Delhi District Court
Smt. Sudesh vs Sh.Hem Raj on 24 March, 2018
MACP No. 5226/16 (Old No. 428/14) FIR No. 227/14.; Outstation DOD: 24.03.2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIDYA PRAKASH, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 5226/16 (Old MAC Petition No. 428/14)
1. Smt. Sudesh
Widow of late Sh. Tej Pal
( Wife of deceased)
2. Sh. Neeraj Kumar
S/o Late Sh.Tej Pal
(Son of deceased)
3. Sh. Joginder
S/o Late Sh. Tej Pal
(Son of deceased)
4. Sh. Jitender
S/o Late Sh. Tej Pal
(Son of deceased)
All R/o: House no. 170,
village Sauldha, Teh. Bahadurgarh
District Rohtak, Haryana
................Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh.Hem Raj
S/o Sh. Bhagi Rath
R/o B62, Bhalaswa Dairy, New Delhi
Also at: VPO Chamder, Teh. Hamirpur,
District Hamirpur, Uttar Pradesh. (Driver of vehicle)
2. M/s Loha Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
41/25, Village Joshi Chawhan
Industrial Area, Sector29, Balhgarh131001(Owner of vehicle)
3. Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd.
101047 Plot No.B8, Unit No.402& 403, 4th Floor,
GD ITL, Tower, Netaji Subhash Place,
Pitampura, Delhi. (Insurer)
...............Respondents
Smt. Sudesh & Ors. Vs. Hem Raj & Ors. Page 1 of 15
MACP No. 5226/16 (Old No. 428/14) FIR No. 227/14.; Outstation DOD: 24.03.2018 Date of Institution : 22.09.2014 Date of Arguments : 13.03.2018 Date of Decision : 24.03.2018 APPEARANCES: Sh.Prem Kumar Mishra Adv for petitioners.
Sh. Sanjay Kumar Adv for respondents No. 1 & 2.
Sh. Vikas Chauhan, Adv for respondent no. 3.
Petition under Section 166 & 140 of M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation AWARD
1. Sh. Tej Pal had suffered fatal injuries in Motor Vehicular Accident which occurred on 12.08.2014 at about 03.10 AM involving Eicher Trolla bearing registration no. HR698144 (alleged offending vehicle) allegedly being driven in rash and negligent manner and without following traffic rules by respondent no. 1. By way of present claim petition, the petitioners are seeking compensation for the fatal injuries sustained by Sh.Tej Pal.
2. It is averred in the claim petition that on 12.08.2014, Sh. Tej Pal(Since Deceased) was going to Parmanu, Himachal Pradesh while driving the Canter bearing no. HR63B3586 from Delhi. At about 3.10 AM, when he reached at the cut on DelhiPanipat GT Road, Near Dawat Rice Mill, Sonepat, Haryana, suddenly, one Eicher Trolla bearing registration no. HR698144 being driven by respondent no. 1 at a high speed; in a rash and negligent manner; without taking necessary precautions, without proper lookouts and violating the traffic rules, took a sharp cut just before the Canter being driven by the deceased. As a result thereof the Canter being driven by the deceased rammed into the trolla from backside. Sh. Tej Pal sustained grievous injuries and he was taken to General Hospital, Sonepat, whereafter he was shifted to Max Hospital, Shalimar bagh, Delhi, where he was Smt. Sudesh & Ors. Vs. Hem Raj & Ors. Page 2 of 15 MACP No. 5226/16 (Old No. 428/14) FIR No. 227/14.; Outstation DOD: 24.03.2018 declared brought dead. The said accident was witnessed by Sh. Shish Pal (PW2). It is claimed that the said offending vehicle was owned by M/s Loha Alloys Pvt. Ltd (Respondent no. 2) and was insured with Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd./respondent no. 3 during the period in question.
3. The respondent no. 1 i.e. the driver of the alleged offending vehicle has filed his reply, wherein he has admitted the factum of accident and also the fact that the vehicle was being driven by him at the time of accident. It is however stated that deceased had hit his vehicle from behind and this fact has also been admitted by the petitioners. It is denied that he was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner.
4. The respondent no. 2 i.e. the registered owner of the offending vehicle, has filed separate reply, thereby admitting therein that it is the registered owner of the offending vehicle. It is stated that the respondent no. 1 was the driver of said vehicle on the date of accident & he was holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the vehicle was duly insured with Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd.vide policy no., 101047/31/15/003828.
5. Respondent no. 3/insurance company has filed its WS stating that the present claim petition is not maintainable as deceased himself was driving the vehicle bearing no. HR63B3586 at the time of accident and the said vehicle had hit the alleged offending vehicle from behind. It is therefore claimed that deceased himself was negligent in causing the said accident. It has also raised statutory defence as provided in Section 149(2) of M.V Act. It is claimed that driver of the vehicle no. HR698144 was not holding driving licence authorising him specifically to drive the category of the vehicle insured under the policy of insurance. The averments made on merits are denied. It is, however, admitted that the alleged offending vehicle bearing no. HR698144 was insured with it vide policy no. 101047/31/15/0003828 for the period from 14.07.2014 to 13.07.2015.
Smt. Sudesh & Ors. Vs. Hem Raj & Ors. Page 3 of 15MACP No. 5226/16 (Old No. 428/14) FIR No. 227/14.; Outstation DOD: 24.03.2018
6. From pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by Ld Predecessor vide order dt. 11.08.2015:
1) Whether the deceased Tejpal suffered fatal injuries in the road accident on 12.08.2014 at 3.10 AM on Delhi Panipat GT Road at Daawat Rice Mill Cut, Sonepat within the jurisdiction of PS Rai due to rash and negligent driving of Trolla Eicher bearing registration no. HR698100 by R1, owned by R2 and insured with R3?OPP.
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?OPP
3) Relief.
7. In support of their claim, the petitioners have examined two witnesses i.e. PW1 Smt. Sudesh(widow of deceased) and PW2 Sh. Shish Pal (alleged eye witness). They closed their evidence through their counsel on 20.07.2016. On the other hand, the respondents have not examined any witness despite opportunities and RE on behalf of respondent no. 3 was closed through the proxy counsel on 18.10.2018. Since the respondents no. 1 and 2 did not adduce any evidence despite opportunities, their RE was also closed vide the said order.
8. I have already heard the arguments addressed by ld counsels for the parties. I have also gone through the record. Both the sides were directed to submit their respective submissions in Form IV A, vide order dated 13.03.2018. However, none of them submitted the same on record till date. My findings on the issues are as under: Issue No. 1
9. For the purpose of this issue, the testimony of PW2 Sh. Shish Pal is relevant. In his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A), he deposed that on 12.08.2014 at about 3.10 AM, he alongwith deceased was going to Smt. Sudesh & Ors. Vs. Hem Raj & Ors. Page 4 of 15 MACP No. 5226/16 (Old No. 428/14) FIR No. 227/14.; Outstation DOD: 24.03.2018 Parvanu, Himachal Pradesh after loading Canter no. HR63B3568 at Delhi. He further deposed that said Canter was being driven by deceased Sh. Tej Pal at a normal speed and on the correct side of the road. When said Canter reached at the cut on Delhi Panipat, GT Road, Near Dawat Rice Mill, Sonepat, suddenly, the trolla bearing registration no. HR698144 being driven by respondent no.1 at a very high speed; in rash and negligent manner; without taking necessary precautions; without proper lookouts; violating the traffic rules and without blowing the horn, came and took a sharp turn just before the Canter being driven by deceased. As a result thereof, the Canter rammed the trolla on its back side. He further deposed that deceased was immediately taken to General hospital, Sonepat, Haryan and thereafter, he was shifted to Max Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi where he expired during the course of treatment. He has categorically deposed that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of trolla no. HR698144. He has further deposed that if the driver of the trolla been careful and cautious, the accident could have been averted and the deceased would not have died untimely death.
10. During his cross examination, he deposed that he was sitting alongwith the driver side of the said Canter. He further deposed that FIR was lodged by the police on his statement on 12.08.2014 at about 10.00 AM. He has further deposed that the offending vehicle was coming from backside of their vehicle. The offending vehicle overtook their vehicle from left side and took a sharp turn. He admitted that their Canter had hit the concerned Trolla from its back side. He however volunteered that the offending Trolla over took their vehicle from left side and had taken sharp turn due to which accident took place. He further deposed that the impact of the accident was so huge that the deceased got stuck in the Canter vehicle which had to be cut out in order to bring the victim out from the said Canter vehicle before he was removed to the Civil Hospital, Sonipat for treatment. He further deposed Smt. Sudesh & Ors. Vs. Hem Raj & Ors. Page 5 of 15 MACP No. 5226/16 (Old No. 428/14) FIR No. 227/14.; Outstation DOD: 24.03.2018 that they were driving on the center lane of the highway. He denied the suggestion put forth by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company to the effect that the offending vehicle was not at high speed or was not rash in any manner. He also denied the suggestion that the driver of the offending vehicle was not driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. He further denied the suggestion that the offending vehicle had not taken a sharp turn from behind left side of their vehicle and did not take sudden right turn.
11. It is quite evident from the aforesaid discussion that the respondents have not been able to impeach the testimony of PW2 Sh Shish Pal despite the fact that he was cross examined at length. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of this witness made on oath. The presence of said witness at the place of accident, stands established from the fact that FIR No. 227/14 (supra) ( which is part of DAR Ex PW1/8 colly), is also shown to have been registered on the basis of statement made by this witness to the police. The contents of said FIR would reveal that the aforesaid witness has narrated therein the same sequence of facts leading to the accident in question, as deposed by him during the course of inquiry. Even otherwise, the respondents have also not controverted the testimony of said witness by leading their evidence in rebuttal.
12. It is also pertinent to note that the respondent no.1/driver was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident had taken place. However, he preferred not to enter into witness box during the course of inquiry. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Eicher Trolla bearing registration No. HR698144 by him.
13. Moreover, it is an undisputed fact that FIR no. 227/14 (supra) was registered at PS Rai, Sonepat, Haryana with regard to accident in Smt. Sudesh & Ors. Vs. Hem Raj & Ors. Page 6 of 15 MACP No. 5226/16 (Old No. 428/14) FIR No. 227/14.; Outstation DOD: 24.03.2018 question. Copy of said FIR as also the copy of charge sheet arising out of said FIR which are part of {(Ex. PW1/8(colly)} would show that FIR was registered on 12.08.2014 i.e. on the date of accident itself on the statement of Sh. Shish Pal(PW2). Thus, FIR is shown to have been registered promptly and without any delay. Hence, there is no possibility of false implication of respondent no. 1 and/or false involvement of Truck no. HR698144 at the instance of petitioners herein. Not only this, the respondent no. 1 namely Hem Raj son of Sh. Bhagi Rath (accused in State case) has been charge sheeted for offences punishable U/s 279/304A 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 rash and negligent driving of offending Truck No. HR698144 by him. Same would also point out towards rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1.
14. Not only this, copy of MLC of Tejpal (which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/8 colly) prepared at General Hospital, Sonipat, would show that he had been removed to said hospital by police official on 12.08.14 with alleged history of RTA. Copy of PM Report as well as a death report prepared at Mortuary of BJRM Hospital (which is part of criminal record Ex. PW1/8 colly), would show that cause of death of deceased Sh. Tej Pal is opined due to hemorrhagic shock due to injuries to mesenteric blood vessels and liver produced by blunt force impact. The injuries as noted in the column of external injuries therein, would show that those injuries are consistent with the injuries which are sustained in Road Traffic Accident. Said document has not been disputed from the side of respondent and corroborates the ocular testimony of PW2 as discussed above.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that Tej Pal had sustained fatal Smt. Sudesh & Ors. Vs. Hem Raj & Ors. Page 7 of 15 MACP No. 5226/16 (Old No. 428/14) FIR No. 227/14.; Outstation DOD: 24.03.2018 injuries in road accident which took place on 12.08.2014 at about 3.10 AM at the cut on Delhi Panipat GT Road, Near Dawat Rice Mill, Sonepat, Haryana within the jurisdiction of PS Rai, District Sonepat, Haryana due to rash and negligent driving of Eicher Trolla bearing registration no. HR698144 by respondent no. 1. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 216. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
17. As already stated above, the claimants are the widow and three major sons of deceased. PW1 Smt. Sudesh(widow of deceased) has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that deceased was aged 46 years; he was working as driver on the Canter no. HR63B3586 and was earning Rs. 15,000/ per month and besides the salary, he was also receiving Rs.150/ per day for food and other expenses at the time of accident. She further deposed that all the petitioners were totally dependent upon the deceased. She has relied upon the following documents: Sr. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of Death Certificate of Ex PW1/1 deceased
2. Copy of DL of deceased Ex. PW1/2
3. Copies of Educational Ex. PW1/3 (colly) Certificates of deceased
4. Copy of my Election Identity Ex. PW1/4 Smt. Sudesh & Ors. Vs. Hem Raj & Ors. Page 8 of 15 MACP No. 5226/16 (Old No. 428/14) FIR No. 227/14.; Outstation DOD: 24.03.2018 Card
5. Copy of Election Identity Card Ex. PW1/5 of petitioner no. 2
6. Copy of Election Identity Card Ex. PW1/6 of petitioner no. 3
7. Copy of Election Identity Card Ex. PW1/7 of petitioner no. 4
18. During her cross examination, she deposed that her brother in law had taken deceased to the hospital. She had no documentary proof regarding salary of deceased. She denied the suggestion that deceased was not earning Rs. 15,000/ per month besides Rs. 150/ per day for food and other expenses or that she had not incurred Rs. 50,000/ on transportation and last rites of her deceased husband.
19. Counsel for petitioners fairly conceded during the course of arguments that for want of cogent evidence being led with regard to monthly income of deceased, his monthly income should be taken as per Minimum Wages Act applicable during the period in question. As already noted above, PW1 Smt. Sudesh has admitted during her cross examination that she has no documentary proof regarding monthly income of deceased at the time of the accident. Mere bald statement made by PW1 in this regard, cannot be accepted under the law. The petitioners have filed on record the copy of driving licence of deceased (Ex. PW1/2) which shows that the was authorised to drive Light Transport Vehicle on the day of accident. Further, the petitioners have also filed on record the copies of educational qualification documents of the deceased i.e. secondary school examination certificate, middle examination mark sheet and certificate of participation in athletics. In these circumstances, in the absence of any definite evidence regarding monthly income of deceased being led by the petitioners, his monthly income has to be assessed as that of a skilled worker as per Smt. Sudesh & Ors. Vs. Hem Raj & Ors. Page 9 of 15 MACP No. 5226/16 (Old No. 428/14) FIR No. 227/14.; Outstation DOD: 24.03.2018 Minimum Wages Act applicable in Delhi during the relevant period. The Minimum Wages of skilled worker under Minimum Wages Act applicable in Delhi as on 12.08.2014, were Rs.10,374/ per month.
20. In claim petition, the age of deceased is mentioned as 48 years at the time of accident. The copies of driving license (Ex.PW1/2) & of middle class examination certificate of deceased (Ex. PW1/3) have been filed, wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 02.06.1966. The date of accident is 12.08.2014. Accordingly, the age of deceased is taken as 48 years at the time of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 13 would be applicable in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17.
21. Considering the fact that there were four dependents on deceased at the time of accident, there has to be deduction of one fourth as held in the case of Pranay Sethi mentioned supra. There has to be addition of 25% towards element of future prospects in the monthly income of deceased(he being aged between 40 to 50 years at the time of accident), in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", mentioned supra as well as in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.17. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 15,17,197.50 paise, is rounded of as Rs.15,17,200/ (Rs. 10374/X 3/4 X 125/100 X 12 X 13). Hence, a sum of Rs. 15,17,200/ is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
22. After the celebrated judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", mentioned supra, Hon'ble Delhi Smt. Sudesh & Ors. Vs. Hem Raj & Ors. Page 10 of 15 MACP No. 5226/16 (Old No. 428/14) FIR No. 227/14.; Outstation DOD: 24.03.2018 High Court in appeal titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", mentioned supra, has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the constitution bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other nonpecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
23. In view of celebrated judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", mentioned supra delivered by Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court, a sum of Rs. 40,000/ is awarded in favour of petitioner no. 1 Smt. Sudesh (being widow of deceased) towards loss of consortium.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
24. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 15,000/ each is awarded in favour of petitioners on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses.
The total compensation is assessed as under:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 15,17,200/
2. Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/
3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Expenses Rs. 30,000/ Total Rs. 15,87,200/ Rounded off to Rs. 15,88,000/
25. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Respondent no. 3/insurance company did not adduce any evidence since it had no Smt. Sudesh & Ors. Vs. Hem Raj & Ors. Page 11 of 15 MACP No. 5226/16 (Old No. 428/14) FIR No. 227/14.; Outstation DOD: 24.03.2018 statutory defence. It is nowhere the case of insurance company that any term or condition of insurance policy was breached/violated by insured. During the course of arguments, counsel for insurance company fairly conceded that insurance company has no statutory defence in this case. Keeping in view the existence of valid insurance policy, respondent no. 3/insurance company becomes liable to pay the compensation amount, as it is liable to indemnify the insured. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
26. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 & 2, I award a sum of Rs. 15,88,000/ (including interim award amount if any) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f date of filing the petition i.e.22.09.2014 till the date of its realization, in favour of Lrs of deceased/petitioners and against the respondents jointly and severally (Reliance placed on judgment "Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Devi & Ors" bearing MAC. APP. 165/2011 decided on 22.02.2016).
APPORTIONMENT
27. Statements of legal heirs of deceased in terms of Clause 26 MCTAP were recorded on 21.02.2017. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of their statements, it is hereby ordered that petitioner no. 1 namely Smt. Sudesh shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 8,50,000/(Rs. Eight Lacs Fifty Thousand Only) alongwith proportionate interest, the petitioner no. 2 namely Neeraj Kumar shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 2,38,000/(Rs. Two Lacs Thirty Eight Thousand Only) alongwith proportionate interest and Petitioners no. 3 & 4 namely Jogender and Jitender shall be entitled to share amounts of Rs. 2,50,000/(Rs. Two Lacs Fifty Thousand Only) each alongwith proportionate interest.
28. Out of the share amount of petitioner no.1, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/( Rs. One Lakh Only) is directed to be immediately released to Smt. Sudesh & Ors. Vs. Hem Raj & Ors. Page 12 of 15 MACP No. 5226/16 (Old No. 428/14) FIR No. 227/14.; Outstation DOD: 24.03.2018 her through her Saving Bank Account No. 36541941220 with SBI, District Court Rohini, Branch having IFSC Code No. SBIN0010323 and remaining share amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 10,000/ each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
29. Out of the share amount of petitioner no. 2, a sum of Rs. 30,000/ (Rs. Thirty Thousand Only) is directed to be immediately released to him through his Saving Bank Account No. 36541949820 with SBI, District Court Rohini, Branch having IFSC Code No. SBIN0010323 and remaining share amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 5000/ each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
30. Out of the share amount of petitioner no. 3, a sum of Rs. 30,000/ (Rs.Thirty Thousand Only) is directed to be immediately released to him through his Saving Bank Account No. 914010038396433 with Axis Bank Ltd, Soldha Jhajjar, Haryana Branch having IFSC Code No. UTIB0002471 and remaining share amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 5000/ each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
31. Out of the share amount of petitioner no.4, a sum of Rs. 30,000/ (Rs. Thirty Thousand Only) is directed to be immediately released to him through his Saving Bank Account No. 36541961280 with SBI, District Court Rohini, Branch having IFSC Code No. SBIN0010323 and remaining share amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 5000/ each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
32. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions: Smt. Sudesh & Ors. Vs. Hem Raj & Ors. Page 13 of 15 MACP No. 5226/16 (Old No. 428/14) FIR No. 227/14.; Outstation DOD: 24.03.2018
(i) Original fixed deposit receipts be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, a passbook of the FDRs alongwith photocopies of the FDRs be given to claimants/petitioners. At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be automatically credited in the savings bank accounts of the Claimants/petitioners.
(ii) The maturity amount(s) of the FDR(s) shall be credited to the savings bank account of the claimant(s) in a nationalized bank near the place of their residence.
(iii) No cheque book/Debit Card be issued to the claimant(s) in respect of the savings bank accounts in which the award amount is to be sent/credited, without permission of the Court. However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, the bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal be allowed on the fixed deposit(s) without permission of the Court.
(v) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank accounts or fixed deposit accounts of the victims.
(vi) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank before the Tribunal.
33. During the course of hearing of final arguments, counsel for petitioners submits that all the four claimants are entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS. The claimants also furnished Form No. 15G of Income Tax Act on record.
34. Respondent no. 3, being insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with SBI, Rohini Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the respective amounts (directed to be released immediately to petitioners no. 1 to 4) in their aforesaid saving bank accounts mentioned supra, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He be further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its Smt. Sudesh & Ors. Vs. Hem Raj & Ors. Page 14 of 15 MACP No. 5226/16 (Old No. 428/14) FIR No. 227/14.; Outstation DOD: 24.03.2018 own name till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioners. Copy of this award alongwith original Form nos. 15G of Income Tax Act furnished by claimants (after retaining copies thereof on record) be given to counsel for insurance company for compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copies of bank passbooks and copies of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance. Form V in terms of MCTAP is annexed herewith as AnnexureA. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP.
Announced in open Court on 24.03.2018 (VIDYA PRAKASH) Judge MACT2 (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi Smt. Sudesh & Ors. Vs. Hem Raj & Ors. Page 15 of 15