Delhi District Court
Anita vs . World Window on 7 April, 2012
Anita Vs. World Window
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJIV JAIN : PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT02
SOUTH DISTT. : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
In Suit No. 1023/10
1. Smt. Anita
W/o Late Rajesh Kumar
2. Master Pawan Kumar
S/o Late Rajesh Kumar
3. Smt. Nirmala Devi
W/o Late Roop Narayan
All residents of
K34, Saurabh Vihar,
Jaitpur Road, Badarpur,
New Delhi
Permanent residents of
Vill. & Post Bibipur Vardih,
Distt. Partap Garh, U.P.
...... Petitioners
Versus
1. M/s Ravi Road Lines ICD Tughlakabad,
Lal Kuan, New Delhi.
2. M/s World Window a unit of Gobind Global Export Pvt. Ltd.
Suit No. : 1023/10 1/29
Anita Vs. World Window
2
17/6, Faridabad,
Haryana
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
through its Manager
30/26, Shakti Nagar,
Nagia Park, Delhi - 110 007
.......Respondents
Date of Institution : 26.09.2005
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 23.03.2012
Date of pronouncement : 07.04.2012
J U D G M E N T :
1. Petitioners Smt. Anita, Master Pawan Kumar and Smt. Nirmala being the wife, son and the mother of the deceased Rajesh Kumar invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal by filing the petition U/s 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/ against the respondents for untimely death of Rajesh Kumar in an incident on the night of 05/06.02.04 involving truck bearing registration no. HR 38 J 1324 owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3. Suit No. : 1023/10 2/29
Anita Vs. World Window 3
2. Relevant facts necessary for adjudication and disposal of the present petition as emanating from the same, apart from those stated herein above are that:
(a) The deceased Rajesh Kumar Verma was a driver with respondent no.1 who was engaged in the business of transportation. Respondent no.2 was the owner of the truck bearing no. HR 38 J 1324.
(b) On 04.02.04, the deceased was deputed by respondent no.1 on truck no. HR 38 J 1324 to take consignment from Delhi to Hisar. On its return, on 05.02.04 an entry of truck arrival was made at the Tikri Border, however, the truck did not reach Delhi.
(c) The brother of the deceased lodged a missing report. He also filed writ in Hon'ble High Court. A case U/s 365 IPC was registered vide FIR no. 177/04 at the police station Sangam Vihar. The police arrested the Cleaner of the truck namely Afzal. On interrogation, he revealed that he after hatching Suit No. : 1023/10 3/29 Anita Vs. World Window 4 criminal conspiracy with coassociates to loot the consignment, gave some drug to the deceased at Dhaba near Hansi, Haryana when they were heading for Delhi after getting consignment of steel coils from Jindal Steels, Hisar. He became semiconscious. Coaccused waiting at Dhaba entered the driver cabin on being signalled by the cleaner Afzal and drove the truck to a scheduled place near village Sisar, Kharbala where they murdered him by forced drowning in a water supply drain. He pointed out the place of murder. His dead body was found in the drain on 06.02.04 within the jurisdiction of police post Baas, PS Narnaund, Distt. Hisar. The case was converted U/s 364/302/396/120 B IPC. On 12.02.04 the truck was found parked at Sector28, Faridabad, Haryana with its tyres burst and without diesel.
(d) It was stated that the deceased was murdered while he was driving the truck thus, the death had arisen out of the use of motor vehicle. The petitioners being his legal heirs are therefore, entitled to get compensation.
Suit No. : 1023/10 4/29
Anita Vs. World Window 5
(e) It was stated that the deceased was about 26 years of age. Had he not been murdered in the unfortunate incident, he would have worked till the age of 80 years. It was stated that the untimely death of deceased has created vaccum in the life of the petitioners as they lost their source of income and inspiration.
(f) It was stated that the deceased was employed by respondent no.1, the truck was owned by respondent no.2 and it was insured with respondent no.3. Therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioners.
5. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents.
6. Respondent no.2 and 3 contested the petition and filed their written statements. Respondent no.1 chose not to appear and was proceeded Ex parte on 13.07.07.
7. It was stated by respondent no.2 that the claim is not maintainable because the death has not occurred due to rash and negligent act of any person since Suit No. : 1023/10 5/29 Anita Vs. World Window 6 the deceased was killed by the Cleaner due to his personal enemity. It was a simplicitor murder. It however, admitted that the deceased had been working with respondent no.2 on a salary of Rs. 3000/ p.m. Respondent no.
3. stated that the deceased himself was driving the truck. He was allegedly murdered while on duty. As the deceased driver was not a third party and neither the insured vehicle nor any other vehicle was involved in the accident, the petition U/s 163A of Motor Vehicle Act is not maintainable. It was however, admitted that the offending vehicle was insured vide policy no. 271501/201/2004/2675 for the period from 22.07.03 to 21.07.04 in the name of respondent no.2. During the proceedings, amended memo of parties was filed making respondent no.2 M/s World Window as respondent no.1 and respondent no.3, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. as respondent no.2.
8. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 01.04.08 :
1. Whether deceased suffered fatal injuries in an accident which took place on 05.02.04 involving truck bearing no. HR 38 J 1324 driven by deceased, owned by respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no.2? ... OPP Suit No. : 1023/10 6/29 Anita Vs. World Window 7
2. Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents?
3. Relief.
9. During the proceedings an additional issue was framed vide order dated 26.10.09 as under :
1A. Whether it is a case of murder and as such claim petition does not lie under M.V. Act? OPR2
10. The parties were thereafter called upon to substantiate their case by leading evidence.
11. The Petitioner Smt. Anita appeared in the witness box as PW1. She also examined Sh. Radhey Shyam as PW2 and Sh. Ram Chander as PW3.
Respondent no.3 examined Sh. Raj Pal Asstt. Manager as R3W1.
12. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. counsel Sh. Anoop Kumar Mishra for the petitioners and Sh. Sanjeev Srivastava for the respondent no.3.
13. It was contended by Ld. counsel for the petitioners that the deceased was a Suit No. : 1023/10 7/29 Anita Vs. World Window 8 driver on the truck belonging to respondent no.1. Its Cleaner in order to loot the consignment loaded on the truck hatched a criminal conspiracy with the coaccused and committed his murder. Ld. counsel stated that it is an accidental murder which had arisen out of the use of the aforesaid truck. Ld. Counsel stated that the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased and thus entitled to compensation U/s 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act.
14. Ld. counsel for the insurance company on the contrary argued that the deceased was in drunken state. He died due to drowning in the canal. The Cleaner had an enemity with the deceased. The incident / murder was not been committed out of the use of the offending truck. Even otherwise, respondent no.2 did not make available the driving license of the deceased and the permit.
15. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and perused the record.
16. My findings on the issues are as under : Suit No. : 1023/10 8/29 Anita Vs. World Window 9 : I S S U E No. 1 & 1A :
17. Considering the fact that the present petition has been filed under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, therefore petitioner is not required to establish on record, the aspect of ''negligence'' of the driver of the offending vehicle. The only fact which is required to be established on record is that the accident had taken place due to involvement of vehicle bearing registration number HR 38 J 1324.
18. PW1 has deposed that her husband had been working as driver.
Respondent no.1 was engaged in the business of Transportation. Respondent no.2 was the registered owner of the truck HR 38 J 1324 which was attached with the respondent no.1. On 04.02.04 her husband took a consignment from Delhi to Hisar on the truck. The truck did not reach Delhi although, an entry of arrival was made at Tikri Border. It was recovered in abandoned condition from Faridabad. On the writ petition filed, the police registered the case vide FIR 177/04 U/s 365 IPC at the police station Sangam Vihar. The mystery was solved when the cleaner namely Afzal of the truck was arrested. He made a disclosure statement that he alongwith his associate had hatched a conspiracy to loot the consignment and in Suit No. : 1023/10 9/29 Anita Vs. World Window 10 pursuant thereof, he committed murder of her husband. She stated that the body of her husband was recovered by the local police of police station Narnamund, Hisar, Haryana from a drain on 06.02.04 and the case was converted U/s 364/302/396/120B IPC. She placed on record the copy of FIR, postmortem report, photographs of the deceased, insurance cover note and R.C of the truck Y1 to Y. She stated that her husband did not have enemity with anyone and she came to know of his death from the elder brother of the deceased. PW2 and PW3 are the brothers of the deceased. They had made enquiry from the transporter and lodged report at the police station Badarpur. PW3 also filed the Habeas Corpus writ in the Hon'ble High Court. Both of them deposed on the lines of PW1 and stated that the deceased had died during the course of his employment arising out of the use of the motor vehicle.
19. In the present case, the postmortem of the deceased was conducted.
Abrasion marks and lacerated wounds were seen however, no opinion was given as to the cause of death as the Chemical Examiner report was awaited. Perusal of the certified copy of the Charge sheet of the case FIR 177/04 reveals that on the truck, steel coils were loaded from Jindal Steels, Hisar. They started on 05.02.04 at about 11.00 PM for Delhi, but the truck Suit No. : 1023/10 10/29 Anita Vs. World Window 11 did not reach Delhi. Afzal, its cleaner was interrogated. He disclosed of his plan to loot the truck with the help of his associates. He disclosed that on 06.02.04 at about 1.00 AM, the truck stopped at the Dhaba. The deceased was given something in his tea. He became semiconscious. His co associates entered the truck. They strangulated the deceased. They stopped the truck near a water drain, took out the deceased from the truck and got him drowned in the drain. Thereafter, they drove the truck to Tikri Border and then to Faridabad where the tyres got burst. There was no diesel in the truck. They left the truck abandoned. PW1 has also filed the certified copy of the statement of Radhey Shyam Verma who proved the statement of Afzal Ex.PW7/E and coaccused Mumtaz Ex.PW7/F. The petitioners have placed the report of DCP, Crime and Railways which go to show that the truck cleaner Afzal had hatched a conspiracy with his coassociate to loot the consignment after murdering the truck driver, Rajesh. They pursuance to the conspiracy gave some drug to him at Dhaba near Hansi when they were heading for Delhi. He became semiconscious. His coassociates who were waiting at the Dhaba entered the driver cabin on the signal given by Afzal, drove the truck to the village near Sisar where they committed his murder by forced drowning in a water supply drain.
Suit No. : 1023/10 11/29
Anita Vs. World Window 12
20. Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act provides for payment of compensation for the death or injury suffered in a motor vehicle accident on a structured formula. It says that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. It also provides that in any claim for compensation under this section, the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or the vehicle concerned or of any other person.
21. It was held in the case of Smt. Rita Devi & Ors. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. J.T. 2000 (SC) 355 that a conjoint reading of subclauses of Section 163A shows that a victim or his legal heirs are entitled to claim from the owner or insurance company a compensation for death or permanent disablement suffered due to accident arising out of the use of the motor Suit No. : 1023/10 12/29 Anita Vs. World Window 13 vehicle without having to prove wrongful act or neglect or default of anyone. The difference between a murder which is not an accident and a murder which is an accident depends on the proximity of the cause of such murder. If the dominent intention of the act of felony is to kill any particular person then such killing is not an accidental murder but is a murder simplicitor, while if the cause of murder or the set of murder was originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of any other felonious act then such murder is an accidental murder.
22. In that case, the deceased, a driver of an auto rickshaw had accepted the demand of fare paying passengers to transport them to the place of their destination, during the course of his duty, the passengers had decided to commit an act of felony of stealing the auto rickshaw and in the course of achieving such object, they eliminated the driver of the auto rickshaw. It was held that the stealing of the auto rickshaw was the object of the felony and the murder that was caused in the said process of stealing the auto rickshaw is only incidental to the act of stealing of auto rickshaw. In that case, the difference between the Motor Vehicle Act and the Workman Compensation Act was also discussed and it was held that relevant object of both the Acts Suit No. : 1023/10 13/29 Anita Vs. World Window 14 is to provide compensation to the victims of the accident. Referring Section 167 of the Motor Vehicle Act, it was held that it is open to the claimants either to proceed to claim compensation under the Workman Compensation Act or under the Motor Vehicle Act. It was held that it was in the nature of beneficial legislation enacted with a view to confer the benefit of expeditious payment of a limited amount by way of compensation to the victims of an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle on the basis of no fault liability. In the matter of interpretation of a beneficial legislation, the approach of the Courts is to adopt a construction which advances the beneficent purpose underlying the enactment in preference to a construction which tends to defeat that purpose. It was held that the word arising out of would imply that accident should be connected with the use of motor vehicle but the said connection need not be direct and immediate. It was held that the murder was due to an accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle, therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation. The principles laid down in the case were also followed in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Phulo Devi & Ors. MAC Appeal no. 196/2009 decided on 09.11.2011.
Suit No. : 1023/10 14/29
Anita Vs. World Window 15
23. In the present case also, the intention of the cleaner Afzal and his associates was to loot the truck/consignment which was being brought from Jindal Steels at Hisar to Delhi. The deceased was driving the truck. Afzal and his associates in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy, gave something to the deceased in the tea at Dhaba near Hansi due to which he became semi conscious. He was then taken in the truck. At Sisar, they stopped the truck, removed him and got him drowned in a water drain resulting in his death. They thereafter, drove the truck to Tikri border and then to Faridabad. The tyres of the truck bursted. They left the truck abandoned. Facts and circumstances of the present case also show that the looting of the consignment/truck was the object of the felony and the murder that was caused in the said process of stealing the consignment/truck was incidental to it. The report of the Investigator Ex.R3W1/D also shows that the deceased was murdered by the Cleaner of the same truck HR 38 J 1324 on which the deceased was the driver. Although in his report he has stated that the deceased died due to influence of liquor and thereafter, drowning himself into the water but the postmortem report is contrary to this report as there were abrasions and lacerated wounds on the person of the deceased. Further, there is a disclosure statement of Afzal and his coassociates as to Suit No. : 1023/10 15/29 Anita Vs. World Window 16 their involvement in the murder of the deceased. Applying the principles laid down in the case (Supra), it can be said on the facts and circumstances of this case that the death of the deceased was caused accidentally in the process of committing theft of the consignment / truck. I am of the opinion that the claimants are entitled for compensation as the murder of the deceased was due to an accident arising out of the use of the offending truck.
24. In the present case, the petitioners have claimed compensation under Motor Vehicle Act and by virtue of Section 167 of the Act, the petitioners can claim compensation either under the Motor Vehicle Act or the Workman Compensation Act. As per the insurance policy Ex.R3W1/A the offending truck was insured with respondent no.3 at the time of the incident. The policy also included the legal liability of the company towards the employee / driver. The deceased was the driver on the truck. I am of the view that the claim petition is maintainable under 163A of Motor Vehicle Act by virtue of Section 167 of the Act.
25. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the deceased had suffered Suit No. : 1023/10 16/29 Anita Vs. World Window 17 fatal injuries in an accident which took place on 05.02.04 involving truck no. HR 38 J 1324 driven by him, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3 and the murder of the deceased was due to an accident arising out of the use of the aforesaid truck and thus claim petition is maintainable under the Motor Vehicle Act. Issue no.1 and 1A are decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
: I S S U E No. 2 :
26. As issue no.1 is decided in favor of the petitioners in affirmative, petitioners thus becomes entitled for the compensation. Quantum of the compensation however is required to be calculated.
27. It has been held in a catena of judgments that emphasis in cases of personal injury and fatal accident should be on awarding substantial, just and fair compensation and not a token amount. 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 nonpecuniary damages are required to be taken into account.
Suit No. : 1023/10 17/29
Anita Vs. World Window 18
28. In order to calculate the amount of compensation, the sum is required to be considered under the various heads.
29. In her deposition as PW1, Smt. Anita has stated that she being the wife and the other petitioners being the son and mother of the deceased are the only legal heir of the deceased. No contrary evidence has been led on record by the respondents and noone else has challenged the claim petition filed by the petitioner, therefore deposition of PW1 is to be believed, on this aspect.
a) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY :
30. Considering the fact that the present petition has been filed under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, therefore loss of dependency is to be calculated on the basis of structured formula given in Schedule II appended to Motor Vehicles Act.
31. PW1 during the course of her examination has deposed that her husband was a driver and his annual income was Rs. 40,000/ p.a. Thus, for the purposes of calculation of dependency, the income of the deceased is taken as Rs. 40,000/ p.a. Suit No. : 1023/10 18/29 Anita Vs. World Window 19
32. As per Second Schedule of Motor Vehicle, one third of the total earning is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. In the present case the deceased was a poor person. He left behind his wife, son and mother who were financially dependent on him. I am of the view that one third is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased from his income. After deducting onethird from Rs. 40,000/, the annual dependency would come to Rs. 26,666.67 for the purposes of calculation which is rounded off to Rs. 27,000/ p.a.
33. The deceased was a married person and the claimants are the wife, son and the mother. While calculating the dependency, the multiplier is to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased as the deceased was married. As per the postmortem report the age of the deceased was 26 years. For the age ranging from 2530 years, the multiplier as per Appendix II of the Second Schedule is '18'. Therefore, a multiplier of '18' is is taken for calculating the loss of dependency. So, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 27,000 x 18 = Rs. 4,86,000/.
34. I therefore award a sum of Rs. 4,86,000/ to the petitioners on account of 'loss of dependency'.
Suit No. : 1023/10 19/29
Anita Vs. World Window 20
b) LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION :
35. Deceased Rajesh Kumar has left behind his wife, son and mother. Care, love and affection which they had required from the deceased can not be measured or assessed in terms of money.
36. Considering the facts and circumstances, I award a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the petitioners, on account of 'loss of love and affection' suffered by them due to untimely death of Rajesh Kumar.
c) FUNERAL EXPENSES :
37. I award a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the petitioners on account of funeral expenses.
(d) LOSS OF ESTATE :
38. I award a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the petitioners on account of "Loss of Estate".
(e) LOSS OF CONSORTIUM :
39. I award a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the petitioner no.1 on account of "Loss of Estate".
Suit No. : 1023/10 20/29
Anita Vs. World Window 21 L I A B I L I T Y
40. As the offending vehicle was owned by Respondent no. 2, the primary liability to compensate the petitioners remains with Respondent no. 2. It was admitted by Respondent no. 3 that the offending vehicle was insured with it, therefore, it becomes contractually liable to compensate the petitioners. It was stated by R3W1 that a notice U/o 12 R 8 CPC was given to the owner/legal heirs of the deceased to produce the driving license/permit but perusal of it reveals that the notice was given for the first time on 15.02.12 though the claim petition was filed on 26.09.05. No reason has been assigned by respondent no.3 for this delay. The report of the Investigator is silent as to verification of license/permit. Record reveals that the deceased was a driver with respondent no.1. He was deputed to carry the consignment from Delhi to Hisar. Since the deceased was murdered when the consignment was being brought to Delhi from Hisar, thus there was no occasion with the petitioners/LR's of the deceased to produce his license. His dead body was found unclaimed from the canal. Even in the written statement filed by the insurance company nothing was alleged that the offending vehicle was being driven without license or permit. It was held in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC Suit No. : 1023/10 21/29 Anita Vs. World Window 22 297 that the breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of the driver or invalid driving license of the driver, as contained in subsection (2) (a) (ii) of Section 149, have to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving license or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of policy regarding use of motor vehicle by duly licensed driver or one who was not qualified to drive at the relevant time. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Tulna Devi & Ors. 2008 (2) LRC 399 (SC) it was held that in the absence of any evidence to prove that the owner had not taken any care before the vehicle was given to the driver to drive and that he was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of policy regarding use of the vehicle by a duly licensed driver, the liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation qua the owner can not be doubted. In the case of Deepak Kumar Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2008 (2) LRC 253 (DEL) it was held that it is for the insurer to produce the evidence and to satisfy the Suit No. : 1023/10 22/29 Anita Vs. World Window 23 Tribunal that there is willful breach of the terms and conditions of the policy by the insured.
41. In the present case, the insurer has failed to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence or that he failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding the use of vehicle as there is no evidence to the effect that the owner did not take any care before the vehicle was given to the driver to drive it or there was willful breach of terms and conditions of the policy by the insured.
42. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the respondent no. 3 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
43. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly in favour of the petitioners.
: R E L I E F :
44.In view of my finding on issue no.1 and 2, petitioner is entitled to following compensation:
1. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY Rs. 4,86,000/
2. LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION Rs. 10,000/ Suit No. : 1023/10 23/29 Anita Vs. World Window 24
3. FUNERAL EXPENSES Rs. 10,000/
4. LOSS OF ESTATE Rs. 10,000/
5. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Rs. 10,000/ =========== TOTAL Rs. 5,26,000/ ===========
45. I hereby award a total compensation of Rs. 5,26,000/ (Rupees Five Lakh Twenty Six Thousand only) to the petitioners along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.
: RELEASE OF THE AWARDED AMOUNT : In the share of Petitioner no.1 : (Widow of deceased)
46. A sum of Rs. 3,76,000/ alongwith the proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to petitioner no.1 being wife of deceased.
47. Out of this awarded amount, a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/ be deposited in the form of FDR in the name of petitioner no.1 in the following phased manner :
(a) A sum of Rs. 60,000/ for a period of 2 years
(b) A sum of Rs. 60,000/ for a period of 4 years.
(c) A sum of Rs. 1,20,000/ for a period of 6 years. Suit No. : 1023/10 24/29
Anita Vs. World Window 25 In the share of Petitioner No. 2 : (Son of deceased)
48. A sum of Rs. 75,000/ alongwith the proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to petitioner no. 2, being son of deceased. The said amount be kept in the form of FDRs till he attains the age of 18 years.
In the share of Petitioner No. 3 : (Mother of deceased)
49. A sum of Rs. 75,000/ alongwith the proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to petitioner no. 3, being mother of the deceased. Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
50. In terms of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in case titled " Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors." bearing FAO number 842/2003 decided on 08.06.20009, UCO Bank/ State Bank of India has agreed to open a Special Fixed Deposit Account for the victims of road accidents.
51. As per orders of Hon'ble High Court in case titled " New India Assurance Suit No. : 1023/10 25/29 Anita Vs. World Window 26 Co. Ltd Vs. Ganga Devi & Ors bearing MAC. App. 135/2008" as well as in another case titled as " Union of India V/s Nanisiri" bearing M.A.C. Appeal No. 682/2005 dated 13.01.2010, directions were given to the Claims Tribunal to deposit part of the awarded amount in fixed deposit in a phased manner depending upon the financial status and financial needs of the claimants.
52. In consonance to the idea by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit / savings account by Hon'ble high Court, Insurance Company is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioners with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioners.
within a period of 30 days from today, failing which respondent no. 3 Insurance Company shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
53. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "fixed deposit / saving account'' in the following manner:
(i) The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioners / claimants by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank accounts with Suit No. : 1023/10 26/29 Anita Vs. World Window 27 State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
(ii) Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to claimants / petitioners after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants / petitioners to facilitate identity.
(iii) No cheque book be issued to claimants / petitioners without the permission of this Court.
(iv) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the claimants / petitioners alongwith the photocopy of the FDR's .
(v) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to claimants / petitioners at the end of the fixed deposit period.
(vi) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.
(vii)Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
(viii)On the request of claimants / petitioners, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
(ix) Claimants / petitioners shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Suit No. : 1023/10 27/29 Anita Vs. World Window 28 Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
DIRECTIONS FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANY
54. The Respondents no. 3 is directed to file the compliance report of their having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this tribunal within a period of 30 days from today.
55. The Insurance Company shall intimate to the claimants / petitioners about it having deposited the cheques in favor of the petitioners in terms of the award, at the address of the petitioners mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate them to withdraw the same.
56. Copy of this award / judgment be given to the parties.
57. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court
on 07th Day of April, 2012 (SANJIV JAIN )
Presiding Officer : MACTII
South Distt. : Saket Courts
New Delhi : 07.04.2012
Suit No. : 1023/10 28/29
Anita Vs. World Window
29
Anita Vs. M/s World Window
Suit No. 1023/10
07.04.2012
Present: None
Vide separate order of even date a compensation of Rs. 5,26,000/ (Rupees Five Lacs Twenty Six Thousand only) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization of the amount is passed in favour of petitioners.
Copy of the award be given to the parties.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(SANJIV JAIN ) Presiding Officer : MACTII South Distt. : Saket Courts New Delhi : 07.04.2012 Suit No. : 1023/10 29/29