Delhi District Court
Karun Gupta vs Amar Singh on 20 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR, PRESIDING
OFFICER-MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, SHAHDARA
DISTRICT, KKD, DELHI
MAC No. 2007/16
Karun Gupta
S/o Sh. Subhash Chand Gupta
R/o H.No. B-222, Gali No.7,
Ashok Nagar, Delhi ....Petitioner
Versus
1. Amar Singh
S/o Sh. Balbir Singh
R/o Village Behta Hajipur,
Loni Boarder, Ghaziabad, UP Driver
2. Delhi Transport Corporation
C/o Indrapastha Estate,
Indrapastha Extension,
Delhi -110002 Owner
3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
C/o E-85, Himalya House,
K.G. Marg, Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001 Insurance Company
...Respondents
Date of Institution : 03.06.2016
Date of Arguments : 05.07.2018
Date of Judgment : 20.09.2018
JUDGMENT:
Vide this judgment I shall dispose off this petition filed by petitioner and DAR filed by SHO PS Shahdara, Delhi. The facts of the case are as follows:
MAC No.2007/16 Karun Gupta Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. 1/21
1. Facts: Petitioner has alleged that on 28.03.2016 at about 08.05 am, he was going to board a DTC bus at Bus Terminal, Shahdara and reached at the outer gate of Bus Terminal, Shahdara when suddenly one bus bearing No. DL-IPB-4987, being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, struck against him and caused him grievous injuries. It is further stated that he was removed to GTB Hospital where his MLC was prepared, but was referred to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital where he treated for long and was also operated upon. It is further stated that he sustained grievous injuries. Police lodged FIR No.139/16 u/s 279/337 IPC against the driver with PS Shahdara. The offending vehicle was seized and driver was arrested and charge-
sheeted. Petitioner has filed a compensation of Rs. 20 Lacs with interest @ 18% per annum. Police have also filed a separate DAR after investigation against the respondents.
2. Written Statements: Respondents No. 1 has filed a WS thereby stating that he has been falsely implicated to this case thereby noting down a wrong number otherwise this accident took place by the negligence of injured. It is further stated that the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company and company is liable to pay this compensation, if any, otherwise this case is liable to be dismissed. Respondent No. 1 has denied all the allegations leveled by the petitioner and has prayed that this case is liable to be dismissed.
2.1. Respondent No. 2 is the Owner and has filed Written Statement thereby stating that the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated to this case thereby noting down a wrong number of the MAC No.2007/16 Karun Gupta Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. 2/21 offending vehicle otherwise this case is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that this case is bad for misjoinder of necessary parities as owner is not a necessary party to this case being falsely implicated. It is further stated that the offending vehicle is insured with the insurance company and it is liable to pay this compensation, if any otherwise this petition is liable to be dismissed. Respondent has prayed that this petition / DAR is liable to be dismissed.
2.2. Respondent No. 3 i.e. Insurance Company has filed its WS thereby admitting that the offending vehicle was insured with the Respondent, but it has denied all the allegations of the petitioner and has prayed that this petition / DAR is liable to be dismissed. No statutory defense has been raised by the respondent to contest this claim.
3. ISSUES - From the pleading of the parties following issues are framed as under:
1. Whether Respondent No.1 was driving vehicle bearing No. DL-1PB 4987 on 28.03.2016 at 8:05 pm at outer fate, DTC Bus terminal, Shahdara, Delhi in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and hit against petitioner who sustained injuries? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so and for what amount ? OPP
3. Relief.
MAC No.2007/16 Karun Gupta Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. 3/21
4. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE: To prove the case, petitioner has examined PW1 Karun Gupta who has repeated his allegations levelled in the petition. He has relied upon the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.
PW1/12 and Mark A & Mark A1. He has deposed that he sustained injuries during this accident and received treatment against his MLC from GTB Hospital and also from R.M.L. Hospital subsequently and also undergone multiple operations. It is further deposed that he was doing a job with Bapu Nature Care Hospital and Yogeshram as marketing executive and was drawing a salary of Rs.16,000/- pm and could not do work again after this accident and has suffered huge financial losses. It is further deposed that he spent huge amount of Rs, 3,00,000/- on his treatment besides Rs.50,000/- (each) on special diet and conveyance etc. It is further deposed that he was selected and received offer from M/s. Sheenlac Noroo as sales officer against a salary package of Rs. 2,34,504/- P.A. It is further deposed that he was also short listed for his selection in HDFC Bank. It is further deposed that he was law graduate and has suffered by this accident. It is further deposed that he has suffered 65% permanent disability towards his right lower limb and is still under treatment from R.M.L. Hospital and further treatment is also required. It is admitted that he was never referred for treatment to Dr. Doda but treated in RML of which reference letter is on record.
4.1. During cross examination, he has deposed that he was going for interview at the time of this accident. It is further deposed that he started working with Bapu Nature Care Hospital, Mayur Vihar in the month of July, 2015 and was also doing LLB from Delhi University. It is MAC No.2007/16 Karun Gupta Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. 4/21 further deposed that he noted down the number of the offending vehicle himself and has denied that this accident caused by a TSR. It is further deposed that the offending vehicle hit him from behind. Police recorded his statement on 28/3/2016 in GTB Hospital. It is further deposed that he did not remember as to whether he has placed on record his referral order from GTB Hospital to RML Hospital. It is further deposed that he is not working now but was working at the time of accident. He was not income tax assessee. It is further deposed that he was treated in government hospital and has filed all the medical bills on record. It is further deposed that police were informed about this accident which removed him to hospital, but he was conscious at the time of accident. It is admitted that police did not prepare any document at his instance during investigation. It is admitted that he has no bills to prove that he spent any amount on conveyance, special diet and ambulance charges, but doctor prescribed assistance of an attendant o which he spent Rs. 82,000/- under this head.
4.2. PW2 Dr. Apporv Sehgal has proved the disability certificate of injured as Ex.PW2/A, as per which, injured sustained 65% Permanent Disability towards his right lower limb, but he was not aware about the permanent disability of the injured towards whole body.
4.3. PW3 K.S. Jayachandran has proved the employment and salary documents of injured who was under the employment during the period from July 2015 to February 2016. Experience certificate is Ex.PW3/1. Salary certificate for the period from Oct, 2015 to March, 2016 is Ex.PW3/2. However, he has neither proved the appointment of injured nor ITR record in which salary of injured was being reflected.
MAC No.2007/16 Karun Gupta Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. 5/21
5. RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE: Respondents have examined R2W1 Amar Singh who is the driver of the offending vehicle and has deposed that he has been falsely implicated to this case and was not driving the offending vehicle at the time of this accident. It is further deposed that he was holding a DL to drive the vehicle and vehicle was insured with the insurance company at the time of alleged accident. It is further deposed that there was no eye witness to this accident and even there is no evidence against him regarding this accident and this case is liable to be dismissed.
5.1. During cross examination, he has deposed that he is permanent driver of DTC since the year 1988 and was on duty on the day of this accident. It is further deposed that he was posted on Route No. 319 between Shahdara to Noida and criminal case is also pending against him. It is further deposed that there was no mechanical failure of his bus at the time of this accident as per mechanical inspection report. It is further admitted that he was present at the time of this accident at spot and was also arrested after shifting of the injured to hospital after accident.
6. I have heard the arguments and perused the record. My issue wise findings are as under:
ISSUE NO. 1 - Admittedly, the onus to prove this rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver was on the injured who has brought the law into motion; however, this fact is not to be proved beyond doubt or in the similar manner as a fact is to be proved in a MAC No.2007/16 Karun Gupta Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. 6/21 civil case. Rather it has to be proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. In fact, a Claims Tribunal is enjoined to hold an inquiry to determine compensation which must appear to it to be just. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal as observed in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sakshi Bhutani & Ors., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012 and State of Mysore Vs. S.S. Makapur, 1993 (2) SCR 943. It is further held in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Marumai Ammal, 1980 ACJ 435 (SC) that tribunal should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. The court is bound to take broad view of the whole matter. As such, the case of the injured has to be decided in view of the above said legal proposition.
7. In fact, PW1 Karun Gupta is the injured as well as eye witness of this accident and has duly proved that on 28.03.2016 at about 08.05 am, he was going to board a DTC bus at Bus Terminal, Shahdara and reached at the outer gate of Bus Terminal when suddenly DTC bus bearing No. DL-IPB 4987 being driven by respondent no1 in rash and negligent manner struck against him and caused grievous injuries. It is further proved that he was removed to GTB Hospital where his MLC was prepared, but he was referred to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital where he was treated for long and was also operated upon. MLC of injured has corroborated the nature of injury suffered by him. The medical papers Ex.PW1/1 have also proved that he was treated for long for his injuries suffered during this accident and was also operated MAC No.2007/16 Karun Gupta Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. 7/21 upon multiple times. The injuries suffered by the injured were result of this accident caused by the Respondent No.1. It is further proved that Police lodged FIR No-139/16 u/s 279/337 IPC against the Respondent No.1 with PS Shahdara in which driver was arrested and charge sheeted. This FIR was lodged at the instance of injured who has corroborated a similar version as deposed before this court and there is no reason to disbelieve his testimony. On the other hand, R1W1 Amar Singh has also admitted during cross examination that he was posted on the same route at the time of this accident and even was present there at the time of this accident. It is further proved that driver was apprehend in this case with the allegations of this accident and his charge sheet is sufficient to prove that he was prima facie responsible for this accident. As such, the testimony of PW1 has duly proved that Respondent No1 was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and caused this accident.
8. Besides it, DAR filed by the police is accompanied with statement of injured on which basis this FIR against the Respondent No. 1 and it is similar to the statement of the injured before this court. The site plan has also proved the spot of accident and has corroborated to the spot proved by the injured. The offending vehicle was seized and was also subjected to mechanical inspection, but it has not proved any damage to the vehicle, however it is not fatal, as the bus struck against the injured who was on foot and no damage was expected to the offending vehicle. Police seized the Badge and DL of the driver were also seized during investigation coupled with his arrest memo which have proved that he was part of investigation and caused MAC No.2007/16 Karun Gupta Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. 8/21 this accident. Duty slip of Respondent No.1 has also corroborated that he was posted on the same bus at the time of this accident. As such, all the facts have duly proved that this accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the Respondent No-1and is liable to pay this compensation. However, he was driving under the employment of the Respondent No. 2, due to Respondent No.2 is liable to pay this compensation on the basis of vicarious liability. Petitioner has discharged the onus to prove this issue no.1 and the same is decided in his favor and against the respondents.
9. Issue No. 2 - The onus to prove this issue was fixed upon the petitioner. Since the petitioner has proved the Issue No. 1, accordingly it is to be determined as to for what compensation is to be awarded to the injured.
9.1. This case is pertaining to the injury sustained by the petitioner and scope of the compensation in injury cases has been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Mr. R.D. Hattangadi vs M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 AIR 755 in the following words as under:
Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of money-, whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may, include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit upto the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or MAC No.2007/16 Karun Gupta Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. 9/21 sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.
In view of the above said law, the damages of the petitioner have to be decided under the following heads as under:
10. Reimbursement of medical expenses: Petitioner has proved medical bills Ex.PW1/2 (colly), as per which, amount of Rs. 1,52,141/- was spent on treatment of injured despite his treatment in government hospital. There is no record that such amount has been reimbursed, accordingly he is entitled for reimbursement of such amount of Rs. 1,52,141/- under this head.
11. Pain and Suffering: PW1 has proved that he sustained grievous injuries and also received treatment against his MLC and medical papers during the period between 28/3/16 to 05/07/17 including hospitalization between on 28/3/16 to 10/6/16 and 23/6/17 to 05/07/17. Thereafter, he also underwent physiotherapy sessions upto 26/4/18. He has also suffered 65% permanent disability. A person under such permanent disability is supposed to suffer great pain and suffering, due to injured is entitled for compensation under this head.
12. Conveyance & Special diet: Petitioner has not filed any bill of conveyance and special diet to prove that he spent any amount under these heads. However, he remained under treatment during on 28/3/16 to 26/04/18 including his hospitalization between on 28/03/16 to 10/06/16 and on 23/6/17 to 5/7/17 and roamed around to get treatment from GTB Hospital to RML Hospital and spending on conveyance was MAC No.2007/16 Karun Gupta Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. 10/21 definite. Similarly special diet to under treatment is usually suggested, due to he is entitled for compensation under these heads.
13. Attendant charges: Petitioner has not proved that he paid any amount to any attendant, but he remained under bed confinement and must be assisted by attendant or family members during this long treatment period, due to he is entitled for compensation under this head. He remained under treatment during 28/03/16 to 05/07/2017 including hospitalization between on 28/03/16 to 10/06/16 and on 23/6/17 to 05/07/17. He was also applied implants. Thereafter, he also underwent physiotherapy sessions upto 26/04/18. Though injured has relied upon attendant bills, yet these are not reliable and also have not been proved, due to they are hereby rejected. As such, he is entitled for compensation under this head on average basis for a period of 12 months @ Rs. 7,000/- pm.
14. Lose of Income during treatment period: Injured has proved that he remained under treatment between 28/03/16 to 26/04/18 including his hospitalization during 28/03/16 to 10/06/16 and on 23/06/17 to 05/07/17. He also underwent physiotherapy upto 26/04/18 and must have lost income during this period being confined to bed. Injured has proved that he was working with Bapu Nature Cure Hospital & Yogashram and was drawing a salary of Rs.16,000/- pm. Injured has proved appointment letter Ex.PW1/5, salary slip and attendance sheet to prove that he was appointed and was doing his job. Admittedly, injured has proved all such documents through PW3 K.S. Jayachandran as Ex.PW3/1 and Ex.PW3/2. Though this witness MAC No.2007/16 Karun Gupta Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. 11/21 has failed to prove ITRs of employer Society thereby reflecting the salary of the injured, yet it is not fatal to this case. In view of the testimony of PW3, it stands proved that the injured was working and drawing a salary of Rs. 16,000/- pm. However, injured has also deposed that he had some other proposals in his hand to join, but no such evidence has been led to prove that he was to join any such job. As such, injured was working with Bapu Nature Cure Hospital & Yogashram and was drawing a salary of Rs.16,000/- pm which was inclusive Transport Allowance which is not part of salary to assess loss of income being day to day expenses under the head of loss of earning, accordingly, after deduction of this transport allowance, the salary of the injured comes to Rs.1,80,000/- per annum. The salary of the injured is beyond the preview of Income Tax Act, due to no tax is to be deducted. As such, the income of the injured stands proved Rs.1,80,000/- per annum. Injured remained under treatment between 28/03/16 to 26/4/18 including his hospitalization on 28/03/16 to 10/06/16 and on 23/06/17 to 05/07/17. During this period, he did not work and remained under bed confinement especially when he went through multiple operations and was also applied implants. As such, injured is entitled for loss of income for one year i.e. Rs.1,80,000/-per annum.
15. Lose of income due to permanent disability: Petitioner is entitled for compensation under this head as he has suffered 65% disability as per Ex.PW2/A in his right lower limb. Ld. Counsel for the respondents has argued that injured is not entitled for compensation as per the percentage of disability certificate as his earning capacity has MAC No.2007/16 Karun Gupta Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. 12/21 not been suffered by this disability and he can very well perform all his day to day work due to he is not entitled for compensation for disability. However, the purpose of disability certificate is to determine the actual as well as functional disability on account of this accident. It is not disputed that the functional disability is also to be determined by Schedule I of the Workmen's compensation Act, 1923 in terms of section of Section 143 M.V. Act. It has held in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Mohd. Nasir (2009) 6 SCC 280 that, both the statutes provide for the mode and manner in which the percentage of loss of earning capacity is required to be calculated. They provide the amount of compensation in cases of this nature would be directly relatable to the percentage of physical disability suffered by the injured vis-à-vis the injuries are specified in the First Schedule of the 1923 Act. Indisputably where injuries are specified in the First Schedule, the mode and manner provided for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation would be applicable. The 1923 Act would also be applicable to the claims applications arising out of the use of motor vehicles in terms of the provisions of the 1988 Act for the purpose of determination of the amount of compensation where the victim of the accident suffers from disability in the cases coming within the purview of thereof. The note appended to the Second Schedule of the 1988 Act raises a legal fiction, stating that "injuries deemed to result in permanent total disablement / permanent partial disablement and percentage of loss of earning capacity shall be as per Schedule I under the Workmen's compensation Act, 1923". Permanent disability, therefore, for certain purposes have been co-related with functional disability. In fact, the disablement and loss of earning capacity are two MAC No.2007/16 Karun Gupta Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. 13/21 different and not substitute to each other, however functional disability, thus, has a direct relationship with the loss of limb. As per disability certificate Ex.PW2/A, it is 65% but its functional disability must be definitely less then it. Injured has argued that he was working as marketing executive and has suffered 100% functional disability for his field work and cannot do this work again, but no document has been proved to this effect to prove that he cannot do such work again. Rather injured has now enrolled as an advocate and is doing practice and his earning has re-started. However, it is not disputed that his efficiency must have gone down and cannot work with such efficiency like rigorous physical activities required by this professional. In view of the facts, I determine the functional disability of the injured as 35% towards whole body.
15.1. The multiplier of damages has to be determined by Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, after determination of the age of the petitioner. As per the passport of injured, his date of birth is on 21.02.1990, whereas this accident took place on 28/03/16. As such, his age comes to 27 years on the day of accident.
15.2. The multiplier for age between 26 to 30 years is 17 and the loss of income of the petitioner has to be multiplied by it. As such, the annual income of the injured was Rs. 1,80,000/- and 35% of Rs. 1,80,000/- would be Rs. 63,000/-. In fact, the total loss would be Rs. 63,000 x 17 = Rs.10,71,000/-. Besides it, petitioner is also entitled for future compensation @ 40% in view of Pranay Sethi judgment. The 40% of Rs. 10,71,000/- would be Rs. 4,28,400/-. Total compensation MAC No.2007/16 Karun Gupta Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. 14/21 for loss of earning on account of permanent disability comes to Rs. 14,99,400/-.
16. Damages for inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, frustration and mental stress in life: Petitioner has proved disfigurement and loss of amenities and enjoyment on record. In the cases of permanent disability, inconvenience is bound to happen. The disability certificate of the injured has proved that he must have suffered discomfort and hardship by these injuries. Even he would have suffered mental stress and disfigurement in the life due to petitioner is entitled for compensation under these heads.
17. As such, petitioner is entitled for the compensation as under:
1. Reimbursement of medical expenses: Rs. 1,52,141/-
2. Pain and Suffering: Rs. 1,50,000/-
3. Attendant charges for 12 months @ Rs. 7,000 x 12 Rs. 7,000/- pm: = 84,000/-
4. Lose of Income during treatment period Rs. 1,80,000/-
@ Rs.1,80,000/- per annum:
5. Loss of earning capacity including Rs. 14,99,400/-
future damages due to this disability:
6. Conveyance & special diet: Rs. 50,000/-
7. Compensation for mental and physical Rs. 75,000/-
shock :
8. Loss of amenities in life: Rs. 75,000/-
MAC No.2007/16 Karun Gupta Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. 15/21
9. Damages for inconvenience, hardship, Rs. 75,000/-
frustration and permanent
disfigurement.
Total = Rs.23,40,541/-
(rounded off Rs.
23,41,000/-)
18. Liability: Petitioner has proved that the offending vehicle was insured with insurance company. Respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle and caused this accident due to he is definitely liable to pay this amount of compensation. Respondent No. 2 i.e. owner is also vicariously liable to pay this compensation jointly or severely.
Since vehicle was insured with the Respondent No. 3, due to Respondent No. 3 is liable to reimburse the owner against this compensation arising out of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 3 has failed to prove any violation of the insurance policy. As such, Respondent No. 3 is liable to pay this compensation.
19. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, petition is allowed. Petitioner / injured is entitled for compensation of Rs. 23,41,000/- from the Respondent No. 3 with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization, subject to adjustment of waiver of interest or interim compensation, if any directed by this court during the pendency of this case. Respondent No. 3 is directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioner and his counsel. The following award is passed as under:
MAC No.2007/16 Karun Gupta Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. 16/21 AWARD This petition is allowed. Respondent No. 3 is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 23,41,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization, subject to waiver of any interest, if any directed by the court during the pendency of the trial or interim award if any, to the petitioner and to deposit the award amount within one month from the date of this award. Award amount be released to the injured / claimant after deposit by the Respondent No. 3.
20. Disbursal of Award amount: Now the disbursement of award amount has to be considered. The procedure of disbursement of the award amount has been provided in Clause-29 of Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Tyagi v. Jaibir Singh, I (2005) ACC 838 (Del.) and Tazuddin Ansari & Ors. v. Satish Kumar & Ors, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5380 and disbursement of the award amount in this case has to be considered.
20.1. Petitioner has submitted that he has been spending amount on his treatment and huge amount has been spent and is under debt due to medical expenses and has prayed to release substantial amount instantly. In view of his needs, he shall be entitled for an amount of Rs. 3,41,000/- out of Rs. 23,41,000/- with corresponding interest instantly to be credited in his saving bank account nearby to his residence. Remaining amount of Rs.20,00,000/- shall be fixed into MAC No.2007/16 Karun Gupta Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. 17/21 automatically renewable FDRs of Rs.1,00,000/- each w.e.f. Oct, 2018 onwards in the following manner as under:
Sr. No. Duration of FDR Petitioner
1. 6 Months Rs.1,00,000/-
2. 1 Year Rs.1,00,000/-
3. 1 ½ Yrs. Rs.1,00,000/-
4. 2 Yrs. Rs.1,00,000/-
5. 2 ½ Yrs Rs.1,00,000/-
6. 3 Yrs Rs.1,00,000/-
7. 3½ Year Rs.1,00,000/-
8. 4 Yrs. Rs.1,00,000/-
9. 4½ Yrs. Rs.1,00,000/-
10. 5 Yrs Rs.1,00,000/-
11. 5½ Yrs Rs.1,00,000/-
12. 6Year Rs.1,00,000/-
13. 6½ Yrs. Rs.1,00,000/-
14. 7 Yrs. Rs.1,00,000/-
15. 7½ Yrs Rs.1,00,000/-
16. 8 Yrs Rs.1,00,000/-
17. 8½ Yrs Rs.1,00,000/-
18. 9 Yrs Rs.1,00,000/-
19. 9½ Yrs Rs.1,00,000/-
20. 10 Yrs Rs.1,00,000/-
Total = Rs. 20,00,000/-
20.2. The interest on the above said FDRs shall be calculated on monthly basis and to be credited automatically through ECS in the saving account of the petitioner nearby to his residence on monthly basis. FDRs amount shall be paid on maturity basis in the same account of the petitioner/s against which interest amount is/are being credited through ECS automatically.
MAC No.2007/16 Karun Gupta Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. 18/21 20.3. The Manager, UCO Bank or of any other bank as desired by the claimant/s shall open the saving bank account of the claimant/s or transfer to his/her/their existing account/s, if any, nearby to his/her/their residence/s after taking relevant documents.
20.4. The withdrawal from the aforesaid bank account/s of the petitioners / claimant/s shall be after due verification by the bank and the bank shall issue photo identity card to the petitioner/s to facilitate the identity.
20.5. The original FDRs shall be retained by the bank in the safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR numbers, FDRs amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished to the claimant/s.
20.6. No loan, advance or withdrawal / pre-mature discharge shall be allowed on the above-said FDRs without the permission of this Tribunal. The bank shall not open any joint account of the petitioner/s.
20.7. No cheque book or debit card shall be issued to the claimants/ petitioner/s without the permission of this Tribunal against the account in which amount is being credited. In case the debit card and / or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall freeze the account of the claimant/s so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant/s from any other branch of the bank.
MAC No.2007/16 Karun Gupta Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. 19/21 20.8. That the bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to this effect, that no cheque book and / or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant/s shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the court on the next date fixed for compliance.
20.9. The bank shall prepare FDRs in its own name on the receipt of the award amount from the Respondent No. 3 i.e. Insurance Company till the date petitioner/s approach for the release of the amount and thereafter amount along with interest shall be released to the petitioner/s per award of this Tribunal.
20.10. On the request of the petitioner/s, bank shall transfer the saving account to any other bank of UCO bank or any other bank according to the convenience of the petitioner/s. The claimants can operate the saving bank account from the nearest branch of UCO Bank and on request of the claimant/s, bank shall provide said facility.
20.11. The petitioners shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the saving bank account and FDR to Nodal Officer, UCO Bank, KKD, Delhi.
20.12. Petitioner (s) shall file a compliance report on next date of hearing about opening of saving bank account with the nationalized bank nearby to their/his/her residence and to get endorsed from the bank that no cheque-book, debit card or any other facility like ECS / NFTT etc. has been provided against this bank account.
MAC No.2007/16 Karun Gupta Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. 20/21
21. A copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the parties concerned and also be sent to the court of Ld. MM concerned. Copy of Form V duly filled shall be treated as part of this award. File be consigned to RR and a separated file for compliance be maintained for Digitally signed 25.10.2018. by DEVENDER DEVENDER KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2018.09.20 16:51:22 +0530 Announced in open court (DEVENDER KUMAR) On 20.09.2018 PO-MACT/SHAHDARA KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI MAC No.2007/16 Karun Gupta Vs. Amar Singh & Ors. 21/21