Delhi District Court
Seema & Ors. vs . Jagdish & Ors. on 2 July, 2013
-:1:-
Seema & ors. vs. Jagdish & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMAR NATH
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,DWARKA
COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF : SEEMA V/S JAGDISH
M.A.C.P NO. 211/09
1 Smt. Seema ( age around 25 years)
W/o Prem Singh
R/o VPO Shakhol, P.S Bhadurgarh,
Distt. Jhajhar, Haryana
2nd Address : House No. 87, Data Ram Park,
Najafgarh, Delhi
2 Ranjan (age around 4 years)
S/o Sh. Prem Singh
R/o VPO Shakhol, P.S Bhadurgarh
Distt. Jhajhar, Haryana
3 Jatin (age around 1 and half years)
S/o Sh. Prem Singh
R/o VPO Shakhol, P.S Bhadurgarh
Distt. Jhajhar, Haryana
4 Smt. Shingari Devi (age around 70 years)
W/o Net Ram Singh
R/o VPO Shakhol, P.S Bhadurgarh
Distt. Jhajhar, Haryana
(Petitioner no. 2 and 3 being minors through their mother/ natural guardian
Petitioner no.1 Smt. Seema)
.........Petitioners
SEEMA VS. JAGDISH & S
BALWAN SINGH VS. JAGDISH MACP No. 211/09 and 212/09
( Page no 1to Page no. 20)
-:2:-
Seema & ors. vs. Jagdish & Ors.
Versus
1 Sh. Jagdish ( Driver)
S/o Sh Baljeet Singh,
R/o Village Jharoda Kalan
Najafgarh, Delhi
2 Shri Surinder Kumar ( Owner)
S/o Shri Rati Ram
R/o House no. 184, VPO Daulat Pur,
New Delhi - 110043.
3 Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Karol Bagh Lower, Ground Floor,
1001, Block 'NN',
Khasra no. 1299/1144, 1300/1144 & 1507/1145,
Arya Samaj RoadNaiwala
Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110001 .......Respondents
AND IN THE MATTER OF :
BALWAN SINGH VS. JAGDISH & ORS.MACP No 212/09
1 Balwan Singh S/o Zile Singh SEEMA VS. JAGDISH & S BALWAN SINGH VS. JAGDISH MACP No. 211/09 and 212/09 ( Page no 2to Page no. 20) -:3:- Seema & ors. vs. Jagdish & Ors.
r/o Village Kheri Manajat, Tehsil Sonepat, Distt. Sonepat Haryana .........Petitioner Versus 1 Sh. Jagdish ( Driver) S/o Shri Baljeet Singh, R/o Village Jharoda Kalan Najafgarh, Delhi 2 Shri Surinder Kumar ( Owner) S/o Shri Rati Ram R/o House no. 184, VPO Daulat Pur, New Delhi - 110043.
3 Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer) Karol Bagh Lower, Ground Floor, 1001, Block 'NN', Khasra no. 1299/1144, 1300/1144 & 1507/1145, Arya Samaj RoadNaiwala Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110001 .......Respondents
1. Date of institution: 06.08.2009
2. Date of framing of issues: 27.01.2011
3.Date of hearing arguments : 04.6.2013
4. Date of decision: 02.07.2013 AWARD/ JUDGEMENT:
SEEMA VS. JAGDISH & S BALWAN SINGH VS. JAGDISH MACP No. 211/09 and 212/09 ( Page no 3to Page no. 20) -:4:- Seema & ors. vs. Jagdish & Ors.
1 Petition bearing no. 211/09 titled as "Seema & Ors. Vs. Jagdish & Ors."
filed by wife (petitioner no.1), minor children (petitioners nos. 2 and 3) and mother (petitioner no. 4) of the deceased whereas petition bearing no. 212/09 titled as "Balwan Singh & Ors. Vs. Jagdish & Ors." was filed by the petitioner Balwan Singh. The offending vehicle was driven by respondent no.1 ( in short R1) which was owned by respondent no 2 ( in short R2) and the same was insured with respondent no 3 ( in short R3).
2 Vide this common judgment, I shall decide both the petitions as fully described above. Issues were framed on 27.01.2011 separately in the both the claim petitions and the same were consolidated vide order dated 16.05.2013 by treating the petition no. 211/11 as leading case, after recording evidence separately. Necessary corrections were made on the same date.
3 Brief facts of the case are that on 19.07.2009, deceased was coming from Daulatpur, Delhi after attending last rites ceremonies of one of his relative at Gurgaon on his Motorcycle bearing no. HR13C3437 and Shri Balwan Singh (petitioner in petition bearing no. MACP 212/09) was a pillion rider thereon. At about 3.20 p.m on that day when they reached near drains, Village Jharoda, Najafgarh, one bus bearing registration no. HR55C0359 (hereinafter the offending vehicle) being driven by its driver R1 with fast speed in rash & negligent manner came and hit the motorcyclist. As a result of which both the riders along with the motorcycle fell down on the road and SEEMA VS. JAGDISH & S BALWAN SINGH VS. JAGDISH MACP No. 211/09 and 212/09 ( Page no 4to Page no. 20) -:5:- Seema & ors. vs. Jagdish & Ors.
were grievously injured. Both the injured including the deceased were removed to RTRM hospital, Jaffarpur. Deceased succumbed to his injuries while being shifted to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital.
4. Pursuant to service of the notice, respondents appeared and filed their respective written statements. A joint written statement was filed on behalf of the R1 and R2 wherein denied the factum and manner of the accident pleading that the vehicle in question had been falsely implicated by the Police in connivance with the relative of the deceased in an alleged accident. In fact, the accident had occurred on account of sole negligence of the deceased. An exorbitant amount is claimed without any justification
5. This petition has been resisted by the insurance company after filing the separate written statement, whereby denied the factum & manner of the accident cursorily, however, it had been admitted that vehicle was insured in the name of R2 vide commercial vehicle policy no. 101026/31/09/000485 valid during the period 26.09.2008 to 25.09.2009 subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.
6. Issues were framed on 27.01.2011 in both the petitions. An interim award was passed in the petition no.211/09 on 04.05.2010.
7. Having heard arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides and after perusal the material including the evidence on record, my issuewise findings are as under: SEEMA VS. JAGDISH & S BALWAN SINGH VS. JAGDISH MACP No. 211/09 and 212/09 ( Page no 5to Page no. 20) -:6:- Seema & ors. vs. Jagdish & Ors.
ISSUE NO 1 ( in petition no. 211/09) Whether Sh. Prem Singh sustained fatal injuries in the accident dated 19/07/2009 due to rash or negligent driving of Bus no. HR 55C0359 by R1? ....OPP ISSUE NO 1 (in petition no. 212/09) framed on 27.01.2013 Whether the petitioner sustained injuries on 19/07/2009 due to rash or negligent driving of Bus no. HR 55 C0359 by R1 ? ....OPP 8 Aforesaid issues being interconnected are tried together for disposal. The onus to prove the aforesaid both the issues was on the respective petitioners. PW2 Balwan had witnessed the scene of the accident and had narrated the sequence of events in paragraph 2 of his affidavit Ex. PW2/1. On being crossed examined by the counsel for R1 & R2, he stated that deceased had been wearing the helmet on the date of accident. He had denied the suggestion of noninvolvement of the offending vehicle in an accident in question. As nothing beneficial came out during his cross examination, therefore I do not find any reason to discredit his version given by him with regard to the negligent driving of the offending vehicle on the date of accident. 9 Besides this, Petitioners have proved the attested copy of the criminal record i.e. Charge sheet Ex. PA, FIR Ex. PB, site plan Ex. PC, Mechanical Inspection report is Ex. PD and MLC of deceased Ex. PE and postmortem report is Ex. PF to to establish the factum of the accident.
SEEMA VS. JAGDISH & S BALWAN SINGH VS. JAGDISH MACP No. 211/09 and 212/09 ( Page no 6to Page no. 20) -:7:- Seema & ors. vs. Jagdish & Ors.
10 In Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Raod Transport Corporation and others (2009) 13 SC 5 13, it has been observed that in a road accident, the strict principles of poof as in a criminal case are not attracted. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under: "15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties."
11 The aforesaid observations were quoted with approval by the Hon'ble Apex Court in later judgment of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No. 1082 of 2011) 12 Having regards to these fact and circumstances, I am of the opinion that petitioners have been able to establish on record that accident did take place due to negligent driving of the offending vehicle at the given date, time and place. 13 In view of the above discussions, issue no. 1 in both the petitions is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. SEEMA VS. JAGDISH & S BALWAN SINGH VS. JAGDISH MACP No. 211/09 and 212/09 ( Page no 7to Page no. 20) -:8:- Seema & ors. vs. Jagdish & Ors.
ISSUE NO 2 ( in petition no. 211/09) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation if so, what amount and from whom ?
OPP ISSUE NO 1 (in petition no. 212/09) framed on 27.01.2013 Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation if so, what amount and from whom ?
OPP 14 I will take this issue petitionwise.
PETITION NO. 211/09 TITLED AS SEEMA & ORS. VS. JAGDISH & ORS. 15 As issue no.1 is decided in favor of the petitioners in affirmative and thus, petitioners are entitled for the compensation. Quantum of the compensation however, is required to be calculated.
16 PW 1 Smt. Seema had testified that deceased Sh. Prem Singh was her husband and father of petitioners no.2 and 3 and son of the petitioner no.4. She further stated that at the time of the accident her husband was 32 years of age and had left behind the petitioners as his legal heirs. She also stated that there is no other legal heirs SEEMA VS. JAGDISH & S BALWAN SINGH VS. JAGDISH MACP No. 211/09 and 212/09 ( Page no 8to Page no. 20) -:9:- Seema & ors. vs. Jagdish & Ors.
except the petitioners. I do not see any reason to disbelieve her statement qua the aforesaid facts as nothing contrary has been proved or shown.
17. In so far the selection of the multiplier is concerned, choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of the claimants whichever is higher. Our own Hon'ble High Court has dealt this proposition in MAC Appeal bearing no. 1148 of 2011 Vijay laxmi & anr. v/s Binod Kumar Yadav & Ors. vide judgment dated 3.1.2012 after relying upon the following judgments of 3 Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court;
i) UP State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.
v/s Trilok Chandra & Ors, (1996) 4 SCC 362
ii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd v/s
Shanti Pathak (Smt.) & Ors., (2007) 10 SCC 1 wherein case of the death of a bachelor who was aged only 25 years, the multiplier of 5 was applied according to the age of the mother of the deceased who was about 65 years at the time of accident. Turning to the case in hand, the petitioners have relied upon the Statement of marks of Matriculate certificate Ex. PW 1/1 of the deceased wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 21.05.1975. If his age is calculated on that basis, then it came to 34 plus on the date of accident i.e. 19.07.2009. Accordingly, an operative multiplier shall be 16 as per the judgment of Sarla Verma (SUPRA).
SEEMA VS. JAGDISH & S BALWAN SINGH VS. JAGDISH MACP No. 211/09 and 212/09 ( Page no 9to Page no. 20) -:10:- Seema & ors. vs. Jagdish & Ors.
18 PW 1 Smt. Seema further testified that her husband was serving as class IV th employee with health department of MCD, Delhi at the time of accident. He was contributing his entire income towards household expenses. No document has been placed on record to substantiate the factum of his his service with the MCD as class IV employee. As there is no corroborative evidence with regard to the earning of the deceased, then regard is to be had the minimum wages of matriculate prevalent at the time of accident. Matriculate certificate of the deceased stands proved Ex. PW 1/1. The accident did take place on 19.07.2009 and the minimum wages of matriculate persons were Rs.4382/ as on 01.02.2009.
19. A bench comprises of 3 Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed with regard to future prospects of the deceased in Rajesh & others Vs. Rajbir Sijngh & others order dated April 12, 2013 in C. A. No. 3860/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 24825/2010) . Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under: Since, the Court in Santosh Devi's case (supra) actually intended to follow the principle in the case of Salaried person as laid in Sarla Verma's case (supra and to make it applicable also to the selfemployed and persons on fixed wages. It is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self employed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. SEEMA VS. JAGDISH & S BALWAN SINGH VS. JAGDISH MACP No. 211/09 and 212/09 ( Page no 10to Page no. 20) -:11:- Seema & ors. vs. Jagdish & Ors.
Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any, Addition should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years.
In Sarla Verma's case (supra), it has been stated that in the case of those above 50 years, there shall be no addition. Having regard to the fact that in the case of those selfemployed or on fixed wages, where there is normally no age of superannuation, we are of the view that it will only be just and equitable to provide an addition of 15% in the case where the victim is between the age group of 50 to 60 years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable. There shall normally be no addition thereafter. 20 The deceased has left behind widow, two daughters and mother. 1/4th deductions have to be made towards personal living expenses of the deceased. I find support of my view from the judgment of Sarla Verma (supra). After applying the ratio of the judgment of Rajesh (supra), the average income of the deceased under the heads of Loss of dependency is commuted as under:
a) Minimum Wages of matriculate as on 01/02/2009 Rs. 4,382/
b) 50 % towards future prospects Rs. 2,191/ Rs. 6,573/
c) 1/4th deductions on personal living expenses Rs. 1,643.25/ Rs. 4,929.75/ 21 Keeping in view the above discussions, following sum shall be just compensation:
SEEMA VS. JAGDISH & S BALWAN SINGH VS. JAGDISH MACP No. 211/09 and 212/09 ( Page no 11to Page no. 20) -:12:- Seema & ors. vs. Jagdish & Ors.
1 Loss of dependency (4929.75 X12X16) = Rs. 9,46,512/ 2 Loss of Love and affection* = Rs. 1,00,000/ 3 For funeral expenses** = Rs. 25,000/ 4 Loss of estate = Rs. 10,000/
5.Loss of Consortium*** = Rs. 1,00,000/ _______________________________________________________________________ Total Rs. 11,81,512/ (Rupees Eleven Lacs Eighty one Thousand Five Hundred and twelve only) It includes the amount of interim award also _______________________________________________________________________ *Under the head of loss of love and affection only1,00,000/ (in total to all the claimants) is granted.
**'Funeral expenses' in the absence to contrary for hire expenses, to award at least an amount of Rs. 25,000/ *** 'Loss of Consortium' judgment of Apex Court delivered in Rajesh & Ors. (Supra) is relied upon.
APPORTIONMENT ( In petition bearing no. 211/09) 22 From out of the awarded amount, the petitioner no. 1 shall get Rs.8,81,512 / with interest including the amount of interim award whereas petitioner nos. 2 to 4 shall be entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/ each with interest. PETITION NO. 212/09 TITLED AS BALWAN VS. JAGDISH & ORS. 23 As issue no. 1 is decided in affirmative, therefore, the petitioner has become entitled to be compensated. Now the question arises as to how much amount has to be SEEMA VS. JAGDISH & S BALWAN SINGH VS. JAGDISH MACP No. 211/09 and 212/09 ( Page no 12to Page no. 20) -:13:- Seema & ors. vs. Jagdish & Ors.
awarded to him.
24 It has been held in a catena of judgments by Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts that emphasis in cases of personal injury and fatal accident should be on awarding substantial, just and fair compensation and not a token amount. It has been held in a number of judgments that general principle in calculating such sum of compensation, should be so as to put the injured or legal heirs of a deceased in case of fatal accident, in the same position as he would have been, if accident had not taken place. In examining the question of damages for personal injury, pecuniary or non pecuniary damages are required to be taken into account. 25 Before I, calculate the amount of compensation , it would be appropriate to incorporate the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme court in Kavita v. Deepak and Ors. 2012 ACJ 2161. It was observed as under :
"In case of injury 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 nonpecuniary 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 nonpecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain SEEMA VS. JAGDISH & S BALWAN SINGH VS. JAGDISH MACP No. 211/09 and 212/09 ( Page no 13to Page no. 20) -:14:- Seema & ors. vs. Jagdish & Ors.
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 no be able to walk run or 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."
28 In view of above, in order to calculate the amount of compensation, the sum is required to be considered under the various heads as delineated above by Hon'ble Apex Court.
a) MEDICINES & TREATMENT 29 Petitioner Balwan Singh in his affidavit Ex. PW2/A had averred that in
the accident, he had sustained grievous injuries on all over his body and fracture on his Jaws. He was admitted in RTRM hospital where his MLC Ex. PW 2/1 bearing no. 2247/09 was prepared. He remained under treatment during the period 19.07.2009 to 311.07.2009. Discharge summary is Ex. PW 2/2. It is further stated that he had spent huge amount on his treatment . Medical bills amounting to Rs.38,869/are proved as Ex. PW 1/5.
30. Perusal of record, it reveals that petitioner must have spent over and above the amount of Medical bills on her treatment but I award a sum of Rs.38,869/ against the bills actually proved towards medicines and treatment. SEEMA VS. JAGDISH & S BALWAN SINGH VS. JAGDISH MACP No. 211/09 and 212/09 ( Page no 14to Page no. 20) -:15:- Seema & ors. vs. Jagdish & Ors.
(b) LOSS OF INCOME:
31. PW1 during the course of his deposition had stated that he was working as Government servant at North West Railway (Bikaner Division) and his monthly salary was Rs.12,509/. His Service ICard issued by North West Railway Bikaner Division is Ex. PW 2/3 and his salary certificate is Ex .PW 2/4. Since there is no rebuttal evidence that contents of salary slip for the month of April, 2009 and service Icard are incorrect, thus, I find no reason to impeach the credit of the documents. Furthermore, insurance company had enough time to verify the genuineness of the documents but it has failed to do so. Considering the facts and circumstances and coupled with the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that he must not have been in a position to attend his office at least for a period of 4 months. I, therefore, award a sum of Rs.50036/ (Rs. 12,509X 4) to the petitioner towards 'loss of income' for four months.
c) PAIN & SUFFERINGS:
32. Pain and suffering is covered under non pecuniary damages. To calculate the same, nature of injuries sustained by the injured, duration during which he got the medical treatment and was confined to bed, are some of the factors which are required to be taken into account.
SEEMA VS. JAGDISH & S BALWAN SINGH VS. JAGDISH MACP No. 211/09 and 212/09 ( Page no 15to Page no. 20) -:16:- Seema & ors. vs. Jagdish & Ors.
33. In the present case it is apparent from the medical record proved by the petitioner that he had sustained grievous injuries on all over his body and fracture on his Jaws. He was admitted in RTRM hospital where his MLC Ex. PW 2/1 was prepared. The mental agony which the petitioner might have undergone at the time of accident, cannot be equated or quantified in terms of money. Physical pain which the petitioner must have undergone during the course of treatment would have been immense.
34. To compensate the petitioner under this head, I award a sum of Rs.35,000/ to the petitioner for pain and sufferings.
d) CONVEYANCE & SPEICAL DIET
35. PW2 Sh. Balwan Singh during the course of deposition had also stated about the amount spent by him on conveyance and special diet but the same have not been substantiated with any cogent documentary evidence. Considering the nature of injury sustained by him he would have paid repeated visits to the hospital/doctors for his follow treatment incurring expenses on conveyance. He must have required to take special diet to recover from the injury sustained by him. I therefore, award a sum of Rs. 20,000/ towards the loss of conveyance and speical diet.
36. Keeping in view the above discussions, following sum shall be just compensation:
1 Medicines & Treatment = Rs. 38,869/ SEEMA VS. JAGDISH & S BALWAN SINGH VS. JAGDISH MACP No. 211/09 and 212/09 ( Page no 16to Page no. 20) -:17:- Seema & ors. vs. Jagdish & Ors.
2 Pain and suffering = Rs. 35,000/ 3 Conveyance and special diet = Rs. 20,000/ 4 Loss of income = Rs. 50,036/ 5 Loss of amenities = Rs. 10,000/ _______________________________________________________________________ Total Rs. 1,53,905/ (Rupees One lakh, Fifty three thousand, Nine hundred and five only) _______________________________________________________________________ INTEREST in both the petitions
37. There is no material to with hold the interest, therefore, the petitioners are awarded interest @ Rs 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petitions i.e. 06/08/2009 till realization.
LIABILITY
38. No evidence has been led on behalf of the respondents including the insurance company. Admittedly the offending vehicle was being driven by R1 and owned by R3 therefore, R1, is the principal tort feasor. R2 & R3 are vicariously liable. All the respondents are held jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount. Since the vehicle was insured with the R3, therefore, it shall pay the awarded amount.
39. In view of the above discussions, issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
40. Issue No.2 is decided in favour of the petitioner accordingly. SEEMA VS. JAGDISH & S BALWAN SINGH VS. JAGDISH MACP No. 211/09 and 212/09 ( Page no 17to Page no. 20) -:18:- Seema & ors. vs. Jagdish & Ors.
ISSUE NO 3 RELIEF
41. In view of findings on issues no 1 and 2 , this issue is also decided in favour of the petitioners and against respondents.
42. In petition bearing no. 211/09, titled as Seema & Ors. vs. Jagdish & Ors Rs.11,81,512/ (Rupees Eleven Lacs Eighty One Thousand Five Hundred and twelve only)with interest is awarded in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents including the amount of interim award.
43. In petition no. 212/09, titled as Balwan Singh & Ors. vs. Jagdish & Ors Rs. 1,53,905/ (Rupees One lakh, Fifty Three thousand, Nine hundred and Five only) with interest is awarded in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
44. The awarded amount be deposited by R3 with State Bank of India, Dwarka Court Complex Branch, Sector10, New Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation to the Nazir of this Court. In petition bearing no. 211/09, titled as Seema & Ors. vs. Jagdish & Ors. . SBI Branch is directed to release Rs.4,81,512 / with interest to the petitioner no.1 by transferring the same to her Saving Bank Account after keeping the remaining amount in a fixed deposit in her name in the following manner: a Amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ in FD for a period of two year. b Amount of Rs.2,00,000/ in FD for a period of four years. SEEMA VS. JAGDISH & S BALWAN SINGH VS. JAGDISH MACP No. 211/09 and 212/09 ( Page no 18to Page no. 20) -:19:- Seema & ors. vs. Jagdish & Ors.
45. Half of the awarded amount along with interest shall be released to the petitioner no. 4 after retaining the remaining half in her name in the shape of FDR for a period of two year. Petitioners no. 2 and 3 are minor children of deceased, therefore, their share shall be kept in the shape of FDR in their respective names till they attain the age of 18 years.
46 In petition no. 212/09, titled as Balwan Singh & Ors. vs. Jagdish & Ors , the awarded amount be deposited by R3 with State Bank of India, Dwarka Court Complex Branch, Sector10, New Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation to the Nazir of this Court. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, SBI Branch is directed to release the entire amount with interest in the name of petitioner. 47 The interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits shall be paid monthly by automatic credit of interest in the respective Savings Account of the beneficiaries.
48. Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to the beneficiaries after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo Identity Cards to the beneficiaries to facilitate identity.
49. No cheque books shall be issued to the beneficiaries without the permission of this Court.
50. 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 beneficiaries along with SEEMA VS. JAGDISH & S BALWAN SINGH VS. JAGDISH MACP No. 211/09 and 212/09 ( Page no 19to Page no. 20) -:20:- Seema & ors. vs. Jagdish & Ors.
the photocopy of the FDRs. Upon the expiry of the period of each FDR, the Bank shall automatically credit the maturity amount in the Savings Account of the beneficiaries.
51. No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the prior permission of this court.
52. On the request of the beneficiaries, Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch according to their convenience.
53. The beneficiaries shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account. 54 R3 shall inform the petitioners (in both the petitions) through registered post that the cheques of the awarded amount are being deposited so as to facilitate them to collect their cheques.
55. Copy of the award be supplied to both the parties at free of cost. Copy of this award be sent to the Nodal Officer of the Bank along with the Court stamped, copy of the photographs and signatures of the claimants..
56. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (AMAR NATH)
DATED: 02.07.2013 PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
SEEMA VS. JAGDISH & S
BALWAN SINGH VS. JAGDISH MACP No. 211/09 and 212/09
( Page no 20to Page no. 20)