Delhi District Court
Sandeep Kumar vs Mr. Paras Kamboj on 14 May, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. S.S. MALHOTRA
PO:MACT-1 (NORTH): ROHINI: DELHI
MACT No. 208/17
FIR no. 239/16
PS Yamuna Nagar Sadar (Hr.)
1. Sandeep Kumar
2. Manoj Kumar
Both sons of deceased Jai Kishan
R/o Village Sanpera, District Sonipat, Hr.
also at Village Ibrimpur,
PS Swaroop Nagar, Delhi.
.........Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Mr. Paras Kamboj
S/o Sh. Vinod Kumar
R/o Village Kunjal Kamboyan PS Sadar,
Yamuna Nagar Teh. Jagadhari,
Dist Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.
2. Sh. Chaman Lal
S/o Sh. Dharamveer
R/o Village Kunjal Kamboyan PS Sadar,
Yamuna Nagar Teh. Jagadhari,
Dist Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.
3. M/s Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.
C-1, 3rd Floor, New Krishna Park,
Sandeep & Ors. Vs. Paras Kamboj & Ors.
MACT no. 208/17 1 /28
Vikaspuri, Delhi-18.
4. Sh. Mohit Kumar
S/o Sh. Rajinder Kumar
R/o VPO Damla Jagadhari,
Dist Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.
5. Sh. Balwant Singh
S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram
R/o H.No. 167, Harbans Pura,
District Yamuna Nagar (Haryana).
6. M/s National Ins. Co. Ltd.
302, N.N. Mall, Sector-3,
Rohini, Delhi.
......Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 01.03.2017
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 08.05.2019
DATE OF AWARD : 14.05.2019
FINAL ORDER : AWARD OF
RS. 1,13,000/-
FORM - IV A
1. Date of accident: 03.11.2016
2. Name of deceased: Jai Kishan
Sandeep & Ors. Vs. Paras Kamboj & Ors.
MACT no. 208/17 2 /28
3. Age of the deceased: 63 years
4. Occupation of the deceased: Private work
5. Income of the deceased: 15,000/- per month (not proved)
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name Age Relation
(i) Mr. Sandeep Kumar 36 Son
(ii) Mr. Manoj 39 Son
Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Claims
Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 3000/- per month
The deceased was aged
about 63 years and at the
age of 63, the deceased
cannot be eually compared
with abled bodied person
and therefore cannot be
held entitled to the
compensation on account
of minimum wages of an
unskilled person. However
Rs. 3000/- is being given
to senior citizens as
pension by Delhi
Government and the same
amount is taken for the
Sandeep & Ors. Vs. Paras Kamboj & Ors.
MACT no. 208/17 3 /28
purpose of calculation of
compensation.
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) Nil.
9. Less-Personal expenses of the 85% being no dependent deceased (C ) upon him As per Keith Rowe Vs. Prashant Sagar & Ors MAC. APP. No. 601 / 2007 decided on 15 January-2010 10. Monthly loss of dependency / 450/- Estate { (A+B) - C =D} 11. Annual loss of dependency / 5400/- Estate (Dx12) 12. Multiplier (E) 7
13. Total loss of dependency / Estate 37,800/-
(Dx12xE = F)
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil.
15. Compensation for loss of love and 40,000/-
affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of Nil.
consortium (I)
17. Compensation for loss of estate As per Keith Rowe Vs. (J) Prashant Sagar & Ors MAC.APP.No.601/2007 decided on 15 January-
2010
18. Compensation towards funeral 15,000/- Sandeep & Ors. Vs. Paras Kamboj & Ors.
MACT no. 208/17 4 /28
expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION 92,800/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K =L)
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 9%, 21 Interest amount up to the date of 19,488/- (28 months) award (M)
22. Total amount including interest 1,12,288/- rounded off to (L+M) Rs. 1,13,000/-
23. Award amount released 10%
24. Award amount kept in FDRs 90%
25. Mode of disbursement of the N/A award amount to the claimant (s) (Clause 29)
26. Next date for compliance of the 01.07.2019 award. (Clause 31) FORM - V AGREED PROCEXDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of the accident 03.11.2016
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the Accident occurred out investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal of Delhi. (Clause 2)
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the N.A investigating officer to the insurance company. (Clause 2)
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 N.A Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate Sandeep & Ors. Vs. Paras Kamboj & Ors.
MACT no. 208/17 5 /28
(Clause 10)
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information N.A Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal (Clause 10)
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance N.A Company (Clause 11)
7. Date of Service of DAR on the complainant (s) N.A (Clause 11)
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? N.A (Clause 16)
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR N.A removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the N.A documents filed with DAR? (Clause 4)
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N.A the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Not appointed Officer by the insurance Company. (Clause20)
13. Name, address and contact number of the Not appointed Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. (Clause 20)
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Not appointed Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR? (Clause 20)
15. Whether the insurance company admitted the No offer was filed. Sandeep & Ors. Vs. Paras Kamboj & Ors.
MACT no. 208/17 6 /28
liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the insurance company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law. (Clause
23)
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency o Not appointed the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the N.A offer of the Insurance Company .(Clause 24)
18. Date of the Award 14.05.2019
19. Whether the award was passed with the Parties contested the consent of the parties? (Clause 22) case
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to Yes. open saving bank account(s) near their place of residence? (Clause 18)
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 27.03.2019 directed to open saving bank account (s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Aadhar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s). (Clause 18)
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced the 23.04.2019 passbook of their saving bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
(Clause 18) Sandeep & Ors. Vs. Paras Kamboj & Ors.
MACT no. 208/17 7 /28
23. Permanent Residential Address of the R/o Village Sanpera, Claimant(s) (Clause 27) District Sonipat (Haryana)
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioner Sandeep claimant(s) and the address of the bank with Kumar a/c no.
IFSC Code (Clause 27) 91132250010908
with Syndicate Bank,
GTK Road, DTC
Depot Branch
Petitioner Manoj a/c
no. 38391604776
with SBI, Larsouli
Branch Sonepat,
Haryana.
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank Yes
account(s) is near his place of residence? (Clause 27)
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at Yes the time of passing of the award.
AWARD
1. Vide this order I shall dispose of the claim petition filed under Section 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicle's Act, 1988 by the petitioners / LRs of victim (Jai Kishan) seeking compensation from the respondents on account of fatal injuries suffered by Jai Kishan (victim) in an accident occurred on 03.11.2016.
Sandeep & Ors. Vs. Paras Kamboj & Ors.
MACT no. 208/17 8 /28
2. Brief facts of the accident, as per petitioners, are that on 03.11.2013 Jai Kishan (victim) along with his brother Ranbir (victim in connected case) was going to Dehradun from Karnal. Both of them were on a motorcycle no. DL8SAW 7025 being driven by Ranbir (victim in connected case) and at about 3.30 pm on that day, when they reached in front of Surya Plywood Factory, Village Damla, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana another motorcycle no. HR02Q 7334 came from Yamuna Nagar side. It was being driven on fast speed, rashly and negligently and hit motorcycle being driven by victim (Ranbir). Due to such impact they both fell down and in meantime a tractor trolly (HR07N 9344) came from Damla side and wheel of said tractor passed over their head. Sh. Jai Kishan died on the spot postmortem on the body of Jai Kishan was conducted in the MLG Hospital, Yamuna Nagar.
3. Contending that said accident took place, due to composite rash and Sandeep & Ors. Vs. Paras Kamboj & Ors.
MACT no. 208/17 9 /28
negligent driving of above said offending vehicles by Mr. Sh. Paras Kamboj (respondent no.1), and Mr. Mohit Kumar (respondent no. 4) motorcycle no. HR02Q 7334 owned by Mr. Chaman Lal (respondent no.2) and insured with M/s Reliance Gen. Insurance Co. ltd. (respondent no.3), the tractor trolly no. HR07N 9344 owned by Mr. Balwant Singh (respondent no. 5) and insured with M/s National Ins. Co. Ltd. (respondent no. 6), the petitioners filed the present claim petition thereby claiming a compensation of Rs. 50 lacs from respondents, along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. An interim award of Rs. 50,000/- has also been claimed for.
4. The claim of the petitioners has been contested by all the respondents. Respondents no. 1 and 2 in their joint written statement have taken the preliminary objection inter alia on the ground that no accident took place with their motorcycle and Sandeep & Ors. Vs. Paras Kamboj & Ors.
MACT no. 208/17 10 /28
respondent no. 1 has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioners have also filed the petition in the court of Sh. Sushil Garg, Hon'ble Judge MACT, Sonipat, Haryana. It is further stated that even otherwise, their motorcycle was duly insured with respondent no. 3, therefore responsibility, if any, to pay the compensation to the petitioner, is of respondent no. 3.
5. Respondent no. 3 / Ins. Co. in his written statement has not disputed that offending motorcycle was insured with it on the date of accident, however it has taken the plea that respondent no. 1 was not holding valid and effective DL and therefore it has no liability to indemnify the insured / owner and to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Joint reply on behalf of respondents no. 4 and 5 have also been filed in which they have taken the plea that no such accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 4. It is further stated that their vehicle i.e. tractor Sandeep & Ors. Vs. Paras Kamboj & Ors.
MACT no. 208/17 11 /28
trolly was duly insured with respondent no. 6, therefore responsibility, if any, to pay the compensation to the petitioner, is of respondent no. 6. Respondent no. 6 in its WS has taken the preliminary objection inter alia stating that no cause of action arise as the petitioners are residents of Haryana. It has further taken the plea that accident has been caused due to sole negligence on the part of driver of vehicle no. HR02Q 7334, which was being driven by respondent no. 1, however it has not disputed that the vehicle which not insured with it on the date of accident. It has further denied its liability on technical grounds as well.
6. From the pleadings of parties following issues were framed vide order dated 26.08.2017: -
1. Whether Jai Kishan (victim) died due to vehicular accident occurred on 03.11.2016 at 03:30 pm at Surya Plywood Factory, village Damla, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana due to Sandeep & Ors. Vs. Paras Kamboj & Ors.MACT no. 208/17 12 /28
rash or negligent driving of vehicle no. HR-02Q-7334 (motorcycle) or HR-07N-9344 (Tractor) by respondents no.1 and 4 (Paras Kamboj and Mohit Kumar)? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are resident of Swaroop Nagar and this court has territorial jurisdiction merely on account of adhar card (this is with reference to order dated 20.04.2017 on which date the court has prima facie held that this petitioner is residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this tribunal)? OPP.
3. Whether petitioners are LR's of said victim and entitled to compensation, if yes, what amount and from whom of respondents? OPP.
4. Relief.
7. In order to prove the claim, petitioners have examined three witnesses. PW1 Mr. Sandeep (son of the deceased), PW2 IO SI Satpal Singh and PW3 Mr. Pritam Singh (common evidence with Sandeep & Ors. Vs. Paras Kamboj & Ors.
MACT no. 208/17 13 /28
respect to PW2 and PW3 have been led and same are being appreciated in both the connected cases). Respondent no. 3 examined Mr. Chidanand Sahni as R3W1 and respondent no. 6 examined Mr. Inder Jee Tikoo as R6W1. None of the other respondents opted to lead any evidence.
8. I have heard the arguments addressed by Ld. counsels appearing on behalf of petitioner and respondents My findings issues wise are as under: -
ISSUE NO. 1.
Whether Jai Kishan (victim) died due to vehicular accident occurred on 03.11.2016 at 03:30 pm at Surya Plywood Factory, village Damla, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana due to rash or negligent driving of vehicle no. HR-02Q-7334 (motorcycle) or HR-07N-9344 (Tractor) by respondents no.1 and 4 (Paras Kamboj and Mohit Kumar)? OPP.
9. Onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners and to prove that accident has been caused due to composite rash and negligent driving by respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 4 and victim died Sandeep & Ors. Vs. Paras Kamboj & Ors.
MACT no. 208/17 14 /28
due to the fatal injuries suffered in this accident, petitioner Mr. Sandeep, son of deceased Jai Kishan (PW1) filed his affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) in evidence and reiterated the facts as per the claim petition. SI Satpal Singh, IO of the case has been examined as PW2. In his testimony, PW2 has deposed that he was IO of the case registered vide FIR no. 239/16 under Section 279/304A IPC PS Yamuna Nagar. After investigation of the case, the chargesheet was filed against the accused Paras Kamboj, driver of motorcycle no. HR02Q 7334 and Mohit Kumar, driver of tractor no. HR07N 9344. In this case the motorcycle of victim and the two offending vehicle were seized by him. Mechanical inspection of all the vehicle was got conducted, statement of brother of deceased namely Sh. Rajpal, was recorded by him in this case. After the investigation, prima facie negligence was found on the part of driver of the motorcycle No. HRo2A 7334 as well as driver of tractor no. HR07N 9344. The deceased persons Sandeep & Ors. Vs. Paras Kamboj & Ors.
MACT no. 208/17 15 /28
died as the wheels of tractor passed over their head. The trial against both the accused is pending in the concerned court. This witness, PW2 has been extensively cross examined by Ld. Counsels for Ins. Co. of both the offending vehicle, however nothing material has come on record to disbelieve his testimony. PW2 was not at all cross examined by respondents no. 1, 2, 4 & 5. Neither respondent no. 1 nor respondent no. 2 have even examined themselves to prove that they were not rash or negligent or that they were not at fault or that they have been falsely implicated in criminal case or that accident had occurred due to negligence on the part of victim or that they were not the driver of the offending vehicles at the time of accident. Criminal case record filed on recored shows that both respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 4 were indicted by police for offences punishable under Section 279/304A IPC. There is nothing on record which shows that they approached to any higher authority Sandeep & Ors. Vs. Paras Kamboj & Ors.
MACT no. 208/17 16 /28
or any forum against their implication in this case. Further, they not not filed any document nor examined any witness with respect to their plea that petitioners have also filed a claim petition before the Court of Ld. MACT Judge, Sonipat. Apart from deposition of PWs, the fact that victim (Jai Kishan) suffered fatal injuries in the accident is also supported from his postmortem report etc. Considering all this, it stands proved that accident in question occurred due to rash or negligence driving of offending vehicles by respondent no. 1 respondent no. 4 and victim suffered fatal injuries in that accident. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2 Whether the petitioners are resident of Swaroop Nagar and this court has territorial jurisdiction merely on account of adhar card (this is with reference to order dated 20.04.2017 on which date Sandeep & Ors. Vs. Paras Kamboj & Ors.
MACT no. 208/17 17 /28
the court has prima facie held that this petitioner is residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this tribunal)? OPP.
10. Though this issue has been framed, however earlier an application was filed by respondent no. 3 that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this claim petition, which application was dismissed vide order dated 20.04.2017 holding that photocopies of adhar card of petitioners prima facie show that they are resident of Village Ibrahimpur, Swaroop Nagar. Therefore, it is held that this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this claim petition. This issue is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 Whether petitioners are LR's of said victim and entitled to compensation, if yes, what amount and from whom of respondents? OPP.
11. It is not disputed that the petitioners are sons of deceased, Sandeep & Ors. Vs. Paras Kamboj & Ors.
MACT no. 208/17 18 /28
therefore, petitioners who are sons of deceased are well within their rights to claim compensation.
NOW COMING TO THE QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION
12. It is matter of record that petitioners are sons of deceased and being sons, they are not entitled to the compensation on account of loss of dependency. In terms of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298 SC, as such there is no dependent upon the deceased and the petitioners therefore would be entitled to the compensation for loss of estate only. In Keith Rowe Vs. Prashant Sagar & Ors MAC. APP. No. 601 / 2007 decided on 15 January-2010 the Hon'ble High Court has summarised the law with respect to such cases where LRs is/are not financially dependent upon the deceased as under:
"(i) The law contemplates two categories of damages on the death of a person. The first is the pecuniary loss sustained by the dependent members of his family as a result of such death. The second is the loss caused to the estate of the deceased as a result of such death. In the first category, the action is brought by the legal Sandeep & Ors. Vs. Paras Kamboj & Ors.MACT no. 208/17 19 /28
representatives, as trustees for the dependents beneficially entitled. In the second category, the action is brought by the legal representatives, on behalf of the estate of the deceased and the compensation, when recovered, forms part of the assets of the estate. In the first category of cases, the Tribunal in exercise of power under Section 168 of the Act, can specify the persons to whom compensation should be paid and also specify how it should be distributed.
(ii) Where the claim is by the dependents, the basis for award of compensation is the loss of dependency, that is loss of what was contributed by the deceased to such claimants. A conventional amount is awarded towards loss of expectation of life, under the head of loss to estate.
(iii) Where the claim by the legal representatives of the deceased who were not dependents of the deceased, then the basis for award of compensation is the loss to the estate, that is the loss of savings by the deceased. A conventional sum for loss of expectation of life, is added.
(iv) The procedure for determination of loss to estate is broadly the same as the procedure for determination of the loss of dependency. Both involve ascertaining the multiplicand and capitalising it by multiplying it by an appropriate multiplier. But, the significant difference is in the figure arrived at as multiplicand in cases where the claimants who are dependents claim loss of dependency, and in cases where the claimants who are not dependents, claim loss to estate. The annual contribution to the family constitutes the multiplicand in the case of loss of dependency, whereas the annual savings of the deceased Sandeep & Ors. Vs. Paras Kamboj & Ors.
MACT no. 208/17 20 /28
becomes the multiplicand in the case of loss to estate. The method of selection of multiplier is however the same in both cases."
13. Now coming to the multiplier aspect. There is only two petitioners in this matter and as it has already been discussed herein above, petitioners are entitled to compensation on account of loss of estate only. In view of the findings in Keith Rowe Vs. Prashant Sagar & ors. MAC appeal no.601 of 2007 decided on 15.01.2010, it has also been settled that multiplier would however remain same and it is only the head under which the petitioner would likely to succeed would change.
14. Now coming to the calculation part of compensation. PW1 deposed that deceased was working as a milk supplier and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month but there is no evidence except his deposition in this regard. Therefore to calculate the extent of compensation with respect to his loss of estate, minimum wages of Sandeep & Ors. Vs. Paras Kamboj & Ors.
MACT no. 208/17 21 /28
an unskilled labour, at the prevalent time, would have been taken but in this matter deceased was admittedly more than 63 years of age hence cannot be eually compared with abled bodied person and therefore cannot be held entitled to the compensation on account of minimum wages of an unskilled labour. However Rs. 3000/- is given to senior citisen as pension by Delhi Government and the same amount is taken for the purpose of calculation of compensation. Further, as per the said judgement where the claimants are non- dependent brothers/sisters claiming on behalf of the estate, the saving can be taken as 15% of the income. The above percentage, one of course, subject to any specific evidence to the contrary led by the claimants.
15. Therefore, loss to estate is taken as 15% of the income i.e. Rs.
3000X12x7 = 2,52,000, 15% of which comes to Rs. 37,800 and after adding Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. Sandeep & Ors. Vs. Paras Kamboj & Ors.
MACT no. 208/17 22 /28
40,000/- towards loss of love and affection, it comes to Rs. 92,800 and after adding 28 months interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing DAR i.e. 01.03.17 to 01.07.2019, a total compensation of Rs. 1,12,288/- rounded up to Rs. 1,13,000/- is awarded to the petitioners, details of which are mentioned in the above proforma. This issue is thus decided in favour of petitioners and against respondents.
Now coming to the aspect as to which of the respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
16. As stated above, both the offending vehicle were duly insured at the time of accident however the contention of Ld. Counsel for Ins. Co. is that neither the respondent no. 1 nor the respondent no. 4 were having any valid DL. The main contention of Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 is that respondent no. 1 was holding learner's DL, however no witness has been examined in support of the contention. Sandeep & Ors. Vs. Paras Kamboj & Ors.
MACT no. 208/17 23 /28
Further, it is not the plea of respondent no. 3 that no person having valid DL was sitting beside the respondent no. 1, hence contention of Ld. Counsel for Ins. Co. is not well found. Though respondent no. 3 has examined R3W1 but it has failed to prove that, respondent no. 1 has not followed the terms and conditions of learner's DL. Respondent no. 6 has also taken the similar plea and has examined R6W1 but this witness in his cross examination has admitted that he does not know whether any investigator was sent to driver and owner for verification of RC, DL and permit and fitness of offending vehicle, however it has not examined any witness from any authority to prove such contention, further as per DL of respondent no. 4 filed on record, same was issued on 15.01.2016 and valid upto 14.01.2036 which covers the date of accident i.e. 03.11.2016. Therefore, by merely taking such plea, Ins. Co. cannot escape from its liabilities. Further no tracking report has been filed by respondent Sandeep & Ors. Vs. Paras Kamboj & Ors.
MACT no. 208/17 24 /28
no. 3 and respondent no. 6 which shows that legal notice sent by the Ins. Co. has been delivered to respondents no. 1 and 2 or 4 & 5. Therefore, respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 6 being insurer of above said offending vehicles are liable to indemnify the respective owner / injured and to pay the compensation to the petitioner in the ratio 50:50.
This issue is accordingly decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 4 (RELIEF)
17. Petition in hands is allowed. Respondents no. 3 and 6 are directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,13,000/- in the ratio of 50:50, to the petitioners within 30 days from today, failing which they would further pay the interest @ 9% from 01.07.2019, till realization on the amount of Rs. 92,800/-. Interim amount, if any paid to the petitioners, be deducted from this amount. Sandeep & Ors. Vs. Paras Kamboj & Ors.
MACT no. 208/17 25 /28
18. Statement of petitioners was recorded about disbursement of amount of compensation. Considering circumstances of petitioners, it is directed that, awarded amount be divided equally between the petitioners and 90% amount coming to their share be kept in MACAD Annuity which would be released to them i.e. Rs. 10000/- and their remaining 10% amount be released to them through their bank account, details of which are mentioned in the above proforma.
19. The salient features as prescribed in the judgment in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. FAO No. 842/2003 decided on 16.12.2009 are to be applied: -
1. The fixed deposit be renewed automatically till the period prescribed by the Court.
2. The interest on the fixed deposit be paid monthly.
3. The monthly interest be credited automatically in the saving account of the claimant.
4. Original fixed deposit receipt be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the original passbook shall be given to the claimant along with the photocopy of the FDR.
Sandeep & Ors. Vs. Paras Kamboj & Ors.
MACT no. 208/17 26 /28
5. The original fixed deposit receipt be handed over to the claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period.
6. Photo identity card shall be issued to the claimant and the withdrawal shall be permitted only after due verification by the Bank of the identity card of the claimant.
7. No cheque book and debit / credit card shall be issued to the claimant without permission of the Court.
8. No loan, advance or premature withdrawal or premature encashment shall be allowed on the fixed deposit without permission of the Court.
9. The amount would be directly credited in the bank account of the petitioner, without any necessity of visiting her to court, where FDRs are kept.
10. The bank of the petitioner would make necessary endorsement on the passbook of the petitioner and in its own record as "MACT case" and amount to be disbursed only in terms of the order of the court.
11. Bank manager concerned to inform the court in writing prior to releasing of any amount to the petitioner, to the effect that compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court has been Sandeep & Ors. Vs. Paras Kamboj & Ors.
MACT no. 208/17 27 /28
made with respect to disbursement. In no case, amount of award can be released without filing a compliance report in the court and the amount, which the respective petitioner would be withdrawing can only be allowed through withdrawal slip and by no other mode or digital mode i.e. Debit card / Credit card /ATM/NEFT/RTGS/letter etc. Respondents no. 3 and 6 are directed to deposit amount of compensation, as stated above, with this tribunal within 30 days, with advance notice to petitioners. File be consigned to record room.
Notice be also sent to the In-charge, Computer Branch (North) to send a copy of this judgment to Nodal Officer of Syndicate Bank on his Email ID i.e. [email protected] and to the Nodal Officer of SBI on his Email ID i.e. [email protected] Digitally signed by S S SS MALHOTRA MALHOTRA Date: 2019.05.14 16:29:09 +0600 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (S.S. MALHOTRA) COURT ON 14.05.2019 PO, MACT- NORTH, ROHINI, DELHI Sandeep & Ors. Vs. Paras Kamboj & Ors.
MACT no. 208/17 28 /28