awarded to the petitioners towards ' funeral expenses'.
13. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM In given fact and circumstances of the case and in view of law /guidelines laid down in the case Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Satinder Kaur3, a sum of ₹2,20,000/ (₹ 44,000/ x
5) is awarded as compensation under the head 'Loss of Consortium'.
14. The break up of compensation that has been awarded in favour of the petitioners have been tabulated as below : Sl. HEAD AMOUNT No. 1 Compensation towards death of ₹ 5,00,000/ deceasedKameshwar Yadav 2 Funeral Expenses Rs. 16,500/
3. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/
4. Loss of consortium ₹2,20,000/
2.
3 MACP No 360/2017. Poonam & Ors. Vs. Desh Raj & Ors. 15 TOTAL Rs. 7,53,000/
Accordingly, the total compensation comes to ₹7,53,000/ (Rs. Seven Lakhs and Fifty Three Thousand only).
15. INTEREST:
In the instant case, there is nothing on record, which could justify the withholding of interest on the award amount. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to award interest @ 9% per annum on the award amount in this case. in view of the law laid down in Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. Hence, the petitioners are awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the abovesaid compensation / award amount i.e ₹ 7,53,000/ (Rs. Seven Lakhs and Fifty Three Thousand only) from the date of filing of petition i.e. 21.03.2017 till its realization.
16. LIABILITY:
Now coming to the extent of liability.
It has already been held that the deceased had expired due to involvement of the offending vehicle which was being driven by respondent no.1. He is primarily liable to make payment.
However, the offending vehicle bearing no. DL 1M8376 was being driven by respondent no.1 Desh Raj, owned MACP No 360/2017. Poonam & Ors. Vs. Desh Raj & Ors. 16 by R2Sourabh Goyal and insured with R3/HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. at the time of accident and as such, the respondent no. 3 / HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. shall be liable to pay the awarded amount.
Hence, in view of the above, issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against respondents by holding that petitioners are entitled for compensation from respondent no. 3.
17. ISSUE NO.3 (RELIEF) The present Petition is allowed. Respondent no. 3 HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to pay ₹7,53,000/ (Rs. Seven Lakhs and Fifty Three Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the Petition i.e. 21.03.2017 till its realization within 30 days from today to the petitioners.
18. APPORTIONMENT:
The abovesaid award amount i.e. ₹ 7,53,000/ shall be apportioned amongst the LRs of the deceased-Krishan Kumar in the following manner with proportionate interest:
S. Name of the petitioner/relation with Amount No. deceased
1. Petitioner no. 1 Poonam (wife) ₹4,00,000/
2. Petitioner no. 2Ritik (Minor son ) ₹1,15,000/ MACP No 360/2017. Poonam & Ors. Vs. Desh Raj & Ors. 17
3. Petitioner no. 3Nitin (Minor son) ₹1,15,000/
4. Petitioner no. 4Bimla (mother) ₹79,000/
5. Petitioner no. 5Ram Singh (father) ₹44,000/ Total ₹ 7,53,000/
19. In the instant case, the award amount shall be deposited/ transferred within 30 days by respondent no. 3/HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. in the Account No. 37665510911 of 'MACT (SouthWest), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi' at State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector10, Dwarka New Delhi, (IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and MICR Code 110002483) by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS under intimation, with proof of notice to the claimant/petitioners and their counsel, to the Nazir of this court .
Further, the statement of petitioner/LRs of the deceased regarding their financial status, needs and liabilities have also been recorded in this case. In view of the said statement of the petitioner/LRs of the deceased & having regard to fact and circumstances of the present case, the award amount shall be distributed as follows: S Name Status Age Amount of Release Amount of FDR . at Award Amount N prese o nt (App rox.) MACP No 360/2017. Poonam & Ors. Vs. Desh Raj & Ors. 18 1 Poona Wife 36 ₹4,00,000/ ₹ 40,000/ ₹3,60,000/ be kept . m years in 36 FDRs of ₹10,000/ each for the period from 1 month to 36 months in the name of petitioner with cumulative interest.
2 Ritik Son 15 ₹1,15,000/ Nil Entire amount be
. years kept in FDR till the
petitioner attains the
age of 18 years.
3 Nitin Son 13 ₹1,15,000/ Nil Entire amount be
. years kept in FDR till the
petitioner attains the
age of 18 years.
4 Bimla Mother 57 ₹79,000/ ₹79,000/ ................
. years
5 Ram Father 60 ₹44,000/ ₹44,000/ ................
. Singh years
The abovesaid award amount shall be disbursed through Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme (MACAD Scheme) formulated vide Orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 (Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
20. In the instant case, it has been stated that a Saving Bank Accounts of the petitioners have already been opened at Nationalized bank.
Accordingly, the Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Dwarka, Sector10, New Delhi is directed to transfer MACP No 360/2017. Poonam & Ors. Vs. Desh Raj & Ors. 19 the abovesaid cash amounts to the respective saving bank accounts of the abovesaid petitioners after due verification and as per rules and to keep the remaining amount in the form of abovementioned FDRs in terms of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated vide orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 (Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
Managers of the bank where the said petitioners are having the respective saving bank accounts (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners' bank) are directed to release the abovesaid cash amount to the abovesaid petitioners, as per rules, as prayed.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank accounts of petitioners.
All the original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioners.
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDRs to the petitioners without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the said petitioners.
MACP No 360/2017. Poonam & Ors. Vs. Desh Raj & Ors. 20 The abovesaid Petitioners' banks are also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioners and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioners.
The abovesaid Petitioners' bank shall permit account holder i.e. the said petitioners to withdraw money from the abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form.
Ahlmad is directed to prepare a separate misc. file and put up the same for filing of the compliance report on 07.07.2023.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA Date:
2023.05.27 17:43:09 +0530 (Announced in the open Court (Rekha) th on this 27 day PO, MACT01 (SouthWest District) of May 2023 Dwarka Courts, New Delhi MACP No 360/2017. Poonam & Ors. Vs. Desh Raj & Ors. 21