Delhi District Court
Judge vs Mr.Gurnam Singh Son Of Mr.Bhagwant Ram on 19 February, 2011
IN THE COURT OF MS.NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA,
JUDGE, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-02,
NEW DELHI
Suit Number : 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number : 02403C0251222010.
1 Ms.Lata Singh wife of Mr.Ajit Singh
Resident of C-672, New Friends Colony, New Delhi.
2 Mr.Ajit Singh son of late Mr.Fateh Singh
Resident of C-672, New Friends Colony, New Delhi.
.............................................................................................Petitioners.
Versus
1. Mr.Gurnam Singh son of Mr.Bhagwant Ram
Resident of 864/14, Govind Puri, New Delhi
2. Mr.Kaka Singh
Resident of B-239/1, Parkash Mohalla, Garhi, East of Kailash,
New Delhi.
Also at: C/o M/s Avinash Tourist Taxi Service
M-2, 2nd floor, M-block, Main Market,
Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi.
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
RO-2, Scope Building, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi
Also at: 613-630, Ansal Chamber 2, Bikhajicama Place,
New Delhi (insurer of Toyota Qualis bearing no.DL-3CV-0643)
4. Driver ST bus no.GJ-1Z-3954
5. State Transport Corporation
Ahemdabad (Gujarat) Govt of Gujrat.
.........................................................................................Respondents.
Date of institution : 07.04.2004 Arguments concluded on : 19.02.2011. Date of judgment and award : 19.02.2011.
Appearances: Mr.Ravi Chawla, counsel for the petitioners.
Mr.J.P.N.Shahi, counsel for respondent number 3. Respondent numbers 1, 2, 4 and 4 are ex parte.
Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 1 of 38 ::-
JUDGMENT AND AWARD
1. The present claim petition under sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as the MV Act) has been filed by Ms.Lata Singh and Mr.Ajit Singh, both the petitioners, against Mr.Gurnam Singh, Mr.Kaka Singh, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Driver ST bus bearing registration number GJ-1Z-3954 and State Transport Corporation, all the respondents, for compensation regarding the death of Ms.Smita Singh @ Sim Singh @ Seema (daughter of the petitioners) in a road traffic accident.
2. It is averred by the petitioners that on 29.11.2003 at about 1 pm while the deceased Ms.Smita Singh @ Sim Singh @ Seema along with her dance troupe was on way to Ahemdabad in their Toyota Qualis bearing registration number DL-3CV-0643 which was driven by respondent number 1 was hit by State Transport Corporation bus bearing registration number GJ-1Z-3954, which was driven by respondent number 4 in rash and negligent manner from the front side in the front of Riason Petrol Pump, Gandhi Nagar, Gujrat. The bus was being driven in such a high speed that it hit the Qualis head on, which resulted many serious injuries to deceased as well as injuries to other passengers/occupants of the Qualis. The deceased was taken to a hospital in an unconscious state and she succumbed due to the injuries sustained in the accident after six days in Apollo Hospital, Ahemdabad.
Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 2 of 38 ::-
FIR number 292/2003 dated 30.11.2003 under sections 279/338/304-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) was registered in Police Station Pethapur, Gandhi Nagar, Gujrat against respondent number 4. The deceased was working as a dancer with Savior-Vivre, the Dance Academy and earning Rs.15,000/- per month approximately. Respondent number 1 is the driver, respondent number 2 is the owner and respondent number 3 is the insurer of the involved vehicle i.e. Toyota Qualis bearing registration number DL-3CV-0643, respondent number 1 is the driver and respondent number 5 is the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. State Transport Corporation bus bearing registration number GJ-1Z-3954, hence they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Prayer for a compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- is made.
3. Summons of the case were served upon all the respondents.
However, respondent numbers 1 and 2 were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 12.01.2010. Respondent numbers 4 and 5 were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 24.08.2004. Respondent number 3 is the only actual contesting respondent.
4. In the written statement which was filed on behalf of respondent numbers 1 and 2, all the averments made in the petition are controverted and rebutted. The vehicle in question is insured with respondent number 3, hence, any liability to pay compensation to the Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 3 of 38 ::-
petitioners is of respondent number 3.
5. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent number 3, all the averments made in the petition are controverted and rebutted. The vehicle in question i.e. Toyota Qualis bearing registration number DL-3CV-0643 was insured with respondent number 3 vide Policy number 2004/4033 valid from 23.11.2003 to 22.11.2004. All the pleas under the MV Act have been taken by respondent number 3. Prayer for the dismissal of the petition is made.
6. Vide order dated 24.08.2004 of the learned predecessor of this Tribunal, the following issues were framed:-
1) Whether Ms.Samita Singh suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 30.11.2003 due to rash and negligent driving of bus no.DL-3CV-0643, driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3? OPP.
2) Whether the respondent no.3 insurance company is not liable to pay compensation on account of preliminary objections taken by it in its written statement?OPR-3
3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom which of the respondents ? OPP.
4) Relief.
7. In order to proof their case, the petitioners have examined petitioner number 1, Ms.Lata Singh, as PW1, petitioner number 2, Mr.Ajit Singh as PW2, Mr.Vikas Khatolia as PW3, Mr.Bijender as PW4 and Mr.R.K.Desai as PW5. Respondent number 3 did not Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 4 of 38 ::-
examine any witness.
8. PW1 Ms.Lata Singh, petitioner number 1, has tendered her affidavit as her examination in chief and deposed on the lines of the petition. She has also proved the death certficate of the decased as Ex.PW1/1; death summary and medical record as Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3; receipt of Mortuary Centre as Ex.PW1/4, certficates of High School, Inter College and College I-card as Ex.PW1/5 to Ex.PW1/9 and the ration card as Ex.PW1/10. In her cross examination, she has deposed that she is not an eye witness. Her daughter was not amrried and used to give her entire salary and she was earning about Rs. 12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month.
9. PW2, Mr. Ajit Singh, also tendered his affidavit as his examination in chief and deposed on the lines of the petition. He has proved original photographs of deceased as Ex.PW2/1 and Ex.PW2/2. In his cross examination, he deposed that he has not brought any documentary proof that deceased was working with M/s Blitz Trick Dance Troupe at Vinod Nagar and was earning Rs.12,000/-pm. He denied the suggestion that they were not dependent upon the income of deceased.
10. PW3, Mr.Vikas Khatolia, an eye witness, has deposed on the lines of the petition and has given a narration of the manner in which the accident has occurred. He has deposed that on 29.11.2003 at Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 5 of 38 ::-
about 1 pm he alongwith his dance group were going to Ahmedabad on Tata Qualis bearing registration number DL-3CV-0643 which was driven by respondent number 1. When they reached in front of Riason Petrol Pump, Gandhi Nagar, Gujrat, their vehicle was hit by State Transportation bus registration number GJ-1Z-3954 which was driven in rash and negligent manner by respondent number 4. The accident was caused due to fault of respondent number 4 as he was coming from wrong side. They were eight person in the Tata Qualis and due to impact of accident, they all received injuries. Amongst the injured Ms.Smita Singh, who used to earn Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month, succumbed to death due to injuries sustained in the accident. FIR number 292/2003 dated 30.11.2003 under sections 279/338/304-A of the IPC was registered in Police Station Pethapur, Gandhi Nagar, Gujrat against the Gujrat Roadways bus.
11. PW4, Mr.Bijender, was also eye witness to accident. He also deposed that accident was caused due to the fault of respondent number 4 as he was coming from wrong side. Amongst the injured Ms.Smita Singh, who used to earn Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month, succumbed to death due to injuries sustained in the accident. FIR number 292/2003 dated 30.11.2003 under sections 279/338/304-A of the IPC was registered in Police Station Pethapur, Gandhi Nagar, Gujrat against the Gujrat Roadways bus.
12. PW5, Mr.R.K.Desai, ASI, Karol Shahar Police Station, Zila Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 6 of 38 ::-
Gandhi Nagar, Gujrat produced the panchnama of place of occurrence of accident which was Ex.PW5/1; the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. of Mr.Anil Kumar, Mr.V.K.Srivastava, Ms.Divya, Mr.Surinder Singh and Mr.Ajay Shanker who were accompanying the deceased which are Ex.PW5/2 to Ex.PW5/7; the panchnama of deceased Smita Singh ExPW5/8; the certificate of Civil Hospital, Gandhi Nagar issued by Medical Officer showing the cause of deceased Smita Singh Ex.PW5/9; the postmortem report of deceased Smita Singh Ex.PW5/10; the photocopy of the driving licence of Mr.Popet Bhai Chana Bhai Prjapati, driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Bus number GJ-12-3954 is Mark A. The challan has been filed in the Court at Gandhi Nagr, Gujray in FIR number 292/2003 dated 30.11.2003 under sections 279/338/304-A of the IPC was registered in Police Station Pethapur, Gandhi Nagar, Gujrat and respondent number 4 is facing trial. As per the investigation, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver.
13 I have heard the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners and respondent number 3 at length. I have also given my conscious thought and prolonged consideration to the material on record, relevant provisions of law and the precedents on the point.
14 After, careful perusal of the record, my findings on the disputed facts are as follows:
Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 7 of 38 ::-
ISSUE NUMBER 1:
15. Issue number 1 is.............Whether Ms.Samita Singh suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 30.11.2003 due to rash and negligent driving of bus no.DL-3CV-0643, driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3? OPP.
16. As the petition is under section 166 of the MV Act, the rashness and negligence of the offending driver is required to be proved by the petitioners.
17. Section 140 of the MV Act reads as:
Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principal of no fault- (1) Where death of permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death of disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section. (2) The amount of compensation which shall be payable under sub section(1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of (fifty thousand rupees) and the amount of compensation payable under that sub-section in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of (twenty-five thousand rupees).
(3) In any claim or compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.
Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 8 of 38 ::-
(4) A claim for compensation under sub-section (1) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of such person in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) regarding death or bodily injury to any person, for which the owner of the vehicle is liable to give compensation for relief, he is also liable to pay compensation under any other law for the time being in force:
Provided that the amount of such compensation to be given under any other law shall be reduced from the `amount of compensation payable under this section or under section 163-A.
18. Section 166 of the MV Act reads as:
Application for compensation:- (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made-
1. by the person who has sustained the injury; or
2. by the owner of the property; or
3. where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or
4. by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:
Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who ;have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondent to the application.
(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to the Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 9 of 38 ::-
Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed:
Provided that where no claim for compensation under section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant.
(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act.
19. I find on perusal of the certified copies of the criminal case record of FIR number 292/2003 dated 30.11.2003 under sections 279/338/304-A of the IPC was registered in Police Station Pethapur, Gandhi Nagar, Gujrat, including the FIR, final report under section 173 Cr.P.C./charge sheet, statements under section 161 of the Cr.P.C., medical records, etc. that the offending vehicle is mentioned as State Transport Corporation bus bearing registration number GJ-1Z-3954.
20. The claim of the respondents that respondent number 4, the driver of State Transport Corporation bus bearing registration number GJ-1Z-3954 has been falsely implicated in the present case to help the petitioners is not tenable as no one is above the law and no one can be punished without evidence and neither the police nor the Court can be made to deviate from the law.
Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 10 of 38 ::-
21. Proceedings under the MV Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil Court and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Certified copies of the criminal Court record such as FIR etc. are sufficient proof to reach the conclusion that driver was negligent. It is not necessary for the petition to prove rashness and negligence of the driver/ respondent where there is no eye witness as the same can be proved by documents such as the FIR to show that his vehicle was involved in the accident. (Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case reported as Union of India v.Rajo and others, 116 (2005) DLT 226).
22. The Supreme Court in its judgment in the case reported as N.K.V.Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M.Karumai Ammal & Ors. etc., in Supreme Court Cases on Motor Accident Claims at page 685 has observed that Court/Tribunal should not succumb to niceties technicalities and mystic. Special care must be taken to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or obscurity there. Except in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from circumstances where it is fairly reasonable.
23. In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. State Transport Corporation bus bearing registration number GJ-1Z-3954 by its driver respondent number 1 in the accident, the petitioner has produced and proved the certified Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 11 of 38 ::-
copy of the criminal case record of FIR number 1225/06 under sections 279/338/427 of the IPC registered in Police Station Bithari Chainpur, Bareilly, U.P.. The challan/final report under section 173 Cr.P.C., FIR, medical records, etc. have also proved on the record.
24. It can be seen from the criminal case record that the IO has reached the conclusion after investigation that the driver of the offending vehicle is respondent number 4 and he was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. It is clear that after due investigation, it has been concluded that it is the respondent number 4 and none else who has caused the accident.
25. PWs 1 and 2, the parents of the deceased, Ms.Smita Singh @ Sim Singh @ Seema, have categorically deposed that respondent number 1 had caused the accident driving the offending vehicle i.e. State Transport Corporation bus bearing registration number GJ-1Z-3954 in a rash and negligent manner resulting in fatal injuries to their daughter Ms.Smita Singh @ Sim Singh @ Seema. They have assigned a very clear and specific role to respondent number 4. I do not find anything material in their lengthy cross examination which could indicate the respondent number 4 was not driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
26. Respondents apparently did not care to appear before the IO of the criminal case, learned Magistrate or any authority to inform or Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 12 of 38 ::-
complain that respondent number 4 has been falsely implicated. None of the respondents have approached the High Court for quashing the FIR.
27. The conduct of respondent number 4 in the present matter appears to indicate that the accident has been caused by him. It cannot be disputed that respondent number 4 is facing trial in a criminal case of accident and even the police investigation has concluded that he is the culprit.
28. It also cannot be ignored that when an eye witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully made his testimony totally non-discrepant. But Courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in evidence of witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the Court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
29. The petitioners have also produced and proved the certified copies of the criminal case record which includes the final report under section 173 Cr.P.C./ charge sheet, FIR etc. wherein it is specifically Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 13 of 38 ::-
mentioned that the offending vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent number 4 who has caused the accident due to which the deceased has received fatal injuries.
30. The claim of the petitioners that Ms.Smita Singh @ Sim Singh @ Seema had received fatal injuries in an accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. State Transport Corporation bus bearing registration number GJ-1Z-3954 by respondent number 4 appears to be absolutely correct as proved from the criminal case record. All the above documents show that respondent number 4 is being prosecuted for rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and causing accident due to which the deceased had received fatal injuries.
31. The stand of the petitioners is clearly proved by the unshatterred and unassailed evidence of PWs 1 and 2 as well as the criminal case record. The respondents have also been able to show otherwise to substantiate their respective averments.
32. It is settled proposition that in case the charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the alleged offending vehicle, it is sufficient proof regarding the involvement of the vehicle and factum of accident unless and until denied by the respondent. In this regard reference can also be made to Bala & Ors v. Moti Chand Gupta & Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 14 of 38 ::-
Others 2003 VIII AD (Delhi) 256, the Delhi High Court held as under:-
Plain reading of Section 158(6) and Section 166 (4) of the Act shows that even the charge sheet submitted by the Police Officer to the Tribunal is to be treated as an application for compensation by the claims tribunal. Once the charge-sheet is forwarded to the claims tribunal, the tribunal is immediately made aware that the accident has been caused by the offending vehicle and the tribunal in that case is not required to go into any further technicality to direct the claimants to still prove that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident unless, of course, the party opposing the petition denies the involvement of such vehicle.
33. Arrest of the accused/ respondent number 4, his vehicle being impounded, his being prosecuted and his not making any complaint of alleged false implication clearly point towards the guilt of respondent number 4. These facts in totality indicate that the deceased had received fatal injuries in the road accident due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent number 4. The contentions of the respondents remain unproved.
34. There is nothing on record to indicate that the respondent number 4 was not driving the offending vehicle i.e. State Transport Corporation bus bearing registration number GJ-1Z-3954 in a rash and negligent manner or that he has not caused the accident.
35. The concept of rashness and negligence in the present case is entirely different from the criminal proceedings. In the present case, Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 15 of 38 ::-
the rashness and negligence is only one of the species of the cause of action. A criminal case has been registered vide FIR number 1225/06 under sections 279/338/427 of the IPC registered in Police Station Bithari Chainpur, Bareilly, U.P. against respondent number 4 which supports the claim of the petitioner that it was due to rash and negligent act of the driver of offending vehicle i.e. respondent number 4 that the accident had taken place resulting in the grievous injuries to the petitioner. A perusal of the criminal record also shows that the police investigation has also concluded that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent number 4. It is evident that respondent number 4 was rash and negligent in driving his vehicle State Transport Corporation bus bearing registration number GJ-1Z-3954 which hit the Tata Qualis bearing registration number DL-3CV-0643 in which the deceased was travelling.
36. PWs 3 and 4, Mr.Vikas Khatolia and Mr.Bijender, both eye witnesses, have very clearly deposed regarding the manner in which the accident had occurred and have categorically deposed that the driver of State Transport Corporation bus bearing registration number GJ-1Z-3954 was rash and negligent in driving his vehicle and he caused the accident resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased Ms.Smita Singh @ Sim Singh @ Seema. A very clear and specific role has been assigned to the driver of the offending vehicle and there is nothing Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 16 of 38 ::-
material in the cross examination of PWs 3 and 4 which could indicate otherwise.
37. Even if there was no eye witness, then also the final report in the criminal case is sufficient proof to show the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent number 4. (Reliance can be placed upon the judgments reported as Union of India v. Rajo & ors., 116 (2205) DLT 226; Basant Kaur and others v. Chatarpal Singh and others, 2003 ACJ 369).
38. As discussed above, respondent number 4 as well as the respondents have failed to lead any evidence in this case to deny the factum of the offending vehicle being driven rashly and negligently by respondent number 4 and causing accident in which the deceased has expired. In these circumstances, I consider that the petitioners have duly proved that the deceased, Ms.Smita Singh @ Sim Singh @ Seema, has received fatal injuries due to road accident caused by the offending vehicle being driven by respondent number 4 in a rash and negligent manner.
39. Therefore, the testimony of the petitioner number 1 as PW1, petitioner number 2 as PW2 considered along with the evidence of the two eye witnesses, PWs 3 and 4, and the other documents i.e. the FIR registered in this case, charge sheet, etc., I am of the considered opinion that the deceased, Ms.Smita Singh @ Sim Singh @ Seema, Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 17 of 38 ::-
has received fatal injuries due to road accident caused by the offending vehicle i.e. State Transport Corporation bus bearing registration number GJ-1Z-3954 being driven by respondent number 4 in a rash and negligent manner.
40. The petitioners have claimed that they are the only legal representatives of the deceased Ms.Smita Singh @ Sim Singh @ Seema. PWs 1 and 2 have also similarly deposed in their affidavits and there is no effective cross examination regarding the same. The respondents have also failed to produce any controverting evidence. Therefore, it is clear that Ms.Lata Singh (mother) and Mr.Ajit Singh (father), both the petitioners, are the only legal heirs of the deceased Ms.Smita Singh @ Sim Singh @ Seema being her parents.
41. It is not in dispute that respondent number 4 is the driver and respondent number 5 is the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. State Transport Corporation bus bearing registration number GJ-1Z-3954. It is also not in dispute that respondent number 1 is the driver, respondent number 2 is the owner and respondent number 3 is the driver of Tata Qualis bearing registration number DL-3CV-0643 in which the deceased was travelling.
42. I hereby hold that Ms.Smita Singh @ Sim Singh @ Seema received fatal injuries on account of a motor vehicle accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle State Transport Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 18 of 38 ::-
Corporation bus bearing registration number GJ-1Z-3954 caused by driver, respondent number 4 and owned by respondent number 5 on 30.11.2003 while driving the same in a rash or negligent manner. It is also clear that respondent number 1 was not at fault and he is not responsible in amy manner for the accident.
43. Issue number 1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NUMBER 2:
44. Issue number 2 is................ Whether the respondent no.3 insurance company is not liable to pay compensation on account of preliminary objections taken by it in its written statement?OPR-3
45. It is clear from the discussion of issue number 1 that respondent number 3 is not liable to pay any compensation as the Tata Qualis bearing registration number DL-3CV-0643 (which was insured with respondent number 3 on the date of accident) as its driver i.e. Respondent number 1 was not at fault and he is not responsible in any manner for the accident.
46. Therefore, respondent number 3 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 19 of 38 ::-
ISSUE NUMBER 3:
47. Issue number 3 is................Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom which of the respondents ? OPP.
48. The petitioners have claimed that they are the only legal representatives of the deceased Ms.Smita Singh @ Sim Singh @ Seema. PWs 1 and 2 have also similarly deposed in their affidavits and there is no cross examination regarding the same. The respondents have also failed to produce any controverting evidence. Therefore, it is clear that Ms.Lata Singh (mother) and Mr.Ajit Singh (father), both the petitioners, are the only legal heirs of the deceased Ms.Smita Singh @ Sim Singh @ Seema being her parents.
49. However, in view of In the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt.Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., in Civil Appeal No.3483 of 2008, decided on April 15, 2009 (arising out of SLP (C) No.8648 of 2007) Smt.Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., of the Apex Court not only is available on the official website of the Apex Court i.e. supreme court of India.nic.in and also is reported in as 2009 (6) Scale 129: 2009 ACJ 129: III (2009) ACC 708 (SC) and also relied upon in the Delhi High Court in its order dated 08.05.2009 in MAC. App.No. 842/2003 in FAO No.842/2003, in the case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. v. Jagbir Singh & Ors. decided on 21.04.2009 wherein the law of Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 20 of 38 ::-
compensation, structured formula and appropriate multiplier have been changed, overruling the earlier law as well as giving a new clarification to the Second Schedule, it has been observed that the father and siblings (brother and sister) of the deceased are not the dependents of the deceased and are not entitled to any compensation under the MV Act.
50. Therefore, only petitioner number 1 being the mother of the deceased is entitled to the compensation under the MV Act.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY:
51. The petitioner numbers 1 and 2, as PWs 1 and 2, have deposed in their affidavits filed as his examination in chief that the deceased, Ms.Smita Singh @ Sim Singh @ Seema, who was aged 19 years on the date of accident was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. There is nothing brought on the record which could show otherwise as there is nothing material in their cross examination by respondents who have also not led any evidence of their own.
52. Therefore, keeping in view the evidence of petitioner numbers 1 and 2, PWs 1 and 2, and the matriculation certificate, it is clear that the deceased was aged 19 years at the time of her accident demise.
53. PW1, has deposed in her cross examination, that the Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 21 of 38 ::-
deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month to Rs.15,000/- per month. PW2, has deposed in his cross examination, that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month while working with M/s Blitz Trick Troop but he has not produced any documentary proof. PW3, has deposed in his cross examination, that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month to Rs.15,000/- per month. PW4, has deposed in his cross examination, that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month to Rs.15,000/- per month. Although the petitioners have not placed on the record any formal documentary proof of income but there is nothing brought on the record which could show otherwise as there is nothing material in the cross examination of the witnesses of the petitioners.
54. It is not explained as to why there is discrepancy in the evidence of the witnesses of the petitioners regarding the income of the deceased.
55. PWs 1 and 2 has deposed in her cross examination that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month to Rs.15,000/- per month while they have deposed in their affidavits filed as her examination in chief that she was working with M/s Blitz Trick Dance Troupe and earning Rs.12,000/- per month and she was picked up by her present employer at higher emoluments of Rs.15,000/- per month. It is surprising to note that the name and address of her present employer has not been disclosed by the parents of the deceased nor any documentary proof has been filed.
Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 22 of 38 ::-
56. PW3, who is claimed to be a partner of Savoir Vivre, has deposed that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month to Rs. 15,000/- per month but he too has not filed any documentary proof of the income of the deceased. However, he has not been cross examined regarding the income of the deceased.
57. PW4, an employee of Savoir Vivre, has deposed that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month to Rs.15,000/- per month but he too has not filed any documentary proof of the income of the deceased. However, he has not been cross examined regarding the income of the deceased.
58. In such a situation the minimum income as deposed by PW3, who was the employer of the deceased, and PW4, who was a co- employee, is being taken as the income of the deceased i.e. Rs.10,000/- per month.
59. In Sarla Verma's judgment (supra), it has been observed in paragraph number 9 of the above judgment that:
Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death : (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 23 of 38 ::-
multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay. To have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well settled steps:
Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependant family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the `loss of dependency' to the family.
Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5,000/- to 10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 24 of 38 ::-
pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also added.
Question (i) - addition to income for future prospects
60. In para 10 of Sarla Verma's judgment, it was observed that:
Generally the actual income of the deceased less income tax should be the starting point for calculating the compensation. The question is whether actual income at the time of death should be taken as the income or whether any addition should be made by taking note of future prospects. In Susamma Thomas, this Court held that the future prospects of advancement in life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand (annual contribution to the dependants); and that where the deceased had a stable job, the court can take note of the prospects of the future and it will be unreasonable to estimate the loss of dependency on the actual income of the deceased at the time of death. In that case, the salary of the deceased, aged 39 years at the time of death, was Rs.1032/- per month.
Having regard to the evidence in regard to future prospects, this Court was of the view that the higher estimate of monthly income could be made at Rs.2000/- as gross income before deducting the personal living expenses. The decision in Susamma Thomas was followed in Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav [1996 (3) SCC 179], where the deceased was getting a gross salary of Rs.1543/- per month. Having regard to the future prospects of promotions and increases, this Court assumed that by the time he retired, his earning would have nearly doubled, say Rs.3000/-. This court took the average of the actual income at the time of death and the projected income if he had lived a normal life period, and determined the monthly income as Rs.2200/- per month. In Abati Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 25 of 38 ::-
Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India [2003 (3) SCC 148], as against the actual salary income of Rs. 42,000/- per annum, (Rs.3500/- per month) at the time of accident, this court assumed the income as Rs.45,000/- per annum, having regard to the future prospects and career advancement of the deceased who was 40 years of age.
61. In paragraph number 19 of the Sarla Verma's judgment, it is observed:
In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Charlie [2005 (10) SCC 720], this Court noticed that in respect of claims under section 166 of the MV Act, the highest multiplier applicable was 18 and that the said multiplier should be applied to the age group of 21 to 25 years (commencement of normal productive years) and the lowest multiplier would be in respect of persons in the age group of 60 to 70 years (normal retiring age). This was reiterated in TN State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. Rajapriya [2005 (6) SCC 236] and UP State Road Transport Corporation vs. Krishna Bala [2006 (6) SCC 249]. The multipliers indicated in Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie (for claims under section 166 of MV Act) is given below in juxtaposition with the multiplier mentioned in the Second Schedule for claims under section 163A of MV Act (with appropriate deceleration after 50 years :
Age of the Multiplier Multiplier Multiplier Multiplier Multiplier actually deceased scale as scale as scale in Trilok specified in used in Second envisaged in adopted by Chandra as second column Schedule to M. V Act Susamma Trilok clarified in in the Table in ( as seen from the Thomas Chandra Charlie II schedule to quantum of M. V Act compensation 1 2 3 4 5 6 Upto 15 yrs - - - 15 20 15 to 20 yrs 16 18 18 16 19 21 to 25 yrs 15 17 18 17 18 26 to 30 yrs 14 16 17 18 17 31 to 35yrs 13 15 16 17 16 36 to 40 yrs 12 14 15 16 15 41 to 45 yrs 11 13 14 15 14 46 to 50 yrs 10 12 13 13 12 51 to 55 yrs 9 11 11 11 10 Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 26 of 38 ::- Age of the Multiplier Multiplier Multiplier Multiplier Multiplier actually deceased scale as scale as scale in Trilok specified in used in Second envisaged in adopted by Chandra as second column Schedule to M. V Act Susamma Trilok clarified in in the Table in ( as seen from the Thomas Chandra Charlie II schedule to quantum of M. V Act compensation 56 to 60 yrs 8 10 9 8 8 61 to 65 yrs 6 8 7 5 6 Above 65 yrs 5 5 5 5 5 In para 25 of Sarla Verma's judgment, it was observed that:
The appellants next contended that having regard to the fact that the family of deceased consisted of 8 members including himself and as the entire family was dependent on him, the deduction on account of personal and living expenses of the deceased should be neither the standard one-third, nor one-fourth as assessed by the High Court, but one-eighth. We agree with the contention that the deduction on account of personal living expenses cannot be at a fixed one-third in all cases (unless the calculation is under section 163A read with Second Schedule to the MV Act). The percentage of deduction on account personal and living expenses can certainly vary with reference to the number of dependent members in the family. But as noticed earlier, the personal living expenses of the deceased need not exactly correspond to the number of dependents. As an earning member, the deceased would have spent more on himself than the other members of the family apart from the fact that he would have incurred expenditure on travelling / transportation and other needs. Therefore we are of the view that interest of justice would be met if one-fifth is deducted as the personal and living expenses of the deceased. After such deduction, the contribution to the family (dependents) is determined as Rs.57,658/- per annum. The multiplier will be 15 having regard to the age of the deceased at the time of death (38 years). Therefore the total loss of dependency would be Rs.57,658 x 15 = Rs.8,64,870/-.
62. In para 26 of the judgment, it was observed that:
Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 27 of 38 ::-
Having considered several subsequent decisions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (I/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-forth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceed six.
63. It was further observed that:
In addition, the claimants will be entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the head of `loss of estate' and Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses. The widow will be entitled to Rs.10,000/- as loss of consortium. Thus, the total compensation will be Rs.8,84,870/-. After deducting Rs.7,19,624/- awarded by the High Court, the enhancement would be Rs.1,65,246/-.
64. In the judgment reported as New India Assurance Company Limited v. Shanti Pathak, III (2007) ACC 505 (SC), it was held that the multiplier to be adopted is to be determined on the basis of the age of the claimant and the age of the deceased which ever is higher.
65. The age of petitioner number 1, the mother of the deceased, is not disclosed in any of her affidavits in the file. However, I find that a copy of the ration card issued on 27.03.2002 shows her age as 40 years which makes her age on the date of the accident i.e. 29.11.2003 as 41 years. Therefore, the multiplier of 14 shall be applicable.
Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 28 of 38 ::-
66. It is also clear that the deceased was unmarried on the date of her accident and therefore 50% will be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased as normally 50% is deducted towards personal and living expenses in case of a bachelor since it is assumed that a bachelor tends to spend more on himself, even otherwise there is also possibility of him getting married in short time in which case the contribution to the parents and siblings is likely to be cut drastically.
67. In terms of Sarla Verma's judgment, as the age of the mother of the deceased was 41 years at the time of her demise, the multiplier to be applied is 14 and the deduction of the personal and living expenses of the deceased would be taken as one half.
68. Therefore, the total loss of dependency would be the annual income into the appropriate multiplier into deduction of personal expenses of the deceased i.e. Rs.10,000/- x 12 (annual income) x 14 (multiplier) x 1/2 (personal expenses) which comes to Rs.8,40,000/-.
69. Hence, the petitioner number 1 is entitled to Rs.8,40,000/- for loss of financial dependency.
LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION:
70. The petitioner number 1 has lost her young daughter aged 19 years in the present accident. The loss of love and affection and the emotional trauma that the family of the deceased have undergone Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 29 of 38 ::-
cannot be assessed in monetary terms. Money cannot compensate the loss of love and affection of a daughter that petitioner number 1 had lost due to her death in the accident. However, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I award a sum of Rs.10,000/- (in terms of Sarla Verma's judgment) to the petitioner number 1 towards loss of love and affection.
MEDICAL EXPENSES:
71. The petitioners have not filed nor proved any medical bills.
However, it is clear from the medical records of the deceased that there must have been some expenditure as she was in the hospital for about 6 days before she expired.
72. Therefore, I am inclined to grant Rs.10,000/- under the heading of medical expenses.
LOSS OF FUTURE PROSPECTS:
73. The petitioners have although claimed loss of future prospects, but in view of Sarla Verma's case, since the deceased was privately employed, I am not inclined to grant any amount under the heading of loss of future prospects.
PAIN AND SUFFERING:
Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 30 of 38 ::-
74. The petitioners have although claimed compensation for pain and suffering, but in view of Sarla Verma's case, I am not inclined to grant any amount under this heading.
FUNERAL EXPENSES:
75. An amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded on account of funeral expenses.
LOSS TO ESTATE:
76. An amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of loss to estate to petitioner number 1 is also granted as the deceased, had she remained alive, she would have made some property.
TOTAL COMPENSATION:
77. In the petition, the petitioner number 1 is entitled to the following compensation in the present petition:
Loss of dependency : Rs.8,40,000/-.
Loss of love and affection : Rs.10,000/-.
Medical expenses : Rs.10,000/-.
Loss of future prospects : Nil.
Pain and suffering : Nil.
Funeral expenses : Rs.10,000/-.
Loss to estate : Rs.10,000/-.
Total compensation : Rs.8,80,000/-.
LIABILITY OF RESPONDENTS NUMBERS 1, 2 AND 3:
Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 31 of 38 ::-
78. Respondent number 1 is the driver of the involved vehicle i.e. Tata Qualis bearing registration number DL-3CV-0643, respondent number 2 is the owner/insured and respondent number 3 is the insurer of the same. As Tata Qualis bearing registration number DL-3CV-0643 was not being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, respondent numbers 1, 2 and 3 are not liable to pay any compensation under the MV Act to the petitioners and they stand absolved of their liability.
LIABILITY OF RESPONDENT NUMBERS 4 AND 5:
79. Respondent number 3 is the driver and respondent number 5 is the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. State Transport Corporation bus bearing registration number GJ-1Z-3954 are liable jointly and severally to pay compensation to the petitioners and nothing is shown which could indicate that they are absolved of their liability.
80. It may be mentioned here that the fact that the offending vehicle was driven by respondent number 4 and owned by respondent number 4 and all the documents of the offending vehicle as well as the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle are also valid.
81. All these facts, in totality, indicate that the offending vehicle was not used in violation of the permit. All the documents of Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 32 of 38 ::-
the offending vehicle as well its driver are in order and are not controverted by respondent numbers 4 and 5.
82. There is nothing shown which absolves respondent numbers 4 and 5 of their liability to pay compensation as it is clear that no term or condition of the same is violated and in the circumstances, they are liable to pay absolutely.
83. There is no contributory negligence of the other involved vehicle i.e. Tata Qualis bearing registration number DL-3CV-0643 in which the deceased was travelling. However, as discussed above, it is clear from the evidence as well as the FIR and the charge sheet that only the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. State Transport Corporation bus bearing registration number GJ-1Z-3954 was rash and negligent in driving his vehicle. There was no contributory negligence of the other vehicle i.e. Tata Qualis bearing registration number DL-3CV-0643 in which the deceased was travelling.
84. Therefore, respondent number 4, being the driver and respondent number 5 being the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. State Transport Corporation bus bearing registration number GJ-1Z-3954, cannot avoided their liability as they are liable to make the payment of the compensation under the MV Act in the claim petition and are not entitled to any recovery rights nor can claim any reduction on account of contributory negligence.
Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 33 of 38 ::-
RELIEF:
85. Petitioner number 1 is entitled to Rs.8,80,000/- as compensation. No interim compensation was awarded to the petitioners by the learned predecessor of this Court. The total compensation which now is to be given to the petitioner number 1 is Rs.8,80,000/-. The petitioner number 1 is also entitled to the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 07.04.2004 till its realization.
86. Since the amount awarded should not be frittered away by beneficiaries owing to the ignorance, illiteracy etc., the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as G.M. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas reported in 1994 (2) SCC 176, has laid guidelines pronouncing that in a case of compensation for death, it is appropriate that Tribunals do keep in mind the principles enunciated by this Court in Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, 1991(4) SCC 584, in the matter of appropriate investments to safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptible to exploitation. Guidelines inter alia included of investment of share of the claimants in FDRs in nationalized banks with conditions that bank will not permit any loan or advance on the fixed deposits and interest on the amount invested is paid monthly / periodically directly to the claimant and such investment may be made in more than one fixed deposit. In Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 34 of 38 ::-
case of any exigency, claimants are at liberty to apply to Tribunal for withdrawal of such investment.
87. Out of the amount of Rs.8,80,000/-, which is to be given to petitioner number 1, in terms of the directions in the judgment in the case of New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Ganga Devi & ors, in MAC App.135/2008 decided on 20.01.2010 by his Lordship, Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.R.Midha, as she needs to maintain herself and also take care of her other children and also the family responsibilities, Rs. 80,000/- be released immediately in favour of petitioner number 1 and the remaining amount of Rs.8,00,000/- be kept in 16 fixed deposits of Rs.50,000/- each for the periods of six months, one year, one and a half years, two years, two and a half years and so on.
88. The FDRs shall be without the facility of advance / loan or withdrawal. However, the petitioner number 1 will be entitled to monthly or quarterly interest as applicable.
89. The entire amount of interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 07.04.2004 till its realization be released to petitioner number 1 in cash.
90. Respondent number 4 and 5 are directed to directly deposit the award amount with the Nodal Officer of UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi within 30 days. Driver/owner of the Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 35 of 38 ::-
offending vehicle are also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, the notice of the deposit to the claimant and the calculation of interest in the Court within 30 days from today.
91. In case respondent numbers 4 and 5 fail to do so, they will file reasons for non-compliance. In case of further delay, they will deposit the cheque along with the cost of Rs.5,000/- without any further directions as per judgment of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Kashmiri Lal, 2007 ACJ 688.
92. Ahlmad/Nazir will report to the undersigned if the cheque(s) in this case are not received within 30 days of passing of this judgment. Ahlmad/Nazir to note the particulars of the award amount etc. in his register today.
93. The petitioner number 1 will file two sets of photographs along with her specimen signatures out of which one set be sent to the Nodal Officer of the Bank along with copy of the award by the Ahlmad/Nazir and the second set shall be retained in the Court for further reference. The photographs be got stamped and be sent to the Bank. The proof of residence and details of the bank account be also provided by the petitioner number 1 within seven days to the Ahlmad/Nazir.
Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 36 of 38 ::-
94. Aforesaid fixed deposits are to be made by UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch, New Delhi in the following manner:
(1) The UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch shall open separate Savings Accounts in the name of claimant and the entire interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits be credited in the said accounts. The fixed deposits shall be automatically renewed till the period prescribed by the Court.
(2) The interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits shall be paid monthly by automatic credit of interest in the Saving Accounts. (3) Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to the claimant after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card /Pass Books with attested photographs to claim to facilitate her identity.
(4) No cheque book be issued to the claimant without the permission of this Court.
(5) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
(6) The original FDRs shall be retained by the Bank in the Safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the claimant alongwith the photocopy of the FDRs. (7) The original Fixed Deposit Receipts shall be handed over to the claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period. (8) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said FDRs without the permission of this Court.
(9)On the request of the claimants, the Bank shall transfer the Saving Account to any other branch of UCO Bank according to the convenience of the claimant.
(10)In terms of directions contained in case of UOI versus Nanisiri, in MAC Appeal No. 682/2005, order dated 13/01/2010, of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. R. Midha, Respondent number 4 is directed to directly deposit the award sum with Manager UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch within 30 days through its nodal officer and the Manager concerned of UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch to keep the specified amount aforesaid in fixed deposits in terms of the award and release the balance amount by transferring the same to the Saving Bank Accounts of the Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 37 of 38 ::-
petitioner/ claimant. Insurance Company to also file proof of deposit of award sum, also within said period. Manager UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch to also furnish compliance report within 15 days of deposit of award sum. Claimant to do the necessary formalities in respect of the bank account(s).
95. Ahlmad/Nazir to keep the copy of Award in a miscellaneous file for awaiting compliance report from all concerned, which be put up on 25.03.2011.
96. Copy of the judgment and information be sent to respondent numbers 4 and 5 for compliance. One copy of the judgment also be given to the counsel for the petitioners, dasti, as requested.
97. The file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on (NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA) this 19th day of February, 2011. Judge, MACT-02, New Delhi.
Suit Number: 89/2010.
Unique Case ID Number: 02403C0251222010.
Lata Singh and another v. Gurnam Singh and others. -:: Page 38 of 38 ::-