Delhi District Court
Sh. Dijo Davis vs M/S. Weldon Biotech India Pvt. Ltd on 20 October, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARVIND KUMAR : PRESIDING OFFICER
MACT KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
M.A.C. Petition No: 415/10
Unique Case ID No. : 02402C0614302006
Sh. Dijo Davis
S/o Sh. M.A. Devassy
R/o H. No. 138-B, Pocket-A,
Mayur Vihar, Phase-II,
Delhi. ...Petitioner
VERSUS
1. M/s. Weldon Biotech India Pvt. Ltd.
32-E Ist Floor Patparganj,
Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited.
ICICI Bank Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051,
3. Sh. Ram Bahadur
S/o Sh. Tej Bhadur
R/o 32-E, Ist Floor, Patparganj,
Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi. ...Respondents
Date of institution : 06.11.2006
Reserved for orders : 19.10.2011
Judgment pronounced on : 20.10.2011
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner has filed the present claim under section 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 1 Crore ( Rs. 1,00,00,000/- ) towards the injuries suffered by him in a road side accident dated 22.03.2006.
M.A.C. Petition No: 415/10 Page No. 1/182. The brief facts are that on 22.03.2006 the petitioner/ injured was going on a motorcycle bearing No. DL-7S-AM-3480 and was proceeding towards JSS Academy of Technical Education, Sector-62, Noida, UP and Sh. Sidharth Kashid was sitting as pillion rider and when they reached at Khoda crossing , a TATA Safari No. DL-3C-AF-2818, driven by its driver at a high speed, rashly and negligently, hit the motorcycle of the petitioner. As a result of forceful impact, the petitioner fell down and sustained serious injuries all over his body. The petitioner was paralyzed below neck. It is stated that petitioner had joined M/s. Granada Service Pvt. Ltd, during the period of his vacation and was getting Rs. 8689/- as salary and the petitioner was expected to get Rs. 50,000/- per month on completion of his course/ study in JSS Academy of Technical Education. It is further stated that mother of the petitioner was working as Incharge of casualty with Deepak Memorial Hospital and she had to take leave for 5 months and 9 days.
3. The respondent No. 1/ owner of vehicle No. DL-3C-AF-2818 filed written statement stating that compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive as the injuries suffered by the petitioner are simple in nature. The respondent No. 1 had also denied the involvement of vehicle bearing No. DL-3C-AF-2818 in the accident. The respondent No.3/driver of the said vehicle did not file written statement.
4. The respondent No. 2/insurance company filed written statement admitting that vehicle bearing No. DL-3C-AF-2818 was insured vide policy bearing No. 3001/1205574/00/000, valid from 14.10.2005 to 13.10.2006. The respondent No. 2/insurance company further stated that the insurance company would not be liable if the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving licence and the insurance company M.A.C. Petition No: 415/10 Page No. 2/18 would not be liable if the vehicle was being run in contravention of rules and regulations of Motor Vehicle Act, or if there was breach of terms and conditions of policy.
5. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained injuries in the road accident dated 22.03.2006, within the jurisdiction of PS- Indrapuram,UP due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so, to what amount from whom?
3. Relief.
6. The petitioner examined himself as PW-3. The petitioner also examined Dr. Deepak Mittal, HOD( Ortho), R. M.L. Hospital, Delhi, Sh. Sanjay Raut as PW-1, Sh. Looka as PW-2, Sh. Siddharth Kasid as PW-4, Sh. M. A. Devassy as PW-5, Dr. Ritabh Kumar as PW-6, Dr. Victor Mathew as PW-7, Sh. Rakesh Kumar as PW-8 and Dr. Santosh Kumar as PW-9. On the other hand, respondents did not lead any evidence.
7. I have gone through the material on record and heard counsel for the petitioner. My findings on the issues are as under:-
Issue No. 18. The petitioner, PW-3 deposed that on 22.03.2006 the petitioner/ injured was going on a motorcycle bearing No. DL-7S-AM-3480 and was proceedings towards JSS Academy of Technical Education, Sector-62, Noida, UP and Sh. Sidharth Kashid was sitting as pillion rider and when they reached at Khoda crossing, a TATA Safari No. DL-3C-AF-2818, M.A.C. Petition No: 415/10 Page No. 3/18 driven by its driver at a high speed, rashly and negligently, hit the motorcycle of the petitioner. As a result of forceful impact, the petitioner fell down and sustained serious injuries all over his body. The petitioner was paralyzed below neck. The petitioner exhibited the copy of FIR as Ex. PW-3/1, driving licence as Ex. PW-3/2, identity card of J.S.S. Academy as Ex. PW-1/3, MLC as Ex. PW-3/4, medical records as Ex. PW-3/5, disability certificate as Ex. PW-3/6.
9. The FIR, Site Plan, MLC, and testimony of PW-3, taken together fully establish that the injuries sustained by petitioner were due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of vehicle (Tata Safari) bearing registration No. DL-3C-AF-2818 in a road side accident. There is nothing on record to dispel the inference that injuries were sustained by petitioner in a road accident which occurred on 22.03.2006 because of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No. DL-3C-AF-2818 being driven by the respondent No. 3. There is no evidence in rebuttal. The issue No. 1 is, accordingly decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondent.
Issue No. 210. The petitioner deposed that he suffered serious injuries on his spinal cord i.e. from C-2 to C-6. He was taken to Meenakshi Hospital but he was not admitted in Meenakshi hospital due to seriousness of cervical injuries and was taken to Deepak Memorial Hospital at Karkardooma where his MLC was prepared and it was diagnosed that petitioner suffered cervical injuries to C-2 to C-6. The petitioner was treated in Indian Spinal Injuries Centre at Vasant Kunj where he was operated upon. The petitioner was having respiration problem, urinary problem, problem in passing stool and his complete body below neck was paralyzed. He M.A.C. Petition No: 415/10 Page No. 4/18 remained in the hospital for more than 13 months from 22.03.2006 to 02.05.2007. It is also stated that petitioner suffered disability of 100%. Petitioner further stated that he was a brilliant student from the beginning, studied in St. Colamba's School, Delhi from KG to 12th and after passing the 12th class, he got admission in JSS Institute, Sector-62, Noida, UP and he had almost completed second year when the said accident took place. The petitioner further stated that his entire family was highly educated. His father was working as senior marketing manager, his mother was working in Deepak Memorial Hospital and his sister was doing engineering. The petitioner further stated that he also got appointment in M/s. Granda Services Pvt. Ltd, during his vacation time and he got a sum of Rs. 8689/-as salary from the said company.
11. The petitioner further deposed that he required two persons day and night for changing the position of his body, to remove his stool, urine from the bed, cleaning his dress and other daily routine work. Petitioner also required a person to get the food, water and liquid diet etc. Petitioner also deposed that a sum of Rs. 20 Lac have been spent by his family on his treatment, doctors, physiotherapy and he required to continue physiotherapy which was costing Rs. 9000 to 10,000/- per month and he will be requiring more than Rs. 80 Lac on account of physiotherapy, Rs. 30 Lac for future medicines and doctor's expenses, Rs. 2 Lac for keeping attendant in future. He had already incurred Rs. 2 Lac on conveyance and will be requiring Rs. 2 Lac for future conveyance and the petitioner has spent Rs. 2 Lac on special diet and would be requiring Rs. 6 Lac in future on this account. The petitioner further deposed that his mother could not work for 6 months and lost salary of Rs 57,000/-. The petitioner also stated that he was also admitted in Kottakal Arya Vaidya Shala in Kerala for treatment. The petitioner exhibited the I-card of JSS Academy as M.A.C. Petition No: 415/10 Page No. 5/18 PW-1/3, medical record as PW-3/5, disability certificate as Ex. PW-3/6, certificates for participating in different activities including the certificate of best students as Ex. PW-3/7,transfer certificate, provisional certificate as Ex. PW-3/8, medical treatment bills and hospital bills for the year 2006 to 2009 as Ex. PW-3/9. The appointment letter regarding petitioner's working in the Granada Service Pvt. Ltd is Ex. PW-3/10 and bills relating to the expenses on physiotherapy, conveyance and attendants are Ex. PW-3/11.
12. PW-1 Sh. Sanjay Raut deposed that he was taking care of petitioner from 01.06.2008 and was getting Rs. 4000/- per month from the petitioner. PW-1 exhibited the vouchers as Ex. PW-1/A.
13. PW-2 Sh. Looka stated that he owned a taxi bearing No. DL-1VA-4600 and exhibited the receipts of payments as Ex. PW-2/A. PW-2 Sh. Looka stated that he received around Rs. 90,000/- as taxi charges and he was giving services to Sh. Devassy as and when he was called. During cross-examination PW-2 stated that he was carrying the patient to the hospital and other places desired by him.
14. PW4 Sh. Siddharth Kasid, stated that he and the petitioner both were students of BBA( CAM) Sh. Dijo Davis was having ambition to go to UK after completing the BBA. PW-4 Sh. Siddharth Kasid stated that he has completed his BBA . He further stated that after doing BBA one can get Rs. 30,000 to 40,000/- per month.
15. PW-5 Sh. M.A. Devassy exhibited the treatment record of petitioner as PW5/1 and appointment letter and salary of the petitioner as Ex PW-5/2.
M.A.C. Petition No: 415/10 Page No. 6/1816. PW-6 Dr. Ritabh Kumar, Consultant orthopaedic surgeon, Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, deposed that Sh. Dijo Davis was admitted in their hospital on 22.03.006 and he was treated by Dr. H. S. Chabbra. The patient Sh. Dijo Davis had fracture of neck bone with total paralysis of hand and legs and no control over bladder and bowel. Sh. Dijo Davis was admitted first time on 22.03.2006 and was discharged on 02.05.2007. During admission he was requiring 24 hours attendant. PW-6 Dr. Ritabh Kumar further deposed that as per record Ex. PW-3/6 the petitioner had suffered 100% disability for whole life and would require life time attendant and regular physiotherapy and regular visit of hospital for bladder/bowel problems. The petitioner could not move without any attendant and could not walk. There was no neurological recovery in the condition of patient and there was no hope of revival or improvement in the neurological condition of the patient.
17. PW-7 Dr. Victor Mathew, Physiotherapist, Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, New Delhi, deposed that patient Dijo Davis was requiring physiotherapy during the admission in the hospital and after the discharge from the hospital, the patient would require life time physiotherapy.
18. PW-8 Sh. Rakesh Kumar, incharge MRD, Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, New Delhi, exhibited the treatment record of Dijo Davis as PW-8/A and Ex. PW-8/B.
19. PW-9 Dr. Santosh Kumar, physiotherapist, deposed that he was giving the physiotherapy treatment to Sh. Dijo Davis for two months and was charging Rs. 500/- per visit and he was visiting the patient daily as patient was in need of that and patient would require physiotherapy in future on daily basis and if the physiotherapy was not continued the M.A.C. Petition No: 415/10 Page No. 7/18 patient might collapse due to chest infection. The petitioner needed an attendant for 24 hours and would require attendant for throughout his life.
20. Dr. Deepak Mittal, HOD( Ortho), RML hospital deposed that disability certificate was issued by him but it was issued for the purpose of vocational rehabiliation of handicapped persons. No board was constituted for purpose of assessing the disability and he has assessed the disability for the purpose of rehabilitation as per the guidelines issued by the Delhi Government and it was the temporary certificate issued to the said person. During cross-examination he stated that for the purpose of assessing the disability he examined the patient.
21. In the recent judgment of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar, 2011, ACJ-1, Hon'ble SC enumerated the principles for granting the compensation in the case where the petitioner has suffered disability. In the judgment " Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another", ACJ-2011(Vol. I), Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
" Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability [sic disability] (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on M.A.C. Petition No: 415/10 Page No. 8/18 some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60 per cent. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred per cent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100 per cent as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60 per cent which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of "loss of future earnings", if claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of loosing his hand. Sometimes the injured- claimant may be continued in service, but may not be found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability and may, therefore, be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100 per cent (or even anything more than 50 percent), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may".M.A.C. Petition No: 415/10 Page No. 9/18
22. In the judgment titled ' New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shweta Dilip Mehta and others' 2011 ACJ 489, Bombay High Court, while dealing with a case of disability granted Rs. 23,25000/- as inevitable expenses and observed as under:-
" Coming to the expenses, it is clear that appellant will require an attendant to assist her in her daily activites. However, we cannot accept the submission of the learned advocate for appellant, who first stated that this requires an expenditure of Rs. 20,000/- per month and later in the affidavit in rejoinder dated 03.12.2009 submitted that appellant has two attendants which results in monthly expenditure of Rs. 8500. We feel that these are highly exaggerated figures. As staed in R. D. Hattangadi's case, 1995 ACJ 366 ( SC), the court need not be mathematical in calculating expenses on home attendants, but ought to look at circumstance prevailing in society to decide the amount. We feel that average cost of keeping a home attendant would be about Rs. 2500/- for the period of life expectancy. Accordingly, the annual expenses on an attendant works out to Rs. 30,000/-. The appellant's condition renders her unable to walk about and she would require a car to get to even the nearest of places. The family would also require employing a driver, as it cannot be expected reasonably that some family member would always be present to drive the vehicle. It is hence necessary to consider the expenses on the driver's salary and petrol and other maintenance expenses. The average driver's salary for this period is at least Rs. 3000/- per month and average petrol and maintenance expenses as Rs. 2000/- per month. Accordingly, this works out annually to Rs. 36000/- for the driver's salary and another Rs. 24,000/- annually towards petrol and maintenance expenses.M.A.C. Petition No: 415/10 Page No. 10/18
Next , we must consider that the appellant requires physiotherapy. The importance of physiotherapy for persons injured in road accidents has already been stressed upon in R. D. Hattangadi's case, 1995 ACJ 366(SC). The learned advocate for the appellant submits that the appellant requires physiotherapy on every alternate day, which works out to Rs. 3000/- per month. We have seen the sums granted towards physiotherapy expenses in other cases and also the bills of physiotherapy expenses already undergone by appellant. Accordingly, we think it reasonable to consider Rs. 3000/- per month as the average expenses per sitting throughout the remaining period of physiotherapy. This works out to an annual cost of Rs. 36,000/-. The learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the family has not employed a nurse for the appellant and hence we find no need to consider cost for nursing. We do accept the learned advocate's plea for considering recurring medical and sanitary expenses. The decision in Nagappa's case 2003 ACJ 12(SC), may be mentioned here:
" The Act does not provide for passing of further award after the final award is passed. Therefore, in a case where injury to a victim requires periodical medical expenses, fresh award cannot be passed or previous award cannot be reviewed when the medical expenses are incurred after finalization of the compensation proceedings. It is not improper to take into account expenditure genuinely and reasonably required to be incurred for future medical treatment. Further medical expenses required to be incurred can be determined only on the basis of of fair guesswork after taking into account increase in the cost of medical treatment".M.A.C. Petition No: 415/10 Page No. 11/18
It is already settled in Nagappa's case, 2003 ACJ 12( SC), that the court may award a long term deposit, the interest on which helps meet such recurring inevitable expenses. We assume that the average rate of interest from a fixed deposit for the period of life expectancy is 8 percent per annum. Hence, in order to obtain annual interest of about Rs. 1,86,000/- an amount of approximately Rs. 23,25,000/- would have to be deposited. Appellant is accordingly awarded such deposit, interest on which bears up for the inevitable expenses during the remaining period of life expectancy".
23. I have gone through the material on record. The treatment record shows that petitioner suffered spinal injuries ie. fracture of C5 vertebra with Quadriparesis with Bladder and Bowel involvement and the petitioner was admitted in Indian Spinal Injuries Centre on 22.03.2006 and was discharged on 02.05.2007. The disability certificate shows that petitioner suffered 100% disability. Dr. Deepak Mittal has stated that no board was constituted and he has assessed the disability for the purpose of rehabilitation as per the guide lines of Delhi Government. PW-6 Dr. Ritabh Kumar stated that petitioner had got the fracture of neck bone with total paralysis of hand and legs and no control over bladder and bowel. The petitioner was admitted on 22.03.2006 and was discharged on 02.05.2007. The patient has suffered 100% disability for whole life. Although the disability certificate placed on record by the petitioner is issued for the purpose of rehabilitation and the medical board has not examined the petitioner for the purpose of disability but the testimony of PW-6 Dr. Ritabh Kumar leaves no doubt that petitioner had suffered 100% disability in relation to whole body. It has come on record that petitioner was not in position to move and was confined to bed since the day of M.A.C. Petition No: 415/10 Page No. 12/18 accident, getting regular physiotherapy. It has also come on record that petitioner would require nursing attendant throughout his life with no chance of improvement in the condition of the petitioner.
24. PW-7 Dr. Victor Mathew, physiotherapist stated that the petitioner would require life time physiotherapy. PW-9 Dr. Santosh Kumar also stated that the petitioner would require physiotherapy and if the physiotherapy was not continued the patient might collapse due to chest infection and the petitioner needed an attendant for 24 hours and would require attendant for throughout his life.
25. From the material on record it can be easily inferred that the petitioner must be incurring at least a sum of Rs. 5000/- on physiotherapy and treatment, a sum of Rs. 2000/- on attendant, a sum of Rs. 1000/- on conveyance. Following the judgment of ' New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shweta Dilip Mehta and others' 2011 ACJ 489, passed by Bombay High Court, in my opinion a sum of Rs. 11 Lac would be appropriate towards the future expenses on account of physiotherapy, future hospital expenses, attendant charges and conveyance. Rs. 11 Lac would fetch interest of nearly Rs. 8000/- per month which in my opinion would be sufficient towards future expenses on above mentioned heads. The medical bills are for Rs. 9,20,541/-. The bills towards physiotherapies are for Rs. 3,69,550/-. The receipts are issued by Sh. Biju, Jitender, P. S. Sudesh and Sh. Thomas Mathew for Rs. 32,000, 32000, 35000, 81,000 and 3600/- respectively against the physiotherapy charges but it is not clear if the said persons were qualified physiotherapist. No documents is on record nor these persons were examined by the petitioner to prove the above said receipts. Therefore no reliance can be placed on these receipts. The amounts towards physiotherapy comes to Rs. 1,86,255/-.
M.A.C. Petition No: 415/10 Page No. 13/1826. The petitioner has placed on record bills for a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- towards attendant charges but the same are not supported by the testimony of any witness except PW-1 who stated that he was taking care of the petitioner from 1st June'2008. Therefore in my opinion a sum of Rs. 50,000/-( PW-1/A) will be just towards the attendant charges.
27. The petitioner has also placed on record the bills towards conveyance charges i.e. Rs. 2,68,100/- but the bills lack details regarding visits made by the petitioner to the hospital therefore in my opinion a sum of Rs. 50,000/- will be just towards the conveyance charges.
28. The petitioner stated that had he completed his BBA he would have earned Rs. 50,000/- per month. Petitioner has placed on record a certificate issued by M/s. Granada Service Pvt. Ltd, which shows that petitioner was employed temporarily during vacation and was getting Rs. 8689/- per month as salary. There is no other material on record to assess the expected future salary of the petitioner. Therefore in absence of any material on record the salary of the petitioner is considered to be Rs. 8986/- per month. The future loss of income on account of disability can be calculated by multiplying the annual income of the petitioner with the percentage of disability and with multiplier of 18. The total loss in earning capacity on account of disability comes to Rs. 19,40,976/- (8986x12x18x1).
29. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the matter, I consider the following to be just compensation to the petitioner :-
1. Compensation towards pain and sufferings Rs. 1,00,000/-
2. Compensation towards loss of amenities, and Rs. 1,00,000/-
enjoyment M.A.C. Petition No: 415/10 Page No. 14/18
3. Medical bills Rs. 9,20,541/-
4. Compensation towards conveyance and Rs. 50,000/- special diet (without bills)
5. Compensation towards loss of future earnings Rs. 19,40,976/- due to injuries
6. Compensation towards attendants charges Rs. 50,000/- against bills
7. Compensation against the physiotherapy Rs. 1,86,255/- charges against bills
8. Compensation towards future expenses on Rs. 11,00,000/-
attendants charges, physiotherapy, hospital
expenses and conveyance
Total Rs. 44,47,772/-
Therefore, in my opinion the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 44,47,772/- which shall be the just compensation to petitioner.
LIABILITY
30. Since the respondent No. 2/ insurance company has admitted the policy hence the respondent No. 2/ insurance company is liable to pay compensation.
31. There being no evidence of violation of the policy condition and there being no evidence to support the permitted defence U/s. 149(2) of the M.V. Act, I am unable to grant the recovery rights. Therefore, insurance company shall make good the compensation in terms of the accepted policy.
M.A.C. Petition No: 415/10 Page No. 15/18RELIEF:-
32. While granting the relief to petitioners in both the cases, I am also to award the interest @ 7.5% p.a on the amount Rs. 44,47,772/- awarded to petitioners from the date of filing of petitions till realization of the amount. The issue No. 3 is answered accordingly.
33. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following award :-
AWARD In view of the above the petition is allowed. The respondent No. 2/ insurance company, is liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 44,47,772/-. The insurance company is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 44,47,772/- within one month. The respondent No. 2/insurance company shall also pay interest @ 7.5% p.a. (except for the period not specifically allowed) on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to the petitioner.
34. The award amount along with interest be deposited by respondent No. 2 with UCO bank, Karkardooma Branch through Nodal Officer within 30 days, in the saving account of petitioner.
35. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the UCO Bank, is directed to keep the amount awarded to the petitioners in fixed deposit in the following manner:-
(i) Fixed deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/-( Rs. 2 Lac) in the name of petitioner for a period of two years, four M.A.C. Petition No: 415/10 Page No. 16/18 years, six years, eight years, ten years, twelve years, fourteen years, sixteen years, eighteen years and twenty years respectively.
(ii) Fixed deposit for Rs. 11,00,000/- in the name of petitioner for a period of 15 years.
(iii) Rest of the amount shall be released to the petitioner with immediate effect by transferring the same to his saving bank account.
36. The interest on the aforesaid deposits shall be paid monthly by automatic credit of the interest in the saving account of petitioner.
37. Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to the petitioner after due verification and the bank shall issue photo identity card of petitioner to facilitate identity.
38. No cheque book be issued to the petitioner without the permission of the court.
39. 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 petitioner along with photocopy of the FDRs.
40. The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to the petitioner on the expiry of the period of the FDRs.
41. No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed M.A.C. Petition No: 415/10 Page No. 17/18 deposit receipts without the permission of the court.
42. Half yearly statement of account be filed by the bank in the court.
43. On the request of the petitioner, the bank shall transfer the saving account to any other branch of UCO bank according to the convenience of the appellant.
44. The petitioner shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the saving bank account and fixed deposit account to Nodal Officer, UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court, Delhi.
45. List for reporting compliance on 07.12.2011.
46. A copy of this order be given free of cost to the parties concerned.
Announced in the open ( Arvind Kumar )
court on 20.10.2011 Presiding Officer: MACT
Karkardooma Court
Delhi.
M.A.C. Petition No: 415/10 Page No. 18/18