Delhi District Court
Sh. Pranay Kumar Deb vs Sh. Bir Singh on 10 September, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARVIND KUMAR: PRESIDING OFFICER
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL: KARKARDOOMA
COURTS: DELHI
M.A.C. Petition No: 30/10
Unique Case I.D No: 02402C0059932009
1. Sh. Pranay Kumar Deb
C/o Dr. P.K. Biswas
House Prantik, Sainath Road,
Saradapally Shiv Mandir, Siliguri,
P.O. Kadamtala, P.S. Matigara
District - Darjeeling
West Bengal.
2. Smt. Arati Deb
House Prantik, Sainath Road,
Saradapally Shiv Mandir, Siliguri,
P.O. Kadamtala, P.S. Matigara
District - Darjeeling
West Bengal.
3. Ms. Meenakshi Deb
R/o House Prantik, Sainath Road,
Saradapally Shiv Mandir, Siliguri,
P.O. Kadamtala, P.S. Matigara
District - Darjeeling
West Bengal. ... Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Bir Singh
S/o Sh. Baleswar Singh
R/o 222, Village Khichripur,
Delhi.
2. Sh. Avdesh Gupta
S/o Sh. Jamadar Gupta
B-26, South Ganesh Nagar,
Block B, Delhi.
3. Bajaj Allianz
General Insurance Company Limited
Regd. Office GE Plaza Airport Road,
Yerwada, Pune- 411006 ... Respondents
M.A.C. Petition No: 30/10 Page No. 1/17
Presented on : 24.02.2009
Reserved for judgment on : 05.09.2012
Judgment delivered on : 10.09.2012
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner has filed the present claim under section 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 82,00,653/-( Rs. Eighty Two Lacs Six Hundred Fifty Three only) for the death of Sh. Gopal Deb.
2. The brief facts, as stated by the petitioner, are that one Sh. Gopal Deb was going on motorcycle No. DL-7S-AZ-8654 from ITO towards Mother dairy and suddenly a blue line bus bearing No. DL-1PB-7372, plying on route No. 347, driven rashly, negligently and at a high speed by respondent No. 1, hit the motorcycle. Sh. Gopal Deb fell down and was crushed. An FIR No. 620/08, under section 279/337 IPC was registered. Sh. Gopal Deb was taken to Walia Nursing Home and thereafter to Max Balaji Hospital and succumbed to the injuries at 11.45 p.m. The deceased left behind petitioner No. 1, father, petitioner No. 2, mother and petitioner No. 3 the younger unmarried sister. The deceased was graduate in Economic Honours and thereafter took MBA degree in marketing and at the time of accident he was working with M/s. Pearson Education as sales executive and was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 13,000/- coupled with annual perquisites of approximately Rs. 30,000/-, in addition, the deceased was also entitled to Rs. 5250/- towards monthly conveyance and Rs. 2500/- towards monthly telephone bill. It is stated that deceased had topped in A.I.S.S.C.E. examination.
M.A.C. Petition No: 30/10 Page No. 2/173. The respondent No. 1 & 2 filed written statement stating that no accident had taken place with the vehicle bearing No. DL-1PB-7372 and the respondent No. 1 had been falsely implicated in the accident case along with the vehicle of respondent No. 2. It is stated that respondent No. 1 was having driving licence and the vehicle was duly insured. It is also stated that vehicle of the deceased collided with another vehicle at Shakarpur red light and after that he fell down on the back side of the bus and got injured without any fault on the part of respondent No. 1 and the speed of bus was about 5 Kmph.
4. The respondent No. 3 filed written statement admitting that the vehicle (Bus) bearing No. DL-1PB-7372 was insured with them in the name of Sh. Avdesh Gupta, vide policy No. OG-09-1103-1812-00000215, valid from 31.10.2008 to 30.10.2009. The respondent No. 3 also stated that driver of vehicle bearing No. DL-1PB-7372 was not holding valid and effective driving licence, hence the answering respondent was not liable to pay compensation. It is also stated that contract of insurance was a contract of indemnity and if the insured wanted to take the benefit of the contract of the insurance, then he would have to prove that alleged offending vehicle was not being driven in contravention of insurance policy, driver on wheel of alleged offending vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving licence and authorization card for plying insured vehicle at the time of the alleged accident, he was holding valid permit with time payment DTC stand fee during currency of permit granted by STA department relevant on alleged date of accident, use of vehicle under general condition of Permit in view of Section 84 and 85 of M. V. Act., use of vehicle under a permit and its condition attached thereto within the meaning of M. V. Act and in view of section 66,72, 72(2), (xxi), 84, 85 M. V. Act and M.A.C. Petition No: 30/10 Page No. 3/17 rule made and conditions imposed by S. T. A. department and notification if any issued by concerned S. T. A department relevant on alleged date of accident. It is further stated that in case the insured/owner failed to prove the above then no liability could be fastened on the answering respondent. It is also stated that respondent No. 3 had been taking all the defences as available under section 134 C, 147, 149 & 158(6) of M. V. Act and U/s. 64 VB of Insurance Act.
5. On the basis of the pleadings following issues were framed:-
1. Whether Gopal Deb suffered fatal injuries on 26.11.2008 involving blue line bus bearing registration No. DL-1PB-7372 driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No. 1?
2. Whether petitioners are the only legal heirs of deceased and are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
6. The petitioner No. 1 examined himself as PW-1, Sh. Naveen Kumar, Medical Record Incharge, Max Balaji Hospital, Patparganj, Delhi, as PW-2, Sh. Mohan Chand Bhardwaj as PW-3, Constable Rahul Kumar as PW-4, Dr. B.K. Sharma, CMO, Sabji Mandi Mortuary, Delhi as PW-5 and Sh. Prashant Joshi, General Manager, Pearson Education ( Dorling Kindersley India Pvt. Ltd.) as PW-6. On the other hand, respondent No. 3 examined Sh. Veer Narayan Singh, dealing Assistant, State Transport Authority as R-3W-1, Sh. Sunny, LDC in State Transport Authority as R-3W-2 and Ms. Ramnique Sachar as R-3W-3.
M.A.C. Petition No: 30/10 Page No. 4/177. I have heard counsels for the parties and gone through the material on record.
8. The contention of counsel for insurance company is that driver was not holding badge/authorization card at the time of accident, which is breach of condition of permit and hence the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. Ld. Counsel for insurance company relied upon the judgments passed in "United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Chintamani and others, FAO No. 225/2003, decided on 06.02.2007 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, (ii) National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Brijpal Singh, 2003, ACJ 1274, (iii) National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Santosh Devi, 2008(4) TAC 808 (DEL), (iv) New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Kumar and others, ILR 2007(II) Delhi 733 MAC (v) OIC Vs. Usha, MAC APP No. 228/2010, decided on 24.02.2012 by Hon'ble MR Justice G. P. Mittal, High Court of Delhi, (vi) National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Swarn Singh, 2004, A.C.J, I. (vii) United India Insurance Company Vs. Gyan Chand, 1997 AC71065(SC) (viii) National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ramrati, II(2008) ACC, 538 (ix) NIC Vs. Anjana Shyam, decided on 20.08.2007 (2007) 7 SCC 445 (x) M. C. Mehta Vs. UOI, (1997), 8 SCC, 770.
9. My findings on issues are as under : -
Issue No. 110. The testimony of PW-4, Constable Rahul Kumar is relevant on this issue. PW-4, Sh. Rahul Kumar stated that on 26.11.2008 he was posted at school block beat and at about 4 p.m. when he was near mother dairy, a motorcycle coming from ITO side M.A.C. Petition No: 30/10 Page No. 5/17 and going towards mother dairy, was suddenly hit by a blue line bus No. DL-1PB-7372. The driver of the bus was driving the bus rashly and negligently. The driver of motorcycle fell down and the bus ran over the driver of motorcycle. It is also stated that bus driver tried to run and evade from the spot but with the help of public, driver of the bus was caught and his name was Bir Singh. The injured was taken to Walia Nursing Home. Site plan was prepared by the IO and an FIR No. 620/08 was registered at P.S. Shakarpur, on 26.11.2008. During cross-examination, PW-4 stated that when the accident occurred, he was at a distance less then 50 meters from the spot and the driver of offending vehicle was caught by the public persons. The FIR was registered on his statement and the site plan was prepared at his instance.
11. PW-3, Sh. Mohan Chand Bhardwaj, record clerk, Walia Nurshing Home, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, exhibited the copy of MLC as Ex. PW-3/1.
12. PW-5, Dr. B. K. Sharma, CMO, Subji Mandi Mortuary, Delhi, stated that he had conducted the postmortem on the body of Gopal Deb and in his opinion all the injuries were antemortem in nature caused by blunt force impact possible in road traffic accident and death was due to hemorrhagic shock. Dr. B. K. Sharma, PW-5, exhibited the attested copy of postmortem report as Ex. PW-5/A.
13. The FIR, site-plan, postmortem report and the testimony of the PW-4, Constable Rahul Kumar, taken together, fully establish the death of the deceased caused by the injuries sustained by him involving vehicle ( Bus) bearing registration number No. DL-1PB-7372 in a road accident. There is nothing on record to dispel the inference that deceased Sh. Gopal Deb, died on account M.A.C. Petition No: 30/10 Page No. 6/17 of injuries sustained by him in a road accident which occurred on 26.11.2008 because of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No. DL-1PB-7372 being driven by the respondent No. 1. There is no evidence in rebuttal. The issue No. 1 is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondent.
Issue No. 214. PW-1 Sh. Pranay Kumar Dev deposed that deceased was bright student ever since childhood and topped in A.I.S.S.C.E. and he was graduate in Economic( Hons) and MBA in marketing and at the time of death he was working in M/s. Pearson Education as sales executive and was drawing a monthly salary of approximately Rs. 13,000/- coupled with annual perquisites of Rs. 30,000/-, in addition, the deceased was also entitled to Rs. 5250/- towards monthly conveyance and Rs. 2500/- towards monthly telephone bills. It is stated that deceased used to spend more than 80% of his earning on various old age ailments of parents and on her sister who was unmarried and was student at the time of accident. PW-1 exhibited the copy of passport of the deceased as PW-1/1, copy of ration card of petitioner No. 1 as Ex. PW-1/2, copy of ration card of petitioner No. 2 as Ex. PW-1/3, copy of ration card of petitioner No. 3 as Ex PW-1/4 copy of educational qualification and merit certificate as Ex. PW-1/7, salary certificate as Ex. PW-1/8, copy of commendable certificate as Ex. PW-1/9, copy of performance and revision of salary as Ex. PW-1/10 and medical bills of Max Balaji as Ex. PW-1/11. During cross-examination PW-1 stated that his son was unmarried at the time of accident. PW-1 stated that he had retired from Border Security Force as an Inspector 10 years before and was getting pension of Rs. 9000/- per month. PW-1 further stated that his wife was the housewife and M.A.C. Petition No: 30/10 Page No. 7/17 daughter was married one year back. PW-1 stated that he did not have any personal knowledge with regard to the documents Ex. PW-1/7, Ex. PW-1/9 and Ex. PW-1/10. PW-1 further stated that he did not know if his son got reimbursement of medical of Rs. 15,000/-, books and periodicals of Rs. 6000/- and LTA of Rs. 8676/- and he did not have any document to show that his son was earning Rs. 13,000/- besides salary.
15. Sh. Prashant Joshi, General Manager, Pearson Education ( Dorling Kindersley India Pvt. Ltd), was examined as PW-6 and stated that Sh. Gopal Deb was employee of their company under I.D. No. P-360 for the period from 23.08.2007 till 26.11.2008. The company had issued various performance certificates to its employees which were Ex. PW-1/9 and Ex. PW-1/10. Sh. Prashant Joshi, PW-6, stated that deceased Sh. Gopal Deb was very hard working and was having bright and promising future and if he would have survived he would have reached at the top of the management. During cross-examination, PW-6 stated that appointment letter was issued to deceased containing all the terms and conditions of the employment. Sh. Prashant Joshi, PW-6, denied the suggestion that Sh. Gopal Deb was not the permanent employee in their company. It is also stated that salary of the deceased was transfered to his bank account and their company had paid Rs. 3.36 Lac on account of basic life cover, a sum of Rs. 5007/- towards gratuity and some amount towards provident fund. Sh. Prashant Joshi, PW-6, exhibited the settlement of death claim of deceased as Ex. PW-6/4.
16. I have gone through the material on record. The deceased was treated in Max Balaji Hospital and the bill of Rs. 34,452.39/- was raised by the hospital and out of it Rs. 33,182/- had M.A.C. Petition No: 30/10 Page No. 8/17 been received by the hospital from E-mediteck Siemens Ltd. Sh. Prashant Joshi, PW-6, has clearly stated that deceased was working in M/s. Pearson Education. Ex. PW-6/3, letter dated 23.08.2007 shows that deceased was appointed as sales executive on 25.08.2007. Ex. PW-6/3 also shows that deceased was employed at a package of Rs. 1,68,000/- per annum and his annual salary was Rs. 1,84,800/-at the time of his death. However, the Ex. PW-1/8, a certificate issued by Dorling Kindersley( India) Pvt. Ltd. shows the complete details of the salary and as per the said certificate the deceased was getting salary of Rs. 12,927/- per month and out of the said amount, Rs. 800/- was granted towards conveyance. The said amount cannot be taken into consideration not being for the benefit of family. The amount of Rs. 1041/- towards P. F. can also be not taken as part of salary being contribution of employer towards provident fund. After deducting above said amount, salary comes to Rs. 11086/-[ 12927 -( 800 + 1041)]. So far as the perquisites of Rs. 1500/- per annum towards medical , Rs. 6000/- per annum towards books and periodicals and Rs. 8676/- towards LTA are concerned, the Ex. PW-6/4 shows that the petitioner was reimbursed some amount towards LTA, book and periodicals as well as medical reimbursement. Therefore, in my opinion these reimbursement were for the family benefit and can be added as part of salary. The monthly amount towards medical reimbursement, books and periodicals reimbursement and LTA reimbursement comes to Rs. 1250, 500 and 723 respectively. As per Ex. PW-1/8, the deceased was also entitled to reimbursement of Rs. 5250/- per month towards conveyance but this amount cannot be said to be for the benefit of family, hence cannot be taken as part of salary. So far as deceased entitlement for reimbursement towards telephone expenses up to Rs. 2500/- per month is concerned, the deceased must have been using the telephone for M.A.C. Petition No: 30/10 Page No. 9/17 calls related to his job and his family must have also been enjoying this facility, hence I would add 50% of the amount towards telephone expenses to be part of salary. Therefore net salary comes to Rs. 14809/-(11086 + 1250 + 500 +723+1250).
17. As stated above, monthly salary of the deceased is taken to be Rs. 14,809/-. The annual salary would be Rs. 1,77,708/- ( 14,809 x 12). The PW-6 had stated that Sh. Gopal Dev was very hard working person and was having bright and promising future and had he survived, he would have climbed to the top management. During cross-examination PW-6 had already stated that Sh. Goapl Dev was a permanent employee. Therefore, as per 'Sarla Verma Vs. DTC', 50% of salary amount is liable to be added towards future prospect. Adding 50% of the salary i.e. Rs. 88,854/-, towards future prospect, the salary comes to Rs. 2,66,562/- (1,77,708+88,854) per annum. After deducting the income tax @ 10%, the salary comes to Rs. 2,54,906/-per annum. The petitioner No. 3 is the sister of the deceased and got married after filing of the claim. Even otherwise it has come on record that father of the deceased was in government job and it was the duty of the father to maintain the petitioner No. 3. The petitioner failed to show that petitioner No. 3 was dependent on deceased. Therefore, petitioner No. 3 cannot be taken as dependent on the deceased. Interest of justice in the present case would be met if 1/2 i.e. Rs. 1,27,453/- is deducted as the personal and living expenses of the deceased (as the deceased was bachelor). After such deduction the contribution to the family is determined as Rs. 1,27,453/-(2,54,906 -1,27,453 ) per annum. The multiplier applicable would be 11(as the age of mother of deceased was more than 53 years as per ration card). Therefore, the total loss on dependency would be Rs. 14,01,983/- (1,27,453x11). The bills have already been reimbursed except Rs. 1270/-.
M.A.C. Petition No: 30/10 Page No. 10/1718. In addition, the claimants will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards love and affection, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation will be Rs. 14,43,253/-( 14,01,983 + 1270 + 40,000). LIABILITY
19. The insurance company has examined Sh. Veer Narayan Singh, Dealing Assistant, State Transport Authority, Delhi, as R-3W-1. Sh. Veer Narayan Singh, R-3W-1, deposed that original authorization card under section 7-A of Delhi Motor Vehicles Rules always remained with the owner and driver for plying the vehicle and the authorization card was issued by the Licencing Authority from where driving licence was issued. Sh. Veer Narayan Singh, R-3W-1, stated that he had not brought the original as the same was not traceable. R-3W-1 exhibited the permit record as Ex. R-3W-1/1, terms and conditions of permit as R-3W-1/2. During cross-examination R-3W-1 stated that he could not tell from which date the terms and conditions regarding permit were enforceable.
20. R-3W-2 Sh. Sunny, LDC, in State Transport Authority, Rajpura Road, exhibited the letter dated 21.11.2011 signed by Sanjay Dewan, Assistan14809t Secretary as R-3W-2/A.
21. R-3W-3 Ms. Ramnique Sachar deposed that on 15.09.2011 a notice under order 12 Rule 8 CPC was sent to the driver Sh. Bir Singh, respondent No. 1, for production of authorization card, valid and effective for driving the vehicle in question and the permit holder had not filed any authorization of the Sh. Bir Singh which was required for vehicle under stage carriage permit and there was violation of condition No. 33(V) of permit. R-3W-3 exhibited the authority letter as Ex. R-3W3/1, carbon copy M.A.C. Petition No: 30/10 Page No. 11/17 of notice under order 12 Rule 8 CPC as Ex. R-3W-3/2, postal receipt as Ex. R-3W-3/3, AD card as Ex. R-3W-3/5 and computerized insurance policy with complete terms and conditions as Ex. R-3W-3/6.
22. The contention of counsel for insurance company is that driver was not holding badge/authorization card at the time of accident, which is breach of condition of permit and hence the insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation.
23. The law is well settled that the insurance company can claim discharge from liability on proving any of the defence mentioned in 149(ii) of M. V. Act. The non possessing of the badge is not the defence available to the insurance company to entitle the insurance company to seek discharge from the liability. The insurance company failed to establish that there was any breach of " Purpose not allowed under permit", as enshrined in 149-(2)(C) of M. V. Act. Hence, the insurance company cannot avoid liability.
24. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in case titled " P. T. Moidu Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and others, MACA No. 632 of 2006, decided on 03.08.2007 ", observed as under:
" In this case, driver was having a valid driving licence to drive the type of vehicle which he was driving ( Jeep). He was not driving a four-wheeler with licence to drive a two wheeler or driving a heavy vehicle with licence to drive a light motor vehicle. There is no contention for the insurance company, even in the appeal, that absence of the badge is a fundamental breach of policy condition and it is a cause for the accident. Hence, on the facts of this case, following the M.A.C. Petition No: 30/10 Page No. 12/17 dicta laid down in Swarn Singh's case( supra), we are of the opinion that insurance company cannot be exonerated in indemnifying the owner. Merely because driver of the vehicle who was duly licensed was not having a badge will not enable the insurance company to shirk its liability as per section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act and insurance company also failed to prove that insured has committed a fundamental breach of the policy conditions resulting in the accident. Hence, we set aside the direction of the Tribunal enabling the insurance company to recover the amount after depositing the amount of compensation from the appellant/ insured. Appeal is allowed. Parties to bear their respective costs".
25. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the judgment titled "
Davinder Singh and others Vs. Dukhi Shah and others, Mac. App. 496/2009, decided on 09.07.2012", observed as under:-
6."Thus, a perusal of the condition for issuance of permit, inter alia, are that the vehicle shall be kept neat and clean at the time of operation ( condition No. 16);
that the vehicle must be equipped with the First Aid Box; that the driver must display the particulars of his identity and photograph at a prominent place inside the windscreen( condition No. 19); that the driver must be of good character and without any criminal record; the driver shall wear uniform in gray colour with his/her smart card based Public Service Vehicle (PSV) badge prominently displaying on the uniform ( Condition No.
8).
7. Can it be said that the Insurance Company would be M.A.C. Petition No: 30/10 Page No. 13/17 able to avoid liability if the vehicle is not kept clean or the driver is not wearing the uniform? It is not each and every condition of permit contravention of which would allow the Insurance Company to avoid the liability. On the other hand, a close reading of the Clause (c) to Section 149(2) (i) (a) would show that it is only the user of the transport vehicle for the purpose not allowed by the permit would enable the Insurance Company to defend the action to satisfy an award in a motor accident where the risk is covered by a policy obtained under section 147 of the Act...........
10. Thus, the user of a transport vehicle for the purpose not allowed by the permit would be using a goods vehicle as a passenger vehicle, a passenger vehicle as a goods vehicle, etc. and not each and every contravention of the condition of permit issued by the concerned Transport Authority. Thus, simply because the vehicle was driven by a person other than the permit holder cannot be said to be a user of the transport vehicle for the purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle was used".
The judgments relied by the counsel for insurance company are not applicable under the present facts and circumstances of the present case.
26. Since the vehicle was insured, the respondent No. 3 is liable to pay the compensation.
27. There being no evidence of violation of the policy condition and there being no evidence to support the permitted M.A.C. Petition No: 30/10 Page No. 14/17 defence U/s. 149(2) of the M.V. Act, I am unable to grant the recovery rights. Therefore, insurance company shall make good the compensation in terms of the accepted policy.
RELIEF
28. While granting the relief to petitioners, I am also to award the interest @ 7.5% p.a on the above said amount of Rs. 14,43,253/-, from the date of filing of petition till realization of the amount.
29. In view of the above, the respondent No. 3 is liable to pay the claimants a sum of Rs. 14,43,253/-inclusive of interim compensation. The respondent No. 3 is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 14,43,253/-inclusive of interim compensation, within one month. The respondent No. 3 shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioner.
30. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following award :-
AWARD In view of the above the petition is allowed. The respondent No. 3 is liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 14,43,253/-within one month. The respondent No. 3 is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs. 14,43,253/-within one month. The respondent No. 3 shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. (except for the period not specifically allowed) on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioners. The claimants are entitled to the compensation in the following proportions along with corresponding interest :-M.A.C. Petition No: 30/10 Page No. 15/17
(a)Petitioner No 1 : Rs. 1,44,325/- along with corresponding interest.
(b)Petitioner No 2 : Rs. 11,54602/- along with corresponding interest.
(c)Petitioner No 3 : Rs. 1,44,325/- along with corresponding interest.
31. The award amount along with interest be deposited by insurance company with UCO Bank, Nodal Officer through Nodal Officer, Karkardooma Branch, within 30 days in the petitioners' accounts.
32. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the UCO Bank is directed to keep the amount awarded to petitioners in fixed deposit in the following manner:-
Petitioner No. 1 & 3The amount awarded to the petitioner No. 1 & 3 be released to them immediately.Petitioner No. 2
Fixed deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/-(each) for a period of two year, four year and six years respectively. Rest of the amount shall be released to the petitioner No. 2 with immediate effect by transferring the same to her saving bank account.
33. The interest on the aforesaid FDR shall be paid monthly by automatic credit of interest in the savings account of petitioners.
34. Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to the petitioner after due verification and the bank shall issue photo identity card of petitioner to facilitate identity.
M.A.C. Petition No: 30/10 Page No. 16/1735. No cheque book be issued to the petitioners without the permission of the court.
36. The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the bank in the safe custody. However, the original pass book shall be given to the appellant along with photocopy of the FDRs.
37. The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to the petitioner on the expiry of the period of the FDRs.
38. No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of the court.
39. Half yearly statement of account be filed by the bank in the court.
40. On the request of the petitioner, the bank shall transfer the saving account to any other branch of UCO bank according to the convenience of the petitioners.
41. The petitioners shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the saving bank account and fixed deposit account to Nodal Officer, UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court, Delhi.
42. List for reporting compliance on 16.11.2012.
43. A copy of this order be given free of cost to the parties concerned.
Announced in the open ( Arvind Kumar )
court on 10.09.2012 Presiding Officer: MACT:
Karkardooma Court
Delhi.
M.A.C. Petition No: 30/10 Page No. 17/17