Delhi District Court
Sh. Warish Ahmed S/O Late Abdul Shakoor vs Sh. Chaman Lal S/O Sh. Beli Ram on 2 June, 2014
:1:
IN THE COURT OF MS. PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA:
PO MACTCUMADJICum LAC(NORTH): ROHINI: DELHI
Case N o. 1462/08
Unique Case ID no. 02404C024259 2006.
1. Sh. Warish Ahmed S/o Late Abdul Shakoor
2. Smt. Famida W/o Sh. Warish Ahmed
3. Smt. Nasreen Bano @ Shine W/o Late Rahish Ahmed
4. Mohd. Harish S/o Late Rahish Ahmed
Petitioner no. 4 being minor is under guardianship of
petitioner no. 3mother, natural guardian)
All R/o A46, Old Seema Puri, J.J. Colony,
Delhi110095.
....Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Chaman Lal S/o Sh. Beli Ram
R/o Village Kohli, PO Boni
Thana Boni, Distt. Hamirpur H.P.
2. Sh. Bansi Dhar Jat S/o Sh. Murli Dhar Jat
R/o Dhani Tamiyawali, Ward No. 19,
Sahpura, Jaipur ( Raj.)
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. at 72,
Bardiya Market, Jaipur, (Raj.)
....Respondents.
Case No. 1462/08 Waris Ahmed Vs. Chaman Lal :2: DATE OF INSTITUTION: 22.08.2006 JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: 02.06.2014 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03.06.2014 AWARD:
1. The present case has been filed by the petitioners being legal representatives of the deceased Rahish Ahmed @ Rahisuddin S/o Sh. Warish Ahmed, married man aged 25 years. He is survived by his wife, one minor son and parents, who are claimants/petitioners. By way of the present petition, the LRs of the deceased have sought compensation for irreparable monetary loss, mental agony, loss of love and affection and future prospects plus all other heads of compensation as per entitlement, caused due to accidental death of deceased to the tune of Rs. 40,50,000/ under section 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicle Act.
2. The concise facts of the case as averred in the petition are that on 02.05.06 at about 7.25 p.m., when deceased ( Rahish Ahmed @ Riasuddin) and his uncle Bakir Khan had gone to Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar on motorcycle no. DL5SR2588 and after returning from Case No. 1462/08 Waris Ahmed Vs. Chaman Lal :3: Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar to Seema Puri, at about 3.15 p.m., when they reached in front of Shop No. AG88, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, there was a traffic jam, due to which, deceased stopped his motorcycle. In the meantime, offending truck bearing no. RJ142G6887, which was being driven by its driver/respondent no. 1 rashly and negligently and came at a fast speed and struck behind the motorcycle of deceased. As a result of forceful impact, the deceased fell down on the road and received serious/grievous injuries all over his body. The deceased (then injured) was taken to Babu Jag Jeevan Ram Memorial, Hospital, Delhi for treatment and ultimately, the life of the deceased could not be saved and he expired after two days due to fatal injuries sustained in the road accident in question. The case was registered at P.S. Samaypur Badli, vide FIR NO. 347/06 U/s 279/337/304A IPC against respondent no. 1/driver.
3. It is the case of the claimants that deceased Rahish Ahmed @ Rahisuddin was about 25 years of age at the time of accident having sound health, and not suffering from any Case No. 1462/08 Waris Ahmed Vs. Chaman Lal :4: disease and that the deceased was self employed and was supplier of building material, having an earning of Rs. 10,000/ to Rs. 16,000/ per month. The petitioners claim dependency upon the deceased for their day to day necessities and living. It is contended that all the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
4. Respondents no.1 as driver and respondent no. 2 as owner of the offending vehicle, have filed a joint written statement denying any cause of action on the ground that the accident did not occur solely due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1. They have raised various preliminary objections and have denied the claim of the petitioners terming it as a highly exaggerated. On merits, the petition is denied outrightly with the averments that the accident had not taken place with the alleged offending vehicle being driven by respondent no. 1, rashly and negligently, as alleged and also calling for strict proof of averments of the petition. It is submitted that the respondent no. 1/driver of the offending vehicle in question was having valid and effective driving licence and that the offending Case No. 1462/08 Waris Ahmed Vs. Chaman Lal :5: vehicle was duly insured with respondent no. 3/insurance company. It is prayed that that respondents no. 1 and 2 are not liable to make payment for compensation, if any.
5. Respondent no. 3/insurance company has filed the written statement taking various preliminary objections that it has no statutory liability in case of contravention of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as per provisions U/s 149 (2) of the M.V.Act. On merits, the averments of the petition are denied. Further, it is denied that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing no. RJ14 2G6887. The claim is challenged alleging that the same was exorbitant, calling for strict proof of averments of the petition. It is admitted that the offending vehicle in question was duly insured, as on the date of accident, however, denying its liability to pay the compensation. Further, denying other averments of the petition, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed with costs.
6. Hence, From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide orders dated dt. 12.07.07
1. Whether on 02.05.06 at 3.15 p.m. at Sasnjay Gandhi Case No. 1462/08 Waris Ahmed Vs. Chaman Lal :6: Transport Nagar, motorcycle no.DL5SR2588 on which deceased Rahish Ahmed @ Rahisuddin was riding, was hit by truck no. RJ14G/6887 which was driven by R1 in rash and negligent manner and it resulted in death of Rahish Ahmed?OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation as prayed for, if so,from which of the respondents? OPP.
3. Relief.
7. The petitioner no. 1/ father of deceased appeared as PW1 and tendered her affidavit in evidence vide Ex. PW1/A and also tendered in evidence the documents i.e. copy of educational certificate of his deceased son as mark "A" , copy of PAN Card alongwith ITR for the period from 20052006 of his deceased son as Ex.PW1/1, copy of DL of deceased as Ex.PW1/2 and copy of death certificate as Ex.PW1/3.
8. PW1 was crossexamined, at length, by ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3/insurance company. In crossexamination, PW1 has explained that he was not the eye witness of the accident. The witness has testified that he did not have any other documentary Case No. 1462/08 Waris Ahmed Vs. Chaman Lal :7: proof in regard to self employment and income to the deceased at the time of accident. PW1 has denied the suggestion that his son was not doing any business or was earning Rs. 10,000/ Rs. 16,000/ per month. PW1 has denied the suggestion that he and his wife were not dependent upon his deceased son as he was having his own business. The witness has testified that he was not having any document to show that he has spent huge amount on treatment of my deceased son.
9. PW2 Sh. Bakir Khan is the eye witness of the accident accident who appeared and tendered his affidavit in evidence vide Ex. PW2/A. PW2 has duly supported the averments in the petition. PW2 was crossexamined by ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3/insurance company. In crossexamination, PW2 admitted that he has not suffered any injuries in the accident and his statement was recorded by the police. PW2 has denied the suggestion that he is not an eye witness of the accident in question or that he was not present at or near the spot of accident. PW2 has further denied the suggestion that he has filed a false affidavit just to get the compensation as the deceased was his relative. Case No. 1462/08 Waris Ahmed Vs. Chaman Lal :8:
10. The petitioner no. 3/ wife of deceased appeared as PW3 and tendered her Nikahnama as Ex.PW3/1. PW3 has further tendered the english translation of the operative portion of the Nikah as Ex.PW3/2, photograph with deceased is tendered as Ex.PW3/3, marriage card with envelop as Ex.PW3/4 and progress report and identity card of their child who is petitioner no. 4 as Ex. PW3/5 & Ex.PW3/6. PW3 was cross examined, by ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3/insurance company. In crossexamination, PW1 has deposed that she does not have any ration card , voter card and any other document to show her relationship with the deceased and her residence proof.
11. However, petitioner no. 3 was reexamined wherein she has tendered her marriage photographs with the deceased as Ex.PW3/7 & Ex.PW3/8. She further tendered birth certificate of their son who is petitioner no. 4 as Ex.PW3/9 and Ex.PW3/10. The documents tendered by the petitioners were not challenged. No other witness has been examined by the petitioner.
12. No evidence has been led on behalf of any of the Case No. 1462/08 Waris Ahmed Vs. Chaman Lal :9: respondents, despite opportunity. Hence, respondents evidence was closed. The insurance company also did not wish to lead any evidence to prove any breach or violation of any of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
13. The court has duly heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and respondent (s) and has also duly appreciated the pleadings and material on record along with the evidence tendered before the court. The relevant applicable law in regard to the case before the court has also been considered.
14. The issues in the petition are being adjudicated as under:
ISSUE NO 1: Whether on 02.05.06 at 3.15 p.m. at Sasnjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, motorcycle no.DL5SR2588 on which deceased Rahish Ahmed @ Rahisuddin was riding, was hit by truck no. RJ14G/6887 which was driven by R1 in rash and negligent manner and it resulted in death of Rahish Ahmed?OPP.
15. The present claim has been filed by the L. Rs of the deceased Rahish Ahmed @ Rahisuddin, who met with a fatal accident on 02.05.06 at about 3.15 p.m. in front of AG88, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi,when the Case No. 1462/08 Waris Ahmed Vs. Chaman Lal :10: offending vehicle bearing no. RJ142G6887, being driven by its driver/respondent no. 1 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle of the deceased from behind while he stopped his motorcycle due to traffic jam. The injured (since deceased) was taken to Babu Jag Jeevan Ram Hospital from the place of accident and was admitted there for treatment but due to serious conditions of the deceased, he could not be saved and ultimately succumbed to his injuries on 3 / 4 05.2006 at about 12.40 a.m. The case was registered at PS Samaypur Badli, Delhi vide FIR No. 347/06 U/s 279/337/304A IPC against respondent no. 1/driver. The postmortem report bearing no. 441/06 of the deceased is also duly proved on record and the perusal of the same shows the cause of death, due to injuries arising out of the road accident.
16. The averments and the allegations of the petitioners have been contested and denied by respondents by way of the averments in their respective written statements. Respondent nos. 1/driver respondent no. 2 being owner have denied the cause of accident owing to rash and Case No. 1462/08 Waris Ahmed Vs. Chaman Lal :11: negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.
1. However, it is not denied that respondent no. 1 was the driver of the offending vehicle. In this regard, relevant documents of investigation are duly proved. The offending vehicle and driving licence of the driver/respondent no. 1 were seized during investigation. The driver/respondent no. 1 was arrested and duly identified by eye witness i.e. PW2 after registration of FIR. Respondent no.3/Insurance Company has not claimed any breach or violation of the insurance cover of the offending vehicle in question.
17. On the aspect of "rash and negligent driving"law has been well settled in this regard. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Gita Bindal & Ors. in MAC APP. No. 179/2004 vide judgment dt. 12.10.2012 has passed binding guidelines on the principle of "Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur". The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi have been pleased to discuss the law of Res Ipsa Loquitur and has been pleased to summarize the principles.
It has been held that "Res ipsa Loquitur means Case No. 1462/08 Waris Ahmed Vs. Chaman Lal :12: that the accident speaks for itself. In such cases, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove the accident and nothing more". ...
It has been further laid down that"Res ipsa Loquitur is an exception to the normal rule that mere happening of an accident is no evidence of negligence on the part of the driver. This maxim means the mere proof of accident raises the presumption of negligence unless rebutted by the wrongdoer." ...
It has been further observed that"in some cases considerable hardship is caused to the plaintiff as the true cause of the accident is not known to him, but is solely within the knowledge of the defendant who caused it, the plaintiff can prove the accident, but can not prove how it happened to establish negligence. This hardship is to be avoided by applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur is that the accident speaks for itself or tells its own story. There are cases in which the accident speaks for itself so that it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove the accident and nothing Case No. 1462/08 Waris Ahmed Vs. Chaman Lal :13: more." ...
It has been further appreciated that"the effect of doctrine of 'res ipsa loquitur' is to shift the onus to the defendant in the sense that the doctrine continues to operate unless the defendant calls credible evidence which explains how the accident of mishap may have occurred without negligence, and it seems that the operation of the rule is not displaced merely by expert evidence showing, theoretically, possible ways in which the accident might have happened without the defendant's negligence. The doctrine of 'res ipsa loquitur, therefore, plays a very significant role in the law of tort and it is not the relic of the past, but the living force of the day in determining the tortuous liability."
18. In the facts of the present case, PW2 ASI Bakir Khan, an eye witness, has duly corroborated the averments in the petition as regards the occurrence of the road accident in question. PW2, as eyewitness, has categorically deposed that the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle/ Truck bearing Case No. 1462/08 Waris Ahmed Vs. Chaman Lal :14: No. RJ142G6887 by its driver/respondent no. 1, thereby, causing fatal injuries upon the deceased leading to his death. It is evident that PW2 is an eyewitness who has duly identified respondent no. 1 as the offending driver. The identity of the offending Truck bearing No. RJ142G6887, is also duly established. The testimony of PW2 is consistent and duly corroborates the factum of accident as averred in the petition. PW2 has been crossexamined, at length, but no inconsistency or contradiction could be broughtforth before the Court to doubt the testimony of PW2.
19. The court has carefully appreciated the entire evidence relevant to this issue and also appreciated the documents which are available on record. It is already discussed hereinabove, that the involvement of the driver /respondent no. 1 and the offending vehicle/ Truck bearing No.RJ142G6887 is duly established. The respondents have failed to discharge the onus laid upon them by way of well settled law by "resipsa Loquitur" as has been discussed hereinabove. No respondent's evidence has been led to support the bald defences of respondents. There Case No. 1462/08 Waris Ahmed Vs. Chaman Lal :15: is no breach or contradiction in petitioner's evidence or case of the petitioner which can show any plausible defence in favour of the respondents. The postmortem report, clearly establishes that the petitioner sustained fatal injuries from the road accident caused by the offending motorcycle in question. The consistent and corroborated petitioner's evidence duly proved that the road accident was caused by the offending vehicle/ Truck bearing No. RJ142G6887, due to rash and negligent driving by its driver/respondent no. 1. It is further evident from the medical record that the victim died due to fatal injuries sustained in the road accident in question, therefore, issue is disposed of in favour of the petitioner. The issue stands duly proved in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. ISSUE NO. 2:
Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation as prayed for, if so,from which of the respondents? OPP.
20. The claimants are legal representatives of the deceased whereby petitioner No. 3 is the widow of the Case No. 1462/08 Waris Ahmed Vs. Chaman Lal :16: deceased and petitioner no. 4 is the minor child, then less than one year of age, besides petitioner no. 1 & 2 who are father and mother of deceased respectively. The father /petitioner no. 1 has claimed dependency upon the deceased but there is no circumstances to support this claim as the father of the deceased was aged about 47 years, at the time of death of the victim and there is no specific medical ailment or disability of the father of the deceased, proved before the court. A substantial evidence has been led to prove relationship of petitioner no. 3 /wife with the deceased in which regard, Nikahnama is proved as Ex.PW3/1. The relationship of petitioner no. 4 /minor child of the deceased is proved vide birth certificate Ex.PW3/9 and Adhaar card of the minor as Ex.PW3/10. At the time of filing of the petition, the name of petitioner no. 4 who is minor child, has been shown as Master Abdul Samad. However, subsequently, his name was changed as Mohd. Harish Ahmed, which is duly supported by document i.e. Adhaar Card Ex.PW3/10. Hence, amended memo is allowed, in this judgment only. Accordingly, petitioner no. 3/widow, Case No. 1462/08 Waris Ahmed Vs. Chaman Lal :17: petitioner no. 4/minor son & petitioner no. 2/ mother, are the L. Rs of deceased and dependents as on the date of adjudication and entitled to just and reasonable compensation.
21. On account of loss of dependency, for the assessment of earnings of the deceased, it is the claim of the petitioners that the deceased was self employed and doing the business as supplier as building material and was earning Rs. 10,000/ to Rs. 16,000/ per month. However, as per income tax return Ex.PW1/1, for the year immediately proceding the financial year in which the deceased died, an annual income of Rs. 64,830/. Ex.PW1/1 gives reasonable material for assessment of the annual income of the deceased, at the relevant time. It is duly considered that the deceased is stated to be 25 years at the time of death as has been supported by his driving licence Ex.PW1/2 and mark sheet Mark "A". it is already considered that reasonable material has been placed before the court for assessment of annual income of the deceased which is taken at Rs.65,000/ annually.
22. It is further relevant to take into consideration the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Smt. Case No. 1462/08 Waris Ahmed Vs. Chaman Lal :18: Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., SLP (C) No. 8648 of 2007, wherein it has been held that the claimants shall be entitled to addition on account of future prospects depending upon the facts of each case. Uniform guidelines have been laid down for computation of addition on account of future prospects depending upon the age of the deceased/disabled and nature of employment of the victim. The law has been further developed in by Hon'ble Supreme Court in its latest judgment in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance company Ltd. and ors. in Civil Appeal NO.,. 3723 of 2012 arising out of SLP (C) No. 24489 of 2010. The Hon'ble Division Bench of Supreme Court has observed that aspect of future prospects shall be a relevant consideration in computation of just and proper compensation even in cases where the deceased was self employed or on a fixed salary without provisions for annual increments etc. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Santosh Devi's case (Supra) allowed the addition of 30 % on account of future prospects in such cases. Thereafter, there are two views of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held in 1 (2010) ACC A SC in Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Rajbir Singh relied upon by Case No. 1462/08 Waris Ahmed Vs. Chaman Lal :19: the petitioner; and in Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. Arising out of civil appeal no. 4646 of 2009 and 4647 of 2009 dt. 02.04.13 relied upon the Insurance company. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has duly appreciated the legal preposition on this aspect and has been pleased to lay down the binding authority in MAC Appeal No. 846/2011 vide judgment delivered on 30.09.2013. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to lay down the law for the purpose of just and proper assessment of computation of the loss of dependency vizaviz assessment of future prospects. It has been held that 'the assessment of future prospects in respect of person falling under the category of selfemployment /fixed wages this court is guided by the dictum laid down in Rajesh's case (Supra).
"In my considered opinion, there is no contradiction in the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Reshma Kumari and Rajesh." The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi also after reasonable consideration has been pleased to conclude that "there is no contradiction in the finding of Sarla Verma and Santosh Devi, in turn, the Apex Court extended the scope and ambit of Sarla Verma through Santosh Devi. Therefore, this Case No. 1462/08 Waris Ahmed Vs. Chaman Lal :20: court is guided by the legal principles as set out in Reshma Kumari and Rajesh in order to assess the just compensation as it is envisaged in Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988." It has been further laid down that in case of self employment 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'.
23. It has already been considered that the deceased was 25 years of age. In view of the discussion hereinabove on the aspect of appropriate future prospects, the facts and circumstances of the case have been carefully appreciated and examined. In this case, as the deceased was 25 years of age and self employed, it is appropriate and reasonable to follow the law laid down in binding judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, by allowing addition of 50 % on account of future prospects. The annual income of the deceased has been assessed at Rs. 65,000/. The addition on account of future prospects shall be 50% of the income of the deceased. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased comes out to Rs. 97,500/ { 65,000+32,500 (65,000 x 50%)}
24. In view of the aforesaid judgment in Sarla Verma's case Case No. 1462/08 Waris Ahmed Vs. Chaman Lal :21: ( Supra), since at the time of filing of petition, there are three dependents ( petitioner no. 1 is the father and not dependent upon deceased), 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased from his income. Accordingly, the annual contribution of the deceased to his family is calculated Rs. 65,000/( 97,500 x 1/332,500).
25. The Court has already examined the age of the deceased to be 25 years. In terms of the law of the land laid down by Sarla Verma's case, taking the age of the deceased as 25 years at the time of accident, the multiplier of 18 is applicable. The loss of dependency is, therefore, calculated @ Rs. 11,70,000/ (Rs.65,000x18) .
26. In the present case, no medical expenses have been claimed, though, the deceased received medical treatment for 2 days before he succumbed to his injuries, a sum of Rs. 5,000/ is reasonable and hence, is allowed towards medical expenses upon the deceased.
27. The petitioners shall be entitled to an amount of Rs 25,000/ is added towards funeral and miscellaneous expenses as per well settled law, which the petitioners had to Case No. 1462/08 Waris Ahmed Vs. Chaman Lal :22: incur due to the death of deceased, as no further expenses have been proved.
28. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in recent judgment in MAC Appeal No. 196/13 in case titled as The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. A.K.Puri & Ors. vide judgment delivered on 24.03.14 has been pleased to give further guidance for just and proper adjudication of compensation. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 1 lakh towards loss of love and affection. Also the claimants shall be entitled to an amount of Rs 10,000/ towards loss of estate. A sum of Rs. 25,000/ is also granted for loss of consortium to petitioner no. 1. Thus, the total compensation awarded to petitioners is detailed as below:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 11,70,000
2. Medical expenses Rs. 10,000/
3. Funeral & miscellaneous expenses Rs. 25,000/
4. Loss of love and affection Rs. 1,00,000/
5. Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/
6. Loss of consortium Rs. 25,000/ Total awarded compensation Rs. 13,35,000/ Case No. 1462/08 Waris Ahmed Vs. Chaman Lal :23:
29. So far as the liability to pay compensation is concerned, there has no violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In these circumstances, respondent no. 1 being the driver is primarily liable to pay compensation. Respondent no. 2 and 3 being owner and insurer are vicariously liable to pay the compensation. Compensation is payable by respondent no. 3 being insurer, as vehicle was duly insured as on the date of accident. The issue is disposed of accordingly. RELIEF:
30. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I hereby hold that petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs. 13,35,000/ alongwith interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of present petition till its realization. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any interest for the intervening period of three years, in terms of the order dt. 22.11.07.
31. In view of the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "General Manager, Kerala State RTC Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and Others" for appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptible to exploitation, the respondent No.3/insurance company shall be liable to pay awarded amount to the petitioners in terms of the following arrangement as Case No. 1462/08 Waris Ahmed Vs. Chaman Lal :24: ordered below:
i). Out of the award amount, as the petitioner no. 1 is father of the deceased, he shall be entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as compensation:
ii)Petitioner no. 2 being mother of the deceased shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 2.5 lakhs alongwith accrued interest as per award:
iii) The remaining amount of the awarded compensation with accrued interest, shall be equally receivable by petitioner no. 3/widow of deceased and petitioner no. 4 who is minor son of the deceased.
32. The entire share of minor son ( petitioners no. 4) be kept in an FDR, till the attainment of the age of majority. The mother/petitioner no. 1 shall have liberty to withdraw interest from the FDR of the minor (petitioner no. 4).
As regards the share of petitioner no. 3/widow, 50 % out of her share be kept in four FDRs for a period of 2, 3, 5 & 10 years . No order as to the FDRs for petitioners no. 1 & 2, keeping in view of their age.
The FDR's shall have no facility of loan advance or premature withdrawal, without leave of the court. However, petitioners shall have the facility to withdraw the interest monthly/quarterly as per their option.
Case No. 1462/08 Waris Ahmed Vs. Chaman Lal :25:
33. In view of the aforesaid findings and in terms of the award /order of this court, the petition is disposed off in aforesaid terms. Respondent no. 3 is directed to deposit the cheques in the names of the claimants within 30 days before this Tribunal. Respondent No.3 is also directed to furnish certificate of TDS if applicable. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
OPEN COURT PO,MACT1 CumADJ1
On 3 day of June 2014.
rd
Cum Designated LAC Court,
NORTH,ROHINI, DELHI
A Miscellaneous file is directed to be prepared for the purposes of realisation of the award in favour of the petitioners.
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) PO,MACT1 CumADJ1 Cum Designated LA Court, NORTH,ROHINI, DELHI Case No. 1462/08 Waris Ahmed Vs. Chaman Lal :26: Suit NO. 1462/08 03.06.2014:
Present: None.
Vide separate detailed award, dictated and announced in the court today, an award in sum of Rs. 13,35,000/ alongwith interest payable from the date of petition is hereby passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents with liability to pay upon the respondent no. 3/ insurance company. Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the cheque in terms of the award within 30 days before this Tribunal. Petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. File be consigned to Record Room.
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) PO,MACT1 CumADJ1 Cum Designated LA Court, NORTH,ROHINI, DELHI A Miscellaneous file is directed to be prepared for the purposes of realisation of the award in favour of the petitioners.
Naib Nazir directed to make an entry in the realisation register and place the miscellaneous file before the undersigned for disposal and consignment to the record room on receipt and disbursement of the Case No. 1462/08 Waris Ahmed Vs. Chaman Lal :27: compensation, as per award.
Miscellaneous file to come for further proceedings for 04.07.2014. Parties to appear.
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) PO,MACT1 CumADJ1 Cum Designated LA Court, NORTH,ROHINI, DELHI Case No. 1462/08 Waris Ahmed Vs. Chaman Lal :28: Suit No.1462/08 02.06.2014 Present : Proxy counsel for parties.
Arguments heard. Put up for consideration on 03.06.2014.
PO,MACT1 CumADJ1 Cum Designated LA Court, NORTH,ROHINI, DELHI 02.06.2014.
Case No. 1462/08 Waris Ahmed Vs. Chaman Lal :29: Case No. 1462/08 Waris Ahmed Vs. Chaman Lal