Delhi District Court
Sh. Thako Kamti S/O Sh. Rajeshwar Kamti vs Sh. Desh Raj S/O Sh. Rampat on 19 September, 2009
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI GURVINDER PAL SINGH
JUDGE,MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL(WEST)
TIS HAZARI COURTS,DELHI
Suit No. 417/08(New )
Old No. 35/08
1. Sh. Thako Kamti s/o Sh. Rajeshwar Kamti
2. Smt.Aruna Devi w/o Sh. Thako Kamti
Both R/o H.No. 96, Village Phulhara, P.O. Phulhara,
District Samastipur, Darbhanga, Bihar.
......Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Desh Raj s/o Sh. Rampat
WZ-927/C, GL-14, Sadh Nagar,
Palam Colony, New Delhi-110045 (Driver)
2. Deputy Commissioner of Police,
P& L-5, Rajpur Road, Delhi (owner)
3. Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police, Police Headquarters,
ITO, New Delhi-2 ( owner)
.....Respondents
Date of filing of the petition : 14/01/08 When reserved for judgment : 04/09/09 Date of final judgment/award : 19/09/09 2 Suit No. 874/08(New ) Old No. 36/08 1. Sh.Shanker s/o Late Sh.Triveni 2. Sh. Sudhir s/o Late Sh. Treveni
3. Smt. Rukmani w/o Sh. Arun Kamti d/o Late Sh. Triveni All R/o A-96, Shiv Vihar, J.J. Colony, Near Vikash Nagar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi ......Petitioners Versus
1. Sh. Desh Raj s/o Sh. Rampat WZ-927/C, GL-14, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi-110045 (Driver)
2. Deputy Commissioner of Police, P&L, 5, Rajpur Road,Delhi.
3. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, Police Headquarters, ITO, New Delhi-2 ( owner) .....Respondents Date of filing of the petition : 14/01/08 When reserved for judgment : 04/09/09 Date of final judgment/award : 19/09/09 JUDGMENT / AWARD Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off two claim petitions bearing (1) New Suit No. 417/08 (Old Suit No. 35/08), titled as Thako Kamti Vs. Desh Raj & Ors & (2)New Suit No. 874/08(Old Suit No. 36/08), titled as Sh. 3 Shanker Vs. Desh Raj & Ors, as both these petitions have arisen out of the same accident which took place on 14/11/07. Both these petitions were consolidated vide order dated 14/05/09 and the evidence was led in the case of Sh. Thako Kamti & Ors Vs Desh Raj & ors bearing New Suit No. 417/08 (Old Suit No. 35/08) treating the same as leading case, the main petition.
2. Both these petitions under section 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 were filed by the respective petitioners claiming compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Lakhs) each respectively from the respondents for the fatal injuries caused to the deceased persons.
3. The brief resume of facts of the cases of the petitioners is that on 14/11/07 at about 8.15 pm Sh. Govind and Smt. Aakashi Devi were going by Rickshaw and when then reached in front of road of Vikas Puri, Police Line, near Krishi Apartment, Vikas Puri, then a TATA-407 vehicle bearing No. DL- 1LE-3947, driven by respondent No.1 at fast speed rashly and negligently hit their rickshaw causing injuries on the person of Sh. Govind and Smt. Aakashi Devi which resulted in their death.
4. Respondent No.1 is the driver and respondents No.2 & 3 are the owners respectively of the offending vehicle.
4
5. Respondents were summoned. Respondents filed their written statement and denied the claim of the petitioners.
6. Respondent No.1 in his written statement denied of any negligence on his part alleging the accident took place due to own negligence of deceased Sh. Govind. Respondent No.1 further alleged that he took care to avoid the accident and even tried to jump over footpath but still due to negligence of deceased Sh. Govind, the accident had taken place.
7. Respondents no. 2 & 3 in their written statements denied the negligence of respondent No.1 and alleged the Rickshaw puller of the Rickshaw in which the deceased were travelling was negligent.
8. Vide order dated 01/09/08 of my Ld. Predecessor in both the cases,the petitioners were awarded interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. In Suit New Number 417/08 (Old Suit No. 35/08), following issues were also framed by my Ld. Predecessor.
1.Whether the deceased Govind had sustained fatal injuries on 14.11.2007 at about 8.15 p.m in front of Road of Vikas Puri Police Line, near Krishi Apartment, Vikas Puri due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 5 Sh. Desh Raj while driving Tata -407 bearing registration No. DL-1LE-3947?
2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3.Relief.
9. Vide order dated 01/09/08 of my Ld. Predecessor in Suit New Number 874/08(Old Suit No. 36/08), following issues were framed.
1.Whether the deceased Smt Aakashi Devi had sustained fatal injuries on 14.11.2007 at about 8.15 p.m in front of Road of Vikas Puri Police Line, near Krishi Apartment, Vikas Puri due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 Sh. Desh Raj while driving Tata-407 bearing registration No. DL-1LE-
3947?
2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3.Relief.
10. Petitioners have examined petitioner Thako Kami as PW-1, petitioner Sh. Shanker as PW-2 and Sh. Rajender as PW-3 in petitioner evidence.
11. Respondents examined Respondent No.1 as R1W1 and SI Harish Chander as R2W1.
6
12. I have heard the submissions of Ld. Counsels for the parties, perused the record and given my thoughts to the rival contentions. My issue wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1 IN NEW SUIT NO. 417/08 & NEW SUIT NO. 874/08
13. PW-3 Sh. Rajinder testified that on 14/11/07 at about 8.15 p.m he was going on his bicycle from his house to Vikas Puri to take some payment being a Salesman. When he reached at road of Vikas Puri Police Line, at the back of Krishi Apartment, Vikas Puri, he saw a Rickshaw Rehri going on his front, driven by young person of 19/20 years and a lady of 40/42 years seated behind with some goods. In the meanwhile suddenly a TATA-407 bearing No. DL-1LE-3947, driven by respondent No.1 at fast speed rashly and negligently came from opposite side i.e. Nilothi side and hit Rickshaw from the front side. Due to the forceful impact, Rickshaw over turned and the boy and the lady fell down on the road. The vehicle TATA-407 dragged the lady to a considerable distance. Serious injuries were received by the boy and said lady and they were removed to DDU Hospital. PW-3 was not knowing the said injured, now deceased, prior to the occurrence and he came to know their names as Smt. Aakashi and Sh. Govind. The eye witness PW-3 has withstood the touch stone of cross-examination and despite having been cross-examined by respondent(s) counsels at length, no fact can be carved out of his testimony to disbelieve or discredit his deposition either in toto or in particular. He elicited in vivid and clear terms 7 that there was much space on the road, despite which the driver of the offending vehicle struck with the rickshaw, causing injuries on the person of the injured, now deceased, because of which said driver was negligent.
14. Respondent No.1 as R1W1 made considerable improvements in his testimony from the facts narrated in his written statement. R1W1 testified that rickshaw was driven by the minor boy in zig-zag manner and came abruptly in front of his driven vehicle. The said facts were not so mentioned in the written statement of respondent No.1 wherein he simply averred of the boy being negligent, not eliciting the zig-zag manner of rickshaw driven, nor mentioning it having come in front of his vehicle abruptly.
15. Even in the cross-examination of the eye witness/PW-3, no such suggestions qua the zig-zag manner of driving of rickshaw or rickshaw having come abruptly before the vehicle driven by respondent No.1 had been put to PW-3. It so appears that the considerable improvements have been so made in the respondent evidence by respondent No.1 to escape his liability.
16. R2W1 testified that he was deposing on the basis of the record, having no personal knowledge, yet saying respondent No.1 being not at fault since he was neither rash nor negligent while so driving and being not 8 responsible for the death of deceased persons.
17. R2W1 failed to show any record from his office showing mention of the accident having taken place due to rash and negligent driving of rickshaw puller. After having seen the attested copy of the charge-sheet of the case FIR No. 434/07 u/s 279/304-A IPC, R2W1 admitted that the investigation was concluded by the SHO, P.S. Vikas Puri on 25/11/07 with the opinion that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. R2W1 categorically admitted of having no knowledge as to whether any further investigation or any departmental inquiry or vigilance inquiry was conducted or any opinion had been formed by any official of Delhi Police for the rashness and negligence, to be on the part of the Rickshaw Puller and not on the part of the respondent No.1, the driver of Delhi Police.
18. In terms of order dated 14/05/09, the owner of the vehicle in question was directed to appear for statement u/s 165 Evidence Act on 20/05/09. On 20/05/09, Additional DCP Sh. S. D. Mishra, officiating as DCP,P&L, filed written request for adjournment being not conversant of the facts that day.
9
19. On the adjourned date, 25/05/09, the statement u/s 165 Evidence Act, of Sh. S. D. Mishra abovesaid Addl. DCP was recorded. He admitted of the vehicle No. DL-ILE-3947 being registered in the name of DCP P&L and he being officiating as DCP P&L. He stated that the head of their department was the Commissioner of Police and the said vehicle being not insured. He elicited that he was not aware whether any provision was made in the budget of Delhi Police for payment of compensation to road accident victims, wherein police vehicles were involved. He categorically stated that he could not offer any sum for conciliation or settlement of the compensation claim of the petitioners of these two cases since it was beyond his administrative control. He also admitted of the fact of the filing of the charge-sheet of case FIR No. 434/07, P.S. Vikas Puri u/s 279/304-A IPC against the respondent No.1, driver of Delhi Police.
20. It is an irony that one of the wings of Delhi Police is concluding the investigation and filing the charge-sheet against their own driver u/s 173 Cr. PC for offences u/s 279/304-A IPC in the case in hand where two human lives have been lost and on the other hand R2W1 alleges inconsonance with the facts contained in the written statement of respondents No.2 & 3, of there being no negligence on the part of respondent No.1. The respondents No.2 & 3 failed to show any written record or finding or the basis of their 10 mention in the written statement of respondent No.1 being neither rash nor negligent nor any of his act being the proximate act of death of either or both the deceased. The defence raised in the written statements by the respondents accordingly lacks any basis. Respondent No.1 has even admitted of having not filed any complaint before any authority for his alleged false implication in criminal case. The testimony of eye witness PW- 3 appears to be more probable than the version of respondents which lacks credence. The testimony of PW-3 is lent corroboration by the out come of the investigation in form of the copy of the charge-sheet of case FIR No. 434/07 u/s 279/304-A IPC, P.S. Vikas Puri as elicited above. The defence raised by the respondents appears to be sham, lacking merits and baseless.
21. The post mortem report on the body of the deceased Sh. Govind finds mention of the cause of death to be 'hemorrhagic shock due to injuries of vital organs subsequent to Road Traffic accident'.
22. The post mortem report on the body of deceased Smt. Aakashi Devi finds mention of the cause of death to be 'hemorrhagic shock subsequent to polytrauma'.
11
23. Aforesaid discussions lead me to the conclusion that the petitioners have been able to prove that deceased persons sustained fatal injuries due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. Issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents ISSUE NO.2
24. I shall be deciding this issue in both the petitions No. 417/08 and 879/08 separately and my findings are as under:-
CLAIM IN NEW SUIT NO. 417/08 (Old Suit No. 35/08)
25. The appropriate method of calculating the compensation in fatal cases is multiplier method. In catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held that in India the multiplier method is appropriate for calculation of compensation. It was so enunciated by their Lordship Wright in "Davies Vs. Powell Duffregn Associated Collieries Ltd" reported in 1942 AC601, that the appropriate method to calculate compensation is the multiplier method. In the cases of 'General Manager, Kerela State Road Transport Corporation, Trivendram Vs Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) & Ors', (1994) 2 SCC 176; ( 2 ) 'Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd. Vs K.I. Bindu & Ors'. (2005) 8SCC 473; (3) 'Gobald Motor Service Ltd. & Anr Vs RMK Veluswami & Ors', AIR 1962 SC 1 and of late, in the case of 'Syed Basheer Ahamad & Ors. V Mohd Jameel and Anr'. in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2009, decided by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06/01/2009, also in the case of ' Smt. Sarla Verma & ors Vs. Delhi Transport 12 Corporation, reported in 2009(3)RCR(Civil) 77, decided by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15/04/09, the payment of compensation in lump-sum to legal representatives of deceased by multiplier method has been approved.
26. Starting point for calculating amount of compensation to be paid to dependents of deceased in a motor accident claim is the amount of monthly income which the deceased was earning; then there is an estimate of what was required for his personal and living expenses. The balance will generally be turned into lump sum by taking certain number of years of purchase. The choice of multiplier is ascertained by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant whichever is higher.
27. Petitioners alleged that the deceased boy Sh. Govind was working in Tea Stall, earning Rs. 3000/- per month. Post mortem report on the body of the deceased 'Sh. Govind also finds mention of the age 14 years of said boy.
28. Petitioners have neither placed on record any document in respect of age of deceased, earnings nor have proved the same. I accordingly take the age of the deceased as 14 years, on the basis of age being so mentioned in the post mortem report.
13
29. For want of any cogent evidence on record, the monthly earnings of the deceased cannot be presumed to be Rs. 3000/- per month. The employer of the deceased has not been examined in petitioner's evidence. It cannot be so presumed that the minor deceased boy was accordingly working in tea stall as alleged and earning such sum.
30. In the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Smt. Mala Devi & Ors, reported in IV(2008)ACC 525 where the deceased was 12 years old boy and notional income of deceased was taken as Rs. 15,000/- as per Second Schedule of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 which was increased to Rs. 30,000/- by the Tribunal by keeping in view 300% increase in price index since enactment of Second Schedule in 1994, it was held that the Tribunal rightly deducted one half of the said notional income towards personal expenses.
31. For the non-earning deceased boy in this case, his notional income is taken as Rs. 15,000/- as per Second Schedule of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. In view of 300% increase in the price index since enactment of Second Schedule 1994, the said notional income is enchanced to Rs. 30,000/- per annum.
14
32. In view of law laid in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors (supra), since the deceased boy was a bachelor, one half of his notional income is to be deducted for his personal and living expenses which is Rs. 15,000/- per annum. The loss of dependency is accordingly Rs. 15,000/- per annum. (Rs. 30,000/- p.a minus Rs.15,000/-p.a).
THE MULTIPLIER
33. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2009 in case 'Syed Basheer Ahamed & Ors (Supra) had approved the application of the multiplier on the basis of the age of younger of the parents.
34. Petitioner No.1, the father of the deceased, as per Ex. PW1/A, the copy of his Identity Card of Election Commission of India was of age 47 years as on the date of accident.
35. Petitioner No.2, the mother of the deceased, as per Ex. PW1/B, the copy of Identity Card of Election Commission of India, was of age 42 years plus as on the date of accident.
36. In terms thereof, as per the age 42 years of the mother of the deceased and in view of the law laid by the Apex Court in case of 'Sarla 15 Verma & Ors (Supra), the multiplier of 14 (for the age group of 41 to 45 years) is accordingly taken in this case. The loss of dependency accordingly is Rs. 2.10 Lakhs (Rs. 15000X14).
LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION
37. No amount would suffice to compensate the loss of love and affection of deceased to the petitioners, yet relying upon the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors Vs Jaibir Singh & Ors as FAO No. 842/2003 orders dated 08/05/09, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each to both the petitioners i.e., totalling Rs. 20,000/- as loss of love and affection, would serve the purpose of justice. COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF ESTATE
38. In terms of law laid by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors (Supra), the claimants are entitled to sum of Rs. 10,000/- under the head of loss of estate.
COMPENSATION TOWARDS FUNERAL EXPENSES
39. In view of the law laid by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors (Supra) , the claimants are entitled to Rs. 5,000/- under this head.
40. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation to which the petitioners are entitled to comes as under:- 16
1. Compensation for Loss of dependency Rs. 2,10,000
2. Compensation for loss of love and affection Rs. 20,000/-
3. Compensation for loss of estate Rs. 10,000/-
4. Compensation for funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/-
____________ Rs. 2,45,000/-
Less Interim Compensation - Rs. 50,000/-
Balance payable sum ___________
Rs. 1,95,000/-
____________
41. In view of the above discussions, issue No.2 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. Petitioners are thus, entitled to Rs. 1,95,000/- ,as compensation alongwith interest 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization from the respondents, jointly and severally.
CLAIM IN NEW SUIT NO. 874/08 (Old Suit No. 36/08)
42. Petitioners in their claim petition have mentioned the deceased Smt. Aakashi Devi to be the housewife. PW-2 testified that his deceased mother was house hold lady providing house hold services to family. PW-2 stated that his mother was also doing part time work at tea stall. For want of any documentary or other cogent evidence on record, it cannot be accepted that the deceased lady was working part time and earning as alleged. Fact remains, the deceased lady was household lady providing household services to her family.
17
43. Taking into the consideration, multifarious services rendered by house wives for managing entire family in respect of accident which took place on 03/03/89 in case of Lata Wadhwa & Ors Vs. State of Bihar, reported in II(2001) ACC 316(SC), the Hon'ble 'Supreme Court held that on modest estimation, the notional income of such house wife should be Rs. 3000/- per month in respect of those who are of the age group of 34 years to 59 years.
44. As per Ex. PW2/C, the copy of Identity Card of Election Commission of India, the deceased Smt. Aakashi Devi was of 50 years as on the date of accident.
45. The date of the accident in the case of Lata Wadhwa(supra) was 03/03/89. The date of accident in the present case is 14/11/07. The accident in the present case accordingly took place after about 18 ½ years of the date of accident in the case of Lata Wadhwa(supra).
46. Noting that to neutralize increase in cost of living and price index, minimum wages are increased from time- to-time. Minimum wages tend to increase by 100% every 10 years.
47. Relying upon the law laid in the case of Lata Wadhwa(supra), and there after in order to neutralize increase in cost of living and price index, on 18 modest estimation, the notional income of the deceased, household lady is taken as Rs. 6000/- per month. [ Double of the notional income taken of the deceased lady who expired on 03/03/89 in the case of Lata Wadhwa (supra)in view of the death of deceased in question having taken place after span of about 18 ½ years from 03/03/89 as above elicited].
48. Also in terms of law laid in the case of Lata Wadhwa & Ors (supra), no amount is to be deducted from the such estimated notional income of the deceased lady in respect of deduction for her personal and living expenses.
49. In the case of Rahul Gupta & Ors Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, reported in I(2008)ACC,19, decided by Hon'ble Mr Justice Kailash Gambhir, it was held that the income of the deceased as a house wife, after placing reliance on the judgment of Lata Wadhwa's case(supra), was to be estimated in monetary terms and once reaching to that conclusion, the Tribunal ought not to have debarred the appellants, the claimants from the loss of the estate due to the demise of the mother. Therein, on estimation on value of services rendered by the house wife and after applying the appropriate multiplier, the sum was awarded as loss of the estate of the deceased lady to the claimants, not dependent on the deceased mother. 19 MULTIPLIER
50. Petitioners No.1 & 2 as per, Ex. PW2/A (identity card of Election Commission of India) and Ex. PW2/B(driving licence) were of age 28 years and 22 years respectively as on the date of accident. Petitioner No.3, the married daughter of the deceased was of age 20 years as stated in the petition.
51. In view of the age of 50 years of the deceased, in terms of the law laid by the Apex Court in case of ' Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors (Supra), the multiplier of 13( for the age group of 46 to 50 years) is to be adopted in this case.
52. In view of abovesaid, accordingly Rs. 6000/- per month is taken as the monthly earnings of the deceased lady and the petitioners are entitled for the loss of estate, to be quantified as per such monthly earnings, the notional income of the deceased lady as per pronouncements in the case of Rahul Gupta & ors (supra). The said loss of estate accordingly is quantified as Rs. 9,36,000/- ( Rs. 6000/-X 12x 13).
COMPENSATION TOWARDS FUNERAL EXPENSES
53. In view of the law laid by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors (Supra) , the claimants are entitled to Rs. 5,000/- under this head.
20COMPENSATION FOR LOVE AND AFFECTION.
54. No amount would suffice to compensate the loss of love and affection to petitioners. Yet, relying upon the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. R. Midha in case of ' Rajesh Tyagi & ors Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors as FAO No. 842/2003, orders dated 08/05/09, the claimants, three in number, are entitled to sum of Rs. 10,000/- each i.e., totalling Rs. 30,000/- as loss of love and affection.
55. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation to which the petitioners are entitled to comes as under:-
1. Compensation for Loss of estate Rs. 9,36,000/-
2. Compensation for funeral expenses Rs. 5000/-
3. Compensation for love and affection Rs. 30,000/-
___________ Rs. 9,71,000/-
Less Interim Compensation - Rs. 50,000/-
Total ___________
Rs. 9,21,000/-
____________
56. In view of the above discussions, Issue No.2 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. Petitioners are, thus, entitled to Rs. 9,21,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization from the respondents , jointly and severally.
21RELIEF IN NEW SUIT NO. 417/08 (Old Suit No. 35/08)
57. In view of the above discussion,I am of the opinion that petitioners are thus, entitled to Rs. 1,95,000/-, to be equally shared between them ,as compensation alongwith interest 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization from the respondents, jointly and severally. RELIEF IN NEW SUIT NO. 874/08 (Old Suit No. 36/08)
58. In view of the above discussion I am of the opinion that Petitioners are, thus, entitled to Rs. 9,21,000/- to be shared equally between them as compensation alongwith interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization from the respondents , jointly and severally.
59. 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 'G. M. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. 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 Vs. 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 22 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 case of any exigency, claimants are at liberty to apply to Tribunal for withdrawal of such investment.
60. In terms thereof, out of the award amount, 50% amount of each of the petitioners be invested in shape of two FDRs of equal (almost) in the name of the said claimants/ petitioners for a period of 5 years in State Bank of India. The FDRs shall have no facility of loan or advance. The petitioners can withdraw the interest monthly/quarterly. However, petitioners/claimants are at liberty to take steps for premature encashment in case of exigency, as per law laid before this Tribunal.
61. State Bank of India,Tis Hazari, has agreed to open Special Fixed Deposit Accounts for the victims of road accidents.
62. Aforesaid fixed deposits are to be made by State Bank of India, Tis Hazari in the following manner:-
(1) The State Bank of India,Tis Hazari, shall open separate 23 Savings Accounts in the name of claimants and the entire interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits be credited in the said accounts.
(2) The interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits shall be paid monthly by automatic credit of interest in the Savings Accounts. (3) Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to the claimants after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card /Pass Books with attested photographs to claim to facilitate their identity.
(4) No cheque book be issued to the claimants 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 claimants alongwith the photocopy of the FDRs. (7) The original Fixed Deposit Receipts shall be handed over to the claimants 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.24
(9) On the request of the claimants, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India according to the convenience of the claimants.
63. The respondents are directed to deposit the cheques, jointly and severally in the name of the petitioners within 30 days.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court (Gurvinder Pal Singh)
today i.e on 19/09/09 Judge, MACT(West)
Delhi.