Delhi District Court
Smt. Mamta Dutta vs Mohd. Inamul on 27 February, 2015
Suit No. 669/2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. MUKESH KUMAR : PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL02 (WEST): DELHI
Case No. : 669/2014
DAR in respect
of FIR No. 111/2012
P.S Rajouri Garden
1. Smt. Mamta Dutta
W/o Late Sh. Mukesh Dutta
2. Ms. Tanu Dutta
D/o Late Sh. Mukesh Dutta
3. Sh. Chaitanya Dutta
S/o Late Sh. Mukesh Dutta
4. Sh. Tanishq Dutta
S/o Late Sh. Mukesh Dutta
All R/o House No. 989,
Four Storey Building,
Tagore Gaden Extension,
New Delhi110027.
(Petitioner No. 2 to 4 being minors are represented through
their mother & Natural Gurdian Smt. Mamta Dutta/petitioner No.1)
.........Petitioners
Versus
1. Mohd. Inamul
S/o Mohd. Salahuddin
R/o 94, Cement Siding Jhuggi Camp,
Shakur Basti, Delhi110034.
(Driver)
2. Mohd. Shahabuddin
S/o Sh. Rubaz Ali
R/o N86/277, Lawrence Road,
Smt. Mamta Dutta Vs. Mohd. Inamul & Ors. Page No. 1/18
Suit No. 669/2014
Delhi. (Owner)
3. United India Insurance Company Ltd.
9 Transport Centre
th
New Rohtak Road Centre,
New Delhi110035.
(Insurance Company)
......... Respondents
Date of Institution: : 01.08.2012 (DAR) Date of reserving order/judgment : 27.02.2015 Date of pronouncement: : 27.02.2015 AWARD
1. This judgment cum award shall decide the petition under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 as amended up to date (hereinafter referred as Act) filed by petitioners for grant of compensation for the death of Late Sh. Mukesh Dutta in the road vehicular accident.
2. The case of the petitioners is that on 22.03.2012 at about 08:55 AM while the deceased was coming from Rajouri Garden towards Punjabi Bagh on his scooter bearing No. DL 1S F 7885 and when he reached at opposite site of ESI Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, side at Ring Road, Delhi in the meantime a Tempo bearing No. DL 1L E 2930 which was being driven by respondent no. 1 at a very high speed hit the scooter of the deceased from back side and as a result deceased fell down on the road. Deceased was removed to ESI Hospital and was declared brought dead. In total the petitioners have claimed a total sum of Rs. 55,00,000/ on account of compensation.
Smt. Mamta Dutta Vs. Mohd. Inamul & Ors. Page No. 2/18 Suit No. 669/2014
3. The written statement was filed by respondents No. 1 & 2 filed on 22.11.2012 wherein they categorically denied the rash and negligent aspect and also termed the contents of the petition to the false one.
4. Written statement was filed by respondent no. 3/insurance company on 22.11.2012 wherein it was admitted that the offending vehicle was insured on the date and time of accident but categorically denied the contents of the same.
5. Designated Officer has not been appointed by insurance company. Bank Account of the insurance company has not been given. Photographs and specimen signatures of the petitioners along with FormA were filed at the time of filing of claim petition. Bank account particulars were not filed on record by the petitioners. Insurance company has offered an amount of Rs 12,34,600/ which was not acceptable to the petitioners.
6. DAR in this case was filed by the IO in the Court. The insurance company was informed prior to filing of DAR before the Court and the copy of DAR was supplied to the claimants on 30.07.2012. The remaining particulars as mentioned in Form IV of 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 14.01.2015 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, New Delhi, the particulars which are available have been mentioned in the Award itself.
7. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor on 22.11.2012 : Smt. Mamta Dutta Vs. Mohd. Inamul & Ors. Page No. 3/18 Suit No. 669/2014 Issue No. 1: Whether the deceased Sh. Mukesh Dutta suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 22.03.2012 at about 09:00 hours involving Tempo bearing No. DL 1L E 2930 driven by the respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3? OPP Issue No. 2 : Whether the petitioner/petitioners is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
8. In order to establish their claim, the petitioners examined Sh. Manish Sharma, employer of deceased as PW 1. Eye witness Head Constable Ram Diya as PW 2. Wife of the deceased as PW 3 and Sh. Sanjay Kumar Singh as PW 4.
9. The respondents did not examine any witness in their defence.
10. I have thoroughly gone through the testimony of the witnesses and perused the record.
11. My issue wise findings are as under : Issue No. 1 : Whether the deceased Sh. Mukesh Dutta suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 22.03.2012 at about 09:00 hours involving Tempo bearing No. DL 1L E 2930 driven by the respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3? OPP
12. Since the present petition is under Section 166 of M V Act, it was the bounden duty of the petitioner to prove that the respondent No. 1 was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Smt. Mamta Dutta Vs. Mohd. Inamul & Ors. Page No. 4/18 Suit No. 669/2014
13. PW 2 explained the mode and manner of the accident vide Ex PW 2/A that on 22.03.2012 at about 08:55 AM while the deceased was coming from Rajouri Garden towards Punjabi Bagh on his scooter bearing No. DL 1S F 7885 and when he reached at opposite site of ESI Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, side at Ringh Road, Delhi in the meantime a Tempo bearing No. DL 1L E 2930 which was being driven by respondent no. 1 at a very high speed hit the scooter of the deceased from back side and as a result deceased fell down on the road. Deceased was removed to ESI Hospital and was declared brought dead. The crossexamination carried on by the respondents is not suggestive of anything which may discard the claim of the petitioners that the driver of the offending vehicle was not rash and negligent at the time of accident.
14. The DAR filed by the police in case FIR bearing No. 111/2012, P.S Rajouri Garden, under Section 279/304 A IPC.
15. To determine the negligence, I am being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2009 ACJ 287, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR or in addition the recovery memo on the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent. It was further held that the proceedings under the Motor Smt. Mamta Dutta Vs. Mohd. Inamul & Ors. Page No. 5/18 Suit No. 669/2014 Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard.
Further, in Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would made the petition maintainable under section 166 and 140 of the Act. It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be construed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one.
16. Further recently the Hon'ble High of Delhi in MAC App. No.200/2012 in case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vd. Smt. Rinki @ Rinku & Ors decided on 23/07/2012 has been pleased to held as under: "The Claims Tribunal was conscious of the fact that negligence is a sine qua non to a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act). It is also true that the proceedings for grant of compensation under the Act are neither governed by the criminal procedures nor are a civil suit. A reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court Bimla Devi and Ors. V Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors, (2009) 13 SC 530 where it was held as under:
Smt. Mamta Dutta Vs. Mohd. Inamul & Ors. Page No. 6/18 Suit No. 669/2014
"15. 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 any accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimant. 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."
17. Therefore, reading all the documents filed by the petitioners as a whole it is clear that respondent No. 1 was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
18. The issue no. 1 is therefore decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
COMPENSATION :
19. As per the copy of PAN card Ex PW 3/4, the date of birth of deceased was 21.11.1969. The date of accident was 22.03.2013. Accordingly the deceased was 43 years of age as on the date of accident.
20. The deceased was stated to be doing private service in Brand Buzz as Store Incharge and was stated to be earning Rs. 32,000/ per month. Regarding income of the deceased, the petitioner examined Sh. Manish Sharma, proprietor Brand Buzz who proved the appointment letter of the deceased as Ex PW 1/1. Ex. PW 1/1 suggests that deceased was getting total pay of Rs 32,000/ per month Smt. Mamta Dutta Vs. Mohd. Inamul & Ors. Page No. 7/18 Suit No. 669/2014 which include conveyance allowance of Rs 2,000/. After deducting the said allowance, the net pay of the deceased comes out to be Rs. 30,000/ per month. In these circumstances, I hold that the income of the deceased was Rs. 30,000/ per month.
21. Ld. Counsel for petitioners requested for balancing the income of the victim on the basis of inflation trends and requested that 30% increase be made in the income of the victim on the basis of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors 2013(6) Scale 563, but per contra Ld. counsel for the insurer objected to same.
23. I have taken care of the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for petitioner and have perused the record.
24. Initially, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'Santosh Devi Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors' in Civil Appeal No. 3723 of 2012 decided on 23/04/2012 case had held as under: "14. We find it extremely difficult to fathom any rationale for the observation made in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma's case that where the deceased was selfemployed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death a departure from this rule should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstance. In our view, it will be nave to say that the wages or total emoluments/income of a person who is selfemployed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., would remain the same throughout his life. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board. It Smt. Mamta Dutta Vs. Mohd. Inamul & Ors. Page No. 8/18 Suit No. 669/2014 does not make any distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those who are selfemployed or who get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst affected people. Therefore, they put extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families. The salaries of those employed employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed in private sectors have also increased manifold. Till about two decades ago, nobody could have imagined that salary of Class IV employee of the Government would be in five figures and total emoluments of those in higher echelons of service will cross the figure of rupees one lac. Although, the wages/income of those employed in unorganized sectors has not registered a corresponding increase and has not kept pace with the increase in the salaries of the Government employees and those employed in private sectors but it cannot be denied that there has been incremental enhancement in the income of those who are selfemployed and even those engaged on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can take judicial notice of this fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling on the latter category periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this context, it may be useful to give an example of a tailor who earns his livelihood by stitching cloths. If the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase the cost of his labour. So will be the cases of ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like barber, blacksmith, cobbler, mason etc. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in Smt. Mamta Dutta Vs. Mohd. Inamul & Ors. Page No. 9/18 Suit No. 669/2014 the last three lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verma's judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is selfemployed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserved to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation".
25. However, in a recent case decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors 2013(6) Scale 563" wherein three Hon'ble Judges bench held that:
11. Since, the court in Santosh Devi's case (Supra) actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid in Sarla Verma's case (Supra) and to make it applicable also to selfemployed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30 % always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of selfemployed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50 % to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30 % in case the deceased was in age group of 40 to 50 years.
12. In Sarla Verma's case (supra), it has been stated that in the case of those above 50 years, there shall be no addition. Having regard to the fact that in the case of those self employed or on the fixed wages, where there is normally no age of superannuation, we are of the view that it will only be Smt. Mamta Dutta Vs. Mohd. Inamul & Ors. Page No. 10/18 Suit No. 669/2014 just and equitable to provide an addition of 15 % in the case where the victim is between the age group of 50 to 60 years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable. There shall normally be no addition thereafter.
20.The ratio of a decision of this Court, on a legal issue is a precedent. But an observation made by this Court, mainly to achieve uniformity and consistency on a socioeconomic issue, as contrasted from a legal principle, though a precedent, can be, and in fact ought to be periodically revisited, as observed in Santosh Devi (Supra). We may therefore, revisit the practice of awarding compensation under conventional heads: loss of consortium to the spouse, loss of love, care and guidance to children and funeral expenses. It may be noted that the sum of Rs. 25,00/ to Rs. 10,000/ in those heads was fixed several decades ago and having regard to inflation factor, the same needs to be increased. In Sarla Verma's case (supra), it was held that compensation for loss of consortium should be in the range of Rs. 5,000/ to Rs.10,000/. In legal parlance, 'consortium' is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. That nonpecuniary head of damages has not been properly understood by our Courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of nonpecuniary damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads of award of compensation in other parts of the world more particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc. English Courts have also compensation even during the period of temporary Smt. Mamta Dutta Vs. Mohd. Inamul & Ors. Page No. 11/18 Suit No. 669/2014 disablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have made an attempt to compensate the loss of spouse affection, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sexual relations during the future years. Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under this head. Hence, we are of the view that it would only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least Rupees One Lakh for loss of consortium.
26. After discussing the law of precedents, regarding future prospects, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a recent judgment in 'ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh & Ors'in MACA 846/2011 decided on 30/09/13 held as under:
"26. While considering the case of Santosh Devi, the Apex Court did not feel to refer the matter to a Larger Bench. Therefore, it can be concluded that there is no contradictions in the finding of Sarla Verma and Santosh Devi, in turn the Apex Court extended the scope and ambit of Sarla Verma through Santosh Devi."
27. In view of above, this court is guided by the legal principles as set out in Reshma Kumari and Rajesh in order to assess the just compensation as it is envisaged in Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In Reshma Kumari, the Apex Court affirmed the findings of Sarla Verma; and in Rajesh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has agreed with the dictum of Santosh Devi. Specifically, for the assessment of future prospects in respect of the persons falling under the category of self employment / fixed wages this court is guided by the dictum laid down in Rajesh. In my considered opinion, there is no contradiction in Smt. Mamta Dutta Vs. Mohd. Inamul & Ors. Page No. 12/18 Suit No. 669/2014 the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Reshma Kumari and Rajesh."
27. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in recent judgment have taken care of all the judgments relied upon in the earlier judgment of MAC APP 138/2011 decided on 06/09/2013 in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harpal Singh relied upon by the insurer.
28. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid latest judgment in 'ICICI Lombard Vs. Angrej Singh (supra), the income of the deceased is required to be appreciated for future prospects.
29. Since the deceased was 43 years of age as on the date of accident, 30% of income towards the future prospects is required to be added in terms of aforesaid judgment in Angrej Singh (supra). Hence, the income of deceased comes out to be Rs. 39,000/ (Rs. 30,000/ + 30%).
30. Deceased has left behind him four dependents as per the petition filed on record. It can very well be presumed in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC decided on 15.4.2009 in C.A. No. 3483/08 that the deceased might have been spending onefourth of Rs. 39,000/ on his personal expenses as he had left behind him four legal heirs. Therefore, after deducting onefourth towards personal expenses, the loss of dependency per month comes out to be Rs. 29,250/ (Rs. 39,000/ less Rs. 9,750/). The appropriate multiplier applicable is 15, as mentioned in Sarla Verma's judgment (Supra). The total loss of dependency comes out to Rs. 49,14,000/ ( Rs. 29,250/ x 14 x 12). Smt. Mamta Dutta Vs. Mohd. Inamul & Ors. Page No. 13/18 Suit No. 669/2014
31. In terms of the aforesaid judgment in Rajesh's case(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has granted Rs. 25000/ towards funeral charges, Rs. 1,00,000/ towards loss of consortium and Rs.1,00,000/ towards Love & Affection. Accordingly, I award Rs. 1,00,000/ towards loss of consortium; Rs. 1,00,000/ towards loss of Love & Affection; Rs. 25,000/ towards funeral charges; also award of Rs. 10,000/ towards loss of estate.
The total compensation is assessed as under:
Loss of dependency : Rs. 49,14,000/
Loss of consortium : Rs. 1,00,000/
Loss of Love & Affection Rs. 1,00,000/
Funeral charges : Rs. 25,000/
Loss of estate : Rs. 10,000/
_
Total: Rs. 51,49,000/
RELIEF:
32. I award Rs. 51,49,000/ (Rs. Fifty One Lac Forty Nine Thousand Only) in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents as compensation with interest at the rate of 8% per annum including interim award, if any, from the date of filing the petition i.e. 01.08.2012 (DAR) till the date of passing of Award on account of their liability being joint and several. The petitioner no.1 shall have the share of 40% in the Award amount and petitioner nos. 2 to 4 shall have share of 20% each in the award amount. 50% of the amount awarded to petitioner no. 1 be released.
33. Acting on the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India G.M Smt. Mamta Dutta Vs. Mohd. Inamul & Ors. Page No. 14/18 Suit No. 669/2014 Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v/s S. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176 in order to avoid the money being frittered away, fifty percent (50%) of the amount awarded to petitioner No. 1 shall be kept in 5 FDRs of almost equal amount in a Nationalized Bank for a period of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years. The amount so awarded to the petitioner no. 2 to 4, the same shall be kept in the FDRs for a period of 5 years. In case any petitioner/petitioners is/ are minor/minors, the entire amount awarded to petitioner/ petitioners shall be kept in FDRs in a nationalized bank till he/she attain/ attains the age of majority or for a period of five years whichever is later. No loan or advance shall be allowed against the said fixed deposit. Petitioners can withdraw the interest quarterly from the said FDRs. The minor petitioners, if any can withdraw the interest quarterly through their mother/ petitioner No. 1 respectively.
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY
34. The respondent no. 3/United India Insurance Company Limited has not produced any witness in its defence. Therefore, the respondent No. 3 being the insurer, its liability is joint and several with other respondents. Accordingly, respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the award amount within a period of 30 days. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at a rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
35. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its latest judgment in Union of India and Another Vs. Nanisari and Others MACA 682/2005 decided on 13.1.2010 have given certain guidelines and directions to the Motor Accident Tribunals to the Smt. Mamta Dutta Vs. Mohd. Inamul & Ors. Page No. 15/18 Suit No. 669/2014 effect that henceforth the Tribunals shall direct the insurance companies to deposit the award amount in the bank within 30 days with further direction as to the disbursement of the same in terms of the award and case be kept pending till the compliance is placed on record. The directions given by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as mentioned and endorsed in the said order has already been re affirmed by Hon;ble Supreme Court of India in order dated 17.12.2009 in SLP (C) No. 1180111804/2005 which contains certain schemes initiated for the benefit of the victims of the road accidents after the award amount is passed. The para no.19 of the judgment of the Hon'ble High court of Delhi runs as under: "19. To protect and preserve the compensation amount awarded to the families of the deceased victim special schemes may be considered by the insurance companies in consultation with the Life Insurance Corporation of India, State Bank of India or any other Nationalized Banks under which the compensation is kept in fixed deposit for an appropriate period and interest is paid by the Bank monthly to the claimants without any need for claimants having to approach either the Court or their counsel or the Bank for that purpose. The scheme should ensure that the amount of compensation is utilized only for the benefit of the injured claimants or in case of death, for the benefit of the dependent family. We extract below the particulars of a special Scheme offered by a nationalized Bank at the instance of the Delhi High Court:
(i) The fixed deposit shall be automatically renewed till the period prescribed by the Court.
(ii) The interest on the fixed deposit shall be paid monthly.
(iii) The monthly interest shall be credited automatically in the saving account of the claimant.
(iv) Original fixed deposit receipt shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody.Smt. Mamta Dutta Vs. Mohd. Inamul & Ors. Page No. 16/18 Suit No. 669/2014
However, the original pass book shall be given to the claimant along with the photocopy of the FDR.
(v) The original fixed deposit receipt shall be handed over to the claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period.
(vi) Photo identity card shall be issued to the claimant and the withdrawal shall be permitted only after due verification by the Bank of the identity card of the claimant.
(vii) No cheque book shall be issued to the claimant without permission of the Court.
(viii) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the fixed deposit without permission of the Court.
(ix) The claimant can operated the saving bank account from the nearest branch of UCO Bank on the request of the claimant, the bank shall provide the said facility."
36. It was further held in the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Nanisiri case (Supra) that "The State Bank of India and UCO Bank have formulated special schemes for the victims of the road accident on the above terms and, therefore, the order for the deposit should be made presently to State Bank of India through its nodal officer/Relationship Manager, Tis Hazari Branch, Tis Hazari or to UCO Bank through Mr. M M Tandon, MemberRetail Team, UCO Bank Zonal, Parliament Street, New Delhi (Mobile No.09310356400) as per the convenience of the victim /legal representatives of the victim. However, if any other bank agrees to provide the special scheme for victims of the road accident on the above terms, the deposit be permitted to be made in that Bank subject to the convenience of the victim/legal representative of the victim of the road accident".
37. In terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi the insurance company shall deposit the award amount in the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch, Delhi in the name of the petitioner/ petitioners in terms of Smt. Mamta Dutta Vs. Mohd. Inamul & Ors. Page No. 17/18 Suit No. 669/2014 the award and shall file the compliance report. It is made clear that at the time of the deposit of the award amount with the bank, the insurance company shall specifically mention the suit no. of the case, title of the case as well as date of decision with the name of court on the back side of the cheque. The insurance company shall also file the attested copy of the award attested by its own officer to the bank at the time of deposit of the amount with the bank.
38. The copy of this award be given to the insurance company as well as to the petitioner free of cost. The petitioner shall approach the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch for opening the account. Ahlmad is directed to send copy of the Award to concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of 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 14.01.2015 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, New Delhi
39. The Manager of the Bank is directed to comply the award. The Bank Manager is directed to release the award amount to the petitioner. However, in case the amount is ordered to be kept in the FDR, the said amount should not be released unless the FDR is matured.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 05.05.2015 to be filed by insurance company.
Announced in the open court
on 27th February, 2015 (MUKESH KUMAR)
PO: MACT (WEST02): DELHI
Smt. Mamta Dutta Vs. Mohd. Inamul & Ors. Page No. 18/18