Delhi District Court
Sh. Varun Mehlawat vs Sh. Piyoosh Gupta S/O Sh. Suresh Gupta on 16 February, 2017
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. BARKHA GUPTA : JUDGE : PO
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL : NORTHWEST
DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
New No. 4937816
MACT No. : 456/11
UNIQUE ID No. : 02404C0357062011
1. Sh. Varun Mehlawat
(son of the deceased namely Sh.Satish Kumar)
...(Petitioner no.1 )
2. Sh. Dhananjay Mehlawat
(son of the deceased)
.....(Petitioner no. 2)
3. Smt. Shanti Mehlawat
(mother of the deceased)
....(Petitioner no. 3)
4. Sh. Kundan Singh
(father of the deceased)
...(Petitioner no. 4)
All R/o H.No. BM 38, Shalimar Bagh (East), Delhi
Versus
1. Sh. Piyoosh Gupta S/o Sh. Suresh Gupta
R/o A96, Rampuri, Link Road, Ghaziabad
.....(Owner of offending vehicle/R1)
MACT No.456/11 Varun Mehlawat Vs. Piyoosh Gupta 1 of 26
2
2. Sh. Peer Ali
R/o Peer Ali Kheria,
Jasrana, Ferozabad, UP
..... (Driver of offending vehicle/R2)
3. The National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Scope Minar, 11th Floor, CoreII, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi
...(Insurer of offending vehicle/R3)
Other details:
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 16.12.2011
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 02.02.2017
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.02.2017
AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The petition under sections 166/140 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 has been filed by the petitioners namely
Sh. Varun Mehlawat (petitioner No.1), Sh. Dhananjay
Mehlawat (petitioner no. 2), Smt. Shanti Mehlawat
(petitioner no. 3) and Sh. Kundan Singh (petitioner no. 4)
who are stated to be the sons, parents and the only legal
heirs of the deceased namely Late Sh. Satish Kumar
(hereinafter referred to as the "deceased") whereby they
have claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 50 lakhs
alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from
MACT No.456/11 Varun Mehlawat Vs. Piyoosh Gupta 2 of 26
3
Sh. Piyoosh Gupta/R1, Sh. Peer Ali/R2 and from The
National Insurance Company Ltd./R3 from the date of
filing of the claim petition till realisation of the
compensation amount.
2. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the petition are
that on 22.06.2011, Sh. Satish Kumar (hereinafter
referred to as the "deceased") along with his wife namely
Smt. Rajni was travelling in the Car bearing registration
no. DL10C1234 which at the relevant time was driven by
Sh. S.C. Malik. Further, wife of Sh. S.C. Malik was also
sitting in the said car on the rear seat and they were
coming from Haridwar to Delhi. Further, when at about
3:30 pm, they reached at Village Dadri, suddenly a Truck
bearing registration No. HR55L3280 (hereinafter
referred to as the "offending vehicle") which was going
head of their car which at the relevant time was driven by
Sh. Peer Ali Gupta/R2 who without giving any signal
rashly and negligently suddenly applied brakes and
though, Sh. S.C. Malik, who was driving the said car
properly and at normal speed also applied the brakes,
however, the car rammed into the rear portion of the
offending vehicle due to which all the occupants of the car
MACT No.456/11 Varun Mehlawat Vs. Piyoosh Gupta 3 of 26
4
sustained injuries. It is also submitted that the said
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by R2 at the relevant time and also that
the brake lights of the offending vehicle were not working
and R2 had suddenly applied the brakes without givng
any signal due to which the said accident took place.
It is further submitted that the deceased and his wife
sustained fatal injuries due to which they expired and
Sh. S.C. Malik and his wife sustained grievous injuries in
the said accident and they all were admitted in Govt
Hospital at Meerut, U.P where the doctors declared the
deceased as 'brought dead'.
It is further contended that at the relevant time, the
deceased was a practising advocate from which he was
earning Rs. 25,000/ per month and due to untimely death
of the deceased, the petitioners have suffered from huge
mental pain and trauma besides financial loss. It is also
submitted that with respect to the said accident, FIR
No.298/11 U/s 279/338/304A IPC was registered at P.S.
Daurala, U.P against Sh. Peer Ali/R2 wherein R2 was
prosecuted and the offending vehicle was also seized.
The petitioners/LR's of deceased have prayed that
MACT No.456/11 Varun Mehlawat Vs. Piyoosh Gupta 4 of 26
5
compensation in sum of Rs. 50 lakh alongwith interest at
the rate of 12% per annum be awarded in their favour and
all the respondents are liable to pay them the said
compensation amount jointly as well as severelly from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation as Sh. Piyoosh Gupta/R1 was the owner of offending vehicle, Sh. Peer Ali/R2 was the driver of offending vehicle and the offending vehicle was duly insured with National Insurance co/R3 at the relevant time.
3. As per record, R1 & R2, who were the owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively have filed their written statement wherein they have submitted that the said accident had occurred due to sole negligence of Sh. S.C. Malik as he was driving the car carelessly and he himself hit the car against the offending vehicle which was parked at the road due to some mechanical checkup. They have further submitted that the offending vehicle was insured with National Insurance co/R3 at the relevant time and so, they are not liable to pay any compensation amount to anyone.
4. The National Insurance Company Ltd./R3 has also filed the written statement wherein it has taken various MACT No.456/11 Varun Mehlawat Vs. Piyoosh Gupta 5 of 26 6 defences as available U/s 149(2) of Motor Vehicles Act. It has admitted that the offending vehicle was duly insured with it vide insurance policy No. 361701/31/10/6300002771 in the name of Sh. Piyoosh Gupta/R1 at the relevant time. It has denied its liability to pay any compensation amount to the petitioners as prayed as there was no rashness/negligence on the part of R2 in driving the offending vehicle.
5. As per record, after completion of pleadings, following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dt. 10.01.2014:
1. Whether Satish died on 22.06.11 at about 3:30 pm near Village Dadri PS Daurala, Meerut due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration no. HR55L 3280 by Peer Ali? OPP.
2. Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation as prayed for if so from which of the respondent? OPP
3. Relief.
6. The petitioners in support of their case have examined Sh. Varun Mehlawat (Petitioner No.1) as PW1. As per record, none of the respondents have adduced any evidence.
MACT No.456/11 Varun Mehlawat Vs. Piyoosh Gupta 6 of 26 7
7. I have heard final arguments as advanced by Advocate Sh. Ashok Popli, Ld. Counsel for the petitioners/LRs of deceased & Advocate Sh. V.K. Gupta, Ld. Counsel for National Insurance company/R3. As per record, none has appeared for remaining respondents to advance final arguments. I have also gone through the material as placed on record. Now, I proceed to discuss the issues in the succeeding paragraphs.
8. Issue no. 1 " Whether Satish died on 22.06.11 at about 3:30 pm near Village Dadri PS Daurala, Meerut due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration no. HR 55L3280 by Peer Ali ? OPP"
9. In the case in hand, Sh. Varun Mehlawat (petitioner no.1) has examined himself as PW1 and adduced his evidence by way of his affidavit Ex. PW1/A wherein he has also proved certain documents as Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/20. He has interalia testified that on 22.06.2011 at about 3:30 pm, both his parents including the deceased were travelling in the car bearing registration no. DL10C1234 which at the relevant time was driven by Sh. S.C. Malik MACT No.456/11 Varun Mehlawat Vs. Piyoosh Gupta 7 of 26 8 properly and wife of Sh. S.C. Malik was also sitting on the rear seat of the said car. He has further deposed that when they reached at Village Dadri, suddenly R2 who was driving the offending vehicle which at the relevant time which was going ahead of their car suddenly applied the brakes without giving any signal at all and though, Sh. S.C. Malik tried his best to avoid the accident, yet the accident occurred and their car rammed into the rear portion of the offending vehicle due to which all the persons travelling in the said car sustained injuries. He has further deposed that both his parents including the deceased had died in the accident and Sh. S.C. Malik and his wife also sustained grievous injuries. He further testified that Sh. S.C. Malik and his wife had also filed separate claim petitions in MACT Tribunal at Delhi which were disposed off by Ld. concerned PO MACT and has also proved the certified copies of the said claim petitions as Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/2. He has further deposed that in those petitions, National Insurance co/R3 had finally settled the matter for an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/ with Sh. S.C. Malik and for an amount Rs. 7,50,000/ with his wife namely Smt. Manju Malik in MACT No.456/11 Varun Mehlawat Vs. Piyoosh Gupta 8 of 26 9 which regard the said claim petitions were finally disposed off as vide award dated 23.11.13. He has also proved the certified copies of the said final awards as Ex. PW1/3 and Ex. PW1/4 and has also proved on record the certified copies of statements of the petitioners/claimants Sh. S.C. Malik and his wife Smt. Manju Malik in the said cases which are Ex. PW1/5 and Ex. PW1/6 who have testified as witnesses.
It is pertinent to discuss here that rest of the testimony of PW1 is with respect to income etc of the deceased which is not relevant to discuss the issue in hand. As per record, R1 and R2 who were the owner and driver of the offending vehicle have not come forward to cross examine the said witness on any aspect at all and accordingly, they have not challenged the version of PW1 on any ground at all and have nowhere disputed the claim petitions as filed by Sh. S.C. Malik and his wife Smt. Manju Malik pertaining to the same accident in which they also sustained injuries and the deceased had expired and further, R1 and R2 have not disputed the said claim petitions/cases of Sh. S.C. Malik and his wife which were finally settled by National Insurance co/R3 before Ld. MACT No.456/11 Varun Mehlawat Vs. Piyoosh Gupta 9 of 26 10 concerned PO MACT in which regard, the final awards were passed on 23.11.2013 which he has proved on record as Ex. PW1/3 and Ex. PW1/4 which are not under challenge. Further, PW1 has also proved the testimonies of Sh. S.C. Malik and his wife Smt. Manju Malik in their respective claims/petitions. From the same, it is revealed that the said claims cases were also pertaining to the same accident wherein the deceased had sustained injuries due to which he had expired and though, he was promptly taken to the Govt. Hospital, yet the doctors on duty declared him as 'brought dead'. Further, R1 and R2 have nowhere disputed any of the above and accordingly, it is clear that at the relevant date, time and place, R2 was driving the offending vehicle ahead of the car as driven by Sh. S.C. Malik and R2 had suddenly applied brakes without taking due precautions due to which the car which was driven by Sh. S.C. Malik wherein the deceased was also travelling rammed into the offending vehicle and the deceased had sustained injuries due to which he expired. It also needs to be discussed here that the categoric allegations on R2 that while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, he suddenly applied MACT No.456/11 Varun Mehlawat Vs. Piyoosh Gupta 10 of 26 11 brakes without taking due precautions and the accident occurred are nowhere under challenge. As such, R1 & R2 have not come forward to dispute the same and impliedly and admittedly they have admitted the entire said allegations as correct.
As per record, PW1 was cross examined on behalf of National Insurance co/R3 during which he has interalia stated that he is not an eye witness of the said accident and has denied if the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of car No. DL10C1234. It needs to be discussed that rest of his cross examination refers to the dependency of the petitioners on the deceased, income of the deceased etc which is not relevant to discuss the issue in hand.
Further, the certified copies of the criminal case record are filed including the copies of FIR no. 298/11 U/s 279/338/304A Police Station Daurala and charge sheet u/s 173 Cr. PC which clearly show that R2 was prosecuted in the said case regarding causing the said accident wherein the deceased Sh. Satish Kumar had sustained injuries due to which he expired and the offending vehicle was also seized. Further, admittedly R2 MACT No.456/11 Varun Mehlawat Vs. Piyoosh Gupta 11 of 26 12 has not lodged any complaint to any higher authority regarding his false implication in the said criminal case and has not alleged that he had any enmity with the deceased or with his family members or with the investigating officer and so, the possibility of his false implication in criminal case is also ruled out.
10. As per record, the attested copy of the postmortem examination report of the deceased is also filed on record, which is nowhere challenged or disputed by any of the respondents. It is not out of place to discuss here that though the concerned doctor, who had conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased is not examined, however, it is observed in a catena of cases by superior courts and is also well settled law that if it is otherwise proved as record that the accident had resulted in death of the deceased, then even non examination of the doctor who had conducted the postmortem examination does not adversely affect the case of the petitioners.
11. It also needs to be noted that in the case of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sushila Rathi & MACT No.456/11 Varun Mehlawat Vs. Piyoosh Gupta 12 of 26 13 Ors. MAC. APP. 927/2012, as decided on 04.12.2012, the Hon'ble High Court has observed that "although postmortem examination was not conducted as the deceased died couple of months after the accident, yet from the medical record coupled with PW1's unchallenged testimony, it is established that the deceased died on account of injuries suffered in the accident". In the said case, Hon'ble High Court had considered the testimony of widow of deceased that the deceased succumbed due to the injuries suffered in the accident which was not challenged in the crossexamination. Further, in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd., Chennai v. R. Santhi and Others, 2013(1) T.A.C. 122 (Mad.), decided on 04.09.2012, the Hon'ble High Court has clearly laid down that merely because of non conducting of postmortem, the court cannot conclude that death was not due to road accident injury and it can be decided based on other relevant material brought before the court.
Further, in the case of Union of India & Another v. Bhola Rai, 2012(3) T.A.C. 546 (Gau.), decided on MACT No.456/11 Varun Mehlawat Vs. Piyoosh Gupta 13 of 26 14 02.03.2011, the Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati opined that there is nexus between the accident and the death of the deceased as the deceased was knocked down by the driver of the mini bus and he suffered serious injuries on his thigh bone as well as on hip bone and remained under treatment of several hospitals and died after about three years. It also held that the cause of death as linked to the injury sustained cannot be ruled out as the deceased was under prolonged medical treatment and had never resumed duty due to his said inability and laid down that there was causal connection, even though not immediate, between the accident and eventual death of the deceased.
12. It also needs to be discussed even at the cost of repetition that in the case in hand, the postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted which is not disputed and the attested copy of the postmortem report of the deceased is also placed on record which is not under challenge. It is also shown on record from the testimony of PW1 that the deceased had expired due to various injuries as sustained by him in the said accident as caused by R2 while driving the offending vehicle in a MACT No.456/11 Varun Mehlawat Vs. Piyoosh Gupta 14 of 26 15 rash and negligent manner as already discussed at length earlier and accordingly, in the given facts and circumstances of case, in considered opinion of the court, non examination of the doctor who had conducted postmortem examination of the deceased is not fatal to the case of petitioners/LRs of deceased.
13. Accordingly, in the given facts & circumstances of the case, on the basis of material as produced and proved before the Tribunal and in view of aforesaid discussion, in considered opinion of the court, the testimony of PW1 and other documents as placed on record have inspired the confidence of the Tribunal in as far as PW1 has come forward with true picture of said accident and his testimony does not seems to suffer from any artificiality, exaggeration or inherent infirmity from which and from the documentary evidence, it is clearly shown on record that at the relevant date, time and place, R2 was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent and he suddenly applied the brakes without taking due precautions and while driving so, R2 caused the said accident wherein the deceased also sustained injuries due to which he expired and hence, Issue No.1 is decided in favour of the MACT No.456/11 Varun Mehlawat Vs. Piyoosh Gupta 15 of 26 16 petitioners/LR's of the deceased and against the respondents.
14. Issue No.2 Qua Quantum of Compensation "Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?"
15. As per record, Sh. Varun Mehlawat( petitioner no. 1) has examined himself as PW1 and has testified by way of his affidavit Ex. PW1/A wherein he has also proved on record various documents as Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/20 respectively. It needs to be discussed that from the testimony of PW1, it is revealed that there is no document as Ex. PW1/8.
He has interalia deposed that at the relevant time, the deceased was a practising Advocate and he was earning Rs. 25,000/ per month and he was also an income tax payee. He has filed the original acknowledgement regarding income tax returns of deceased for the assessment year 20092010 (financial year 200809) and proved it as Ex. PW1/7.
During his cross examination as conducted on behalf of National Insurance co./R3, as such, nothing is shown on record if the said ITR is forged or fabricated or if it is not MACT No.456/11 Varun Mehlawat Vs. Piyoosh Gupta 16 of 26 17 trustworthy.
Hence, in the given facts and circumstances, Ex. PW1/7 i.e. the income tax return of the deceased for the assessment year 200910 is taken into consideration as per which the gross income of the deceased is shown 2,05,701/ p.a and hence, it is clear hat the deceased was earning Rs. 17,141/ p.m. Accordingly, in view of the above, in considered opinion of the Tribunal, the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 17,141/ .
16. Further, as per record, photocopy of the PAN card of the deceased is filed wherein his date of birth is shown as 01.08.1958 and the date of said accident is 22.06.2011 which are not in dispute and so, he was about 53 years old as on the date of the said accident.
It would be pertinent to discuss that in the case of Rajesh & Others v. Rajbir Singh & Others 2013(6) SCALE 563, the deceased was around 33 years of age at the time of accident and was survived by his widow and minor children. He was working as a clerk in a Government School. The claims Tribunal had awarded total compensation of Rs. 8,96,500/. On appeal, Hon'ble High Court had enhanced the total compensation to Rs.
MACT No.456/11 Varun Mehlawat Vs. Piyoosh Gupta 17 of 26 18 10,17,000/. On further appeal to Hon'ble Apex Court, total compensation was further enhanced to Rs. 22,81,320/. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that compensation under section 168 has to be "just, fair and equitable" to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong as far as money can do.
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court referred to the case of Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Others 2012(4) SCALE 559 in which it was observed that even in absence of any evidence as to future prospects, an increase of 30% in the income has to be provided where the victim had fixed income or was a self employed person. Relevant extract of the order is as follows: "18. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of Sarla Verm's judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is selfemployed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is selfemployed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time MACT No.456/11 Varun Mehlawat Vs. Piyoosh Gupta 18 of 26 19 and if he/she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation."
However, to make compensation just fair and equitable, Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed that:
11. Since, the Court in Santosh Devi's case (supra) actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons 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 selfemployed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. 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 MACT No.456/11 Varun Mehlawat Vs. Piyoosh Gupta 19 of 26 20 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".
18. Accordingly, in the case in hand, in the given facts and circumstances, in view of observations of superior courts and on the basis of material as placed on record, in considered opinion of the court, the petitioners are entitled to addition of 15% in income of the deceased.
19. Further, as per record, photocopy of the PAN card of the deceased is filed wherein his date of birth is shown as 01.08.1958 and the date of said accident is 22.06.2011 which are not in dispute and so, he was about 53 years old as on the date of the said accident and therefore, the multiplier of '11' is applicable in the case in hand as per observations made in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. DTC & Anr. Civill Appeal No. 3483 of 2008 MACT No.456/11 Varun Mehlawat Vs. Piyoosh Gupta 20 of 26 21
20. Deduction of amount towards personal and living expenses: The petitioners are the sons and parents of the deceased and hence, as such 1/4th of his income is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses as per observations made in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. DTC & Anr. Civill Appeal No. 3483 of 2008 (arising out of SLP (C) No.8648 of 2007) dated April 15, 2009.
21. Calculation Salary of the deceased: =Rs.17,141/p.m. 15% addition towards future prospect towards inflation = Rs.17,141 +Rs. 2571/= 19,712/ Deduction of 1/4th amount as per observations made in the case of Sarla Verma : Rs. 19,7124,928/= 14,784/ p.m Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.19,51,488/(Rs. 14,784x11x12)
22. Now, regarding the amount of compensation payable towards funeral expenses, it needs to be discussed that it was observed in the case of MACT No.456/11 Varun Mehlawat Vs. Piyoosh Gupta 21 of 26 22 Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors 2013 (6) SCALE that: "We may also take judicial notice of the fact that the Tribunals have been quite frugal with regard to award of compensation under the head 'Funeral Expenses". The 'Price Index', it is a fact has gone up in that regard also. The head 'Funeral Expenses' does not mean the fee paid in the crematorium or fee paid for the use of space in the cemetery. There are many other expenses in connection with funeral and, if the deceased is follower of any particular religion, there are several religious practices and conventions pursuant to death in a family. All those are quite expensive. Therefore, we are of the view that it will be just, fair and equitable, under the head of 'Funeral Expenses', in the absence of evidence to the contrary for higher expenses, to award at least an amount of Rs. 25,000/."
Hence, in view of the above, in the case in hand, an amount of Rs. 25,000/ is also granted towards funeral expenses of the deceased. Further, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ is also awarded towards loss of Estate. Further, the petitioners are also entitled for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ towards loss of love and affection as per observations made in the case of Rajesh (Supra).
MACT No.456/11 Varun Mehlawat Vs. Piyoosh Gupta 22 of 26 23
23. In view of above, the over all compensation amount thus comes to Rs. 21,76,488/ which is tabulated as under: Sl. Compensation under various Amount awarded No heads
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 19,51,488/ 2 Loss of love & affection Rs. 1,00,000/
4. Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/
5. Loss of estate Rs. 1,00,000/ Total Rs. 19,21,992/
24. In the case in hand, the National Insurance company/R3 has not been able to show anything on record that Sh. Peer Ali/R2, who was the driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant time was not having any valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle or that the permit or insurance policy of the offending vehicle was not valid at the relevant time and hence, as per settled law, since the offending vehicle was duly insured with the National Insurance company/R3 at the relevant time, hence, National Insurance co/R3 is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioners/LRs of the MACT No.456/11 Varun Mehlawat Vs. Piyoosh Gupta 23 of 26 24 deceased as per rules. Accordingly, in the case in hand, The National Insurance co. Ltd./R3 is directed to deposit with this Tribunal within 30 days from today the awarded amount of Rs.21,76,488/ alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till notice of deposition of awarded amount to be given by National Insurance co/R3 to the petitioners and their counsel.
25. I have heard LR's of the deceased/petitioners and their advocate regarding financial needs of petitioners. In view of the submissions made and further in, view of observations made in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631, following arrangements is hereby ordered: An amount of Rs. 4,80,000/ each be given to the petitioner no. 1 i.e Sh. Varun Mehlawat and to petitioner no. 2 i.e. Sh. Dhananjay Mehlawat, who are the sons of the deceased, out of which an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ each be released to them in cash as per rules and remaining amount be kept in equal proportion in two FDR's in their respectives names for a period of 2 years MACT No.456/11 Varun Mehlawat Vs. Piyoosh Gupta 24 of 26 25 and 3 years in A/c no. 4184000100161019 with Punbaj National Bank, Shalimar Bagh, Branch, Delhi in the name of Sh. Varun Mehlawat and in A/c no. 053100301110039 with Corporation Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch, Delhi in the name of Sh. Dhananjay Mehlawat as per rules. Further, remaining awarded amount be granted in favour of petitioner no. 3 & 4 i.e. Smt. Shanti Devi and Sh. Kundan Singh who are the parents of deceased in equal proportions, out of which, an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/ each be released to them in cash as per rules and remaining amount in equal proportion with interest be kept in FDRs in their respective names for a period of 2 years respectively in A/c no. 5482500100612701 and in A/c No. 5482500100612801 with Karnataka Bank Ltd. Shalimar Bagh Branch, Delhi in the names of Sh. Kundan petitioner no.4 and Smt. Shanti Devi petitioner no. 3 respectively.
26. It is further directed that the interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits shall be paid quarterly by automatic credit of interest in the Saving Accounts of the petitioners as per rules.
27. Further, the petitioners shall not have any facility of MACT No.456/11 Varun Mehlawat Vs. Piyoosh Gupta 25 of 26 26 loan or advance on the said FDRs, however, in case of emergent needs, they may approach this Tribunal for pre mature encashment of FDRs as per rules.
28. The Petition is accordingly finally disposed of. File be consigned to record room as per rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy of this order be given to parties as per rules.
(Barkha Gupta) Announced in the open Court Judge MACT/NW District today i.e.16.02. 2017 Rohini Courts, Delhi MACT No.456/11 Varun Mehlawat Vs. Piyoosh Gupta 26 of 26