Delhi District Court
Smt. Fatma Begum (Widow Of Deceased) vs Sh. Manoj on 12 September, 2018
MACP No. 7044/16 (Old MACP No. 609/16) FIR No. 469/16; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 12.09.2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIDYA PRAKASH, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 7044/16 (Old MAC Petition No. 609/16)
1. Smt. Fatma Begum (Widow of deceased)
Widow of Late Mohd. Firoz Khan,
2. Mohd. Mustafa (Son of deceased)
S/o Late Mohd. Firoz Khan,
3. Mohd. Islam (Son of deceased)
S/o Late Mohd. Firoz Khan,
4. Salma Khatun (Daughter of deceased)
S/o Late Mohd. Firoz Khan,
5. Reshma Khatun (Daughter of deceased)
S/o Late Mohd. Firoz Khan,
All R/o 168, THuts,
Lal Bagh, Azadpur, Delhi.
.......Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Manoj,
S/o Sh. Dayanand,
R/o N140/33,
Mubarik Bagh, Model Town,
Delhi (Driver)
2. Delhi MSW Solutions Ltd.,
Through Manager Sh. Sanjeev Tomar,
Having Office at MCD Workshop,
Near Metro Station, Model Town,
Phase I, Delhi (Registered owner)
.......Respondents
Date of Institution : 06.12.2016
Date of Arguments : 28.08.2018
Date of Decision : 12.09.2018
Fatma Begum Vs. Manoj & Anr. Page 1 of 17
MACP No. 7044/16 (Old MACP No. 609/16) FIR No. 469/16; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 12.09.2018
APPEARANCES: Sh. Ajay Malhotra, adv for petitioners/Lrs of deceased.
Respondent no. 1/driver in person.
Sh. Satyajeet Kumar, adv for respondent no. 2.
Petition under Section 166 & 140 of M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation AWARD
1. Mohd. Firoz had suffered fatal injuries in Motor Vehicular Accident which occurred on 31.10.2016 at 1.10 pm at Jhuggi No. A168, Lal Bagh, Azadpur, involving vehicle i.e. TATA Ace bearing registration no. DL1LM3424 (alleged offending vehicle) allegedly being driven in rash and negligent manner and without following traffic rules by respondent no. 1. The petitioners are seeking compensation for the fatal injuries sustained by Mohd. Firoz, in the wake of Detailed Accident Report (DAR) filed by police corresponding to the investigation carried out in FIR no. 469/16 U/s 279/304 A IPC registered at PS. Adarsh Nagar with regard to the said accident. DAR was treated as claim petition U/s 166(4) of M.V Act.
2. It is averred in the DAR petition that on 31.10.2016, Mohd. Firoz (since expired) alongwith Mohd. Ayan(aged about 2 years), who was his grandson, was in his lap and they were standing in front of their house. At about 1:10 pm, one Tata Ace bearing registration no. DL1LM3424 which was being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, came and hit against Mohd. Firoz, due to which, they both fell down on the road and sustained the injuries. They were removed to Vinayak Hospital, Model Town, where Mohd. Firoz was declared dead at about 2:10 pm. Mohd. Ayan was medically examined vide MLC No. 1068/16. FIR No. 469/16, U/s. 279/304A IPC was registered at PS. Adarsh Nagar with regard to accident in question. It is claimed that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Ace No. DL1LM3424 by its driver/respondent No.1. The said Tata Ace Fatma Begum Vs. Manoj & Anr. Page 2 of 17 MACP No. 7044/16 (Old MACP No. 609/16) FIR No. 469/16; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 12.09.2018 vehicle is claimed to be owned by respondent no. 2 and same was not insured at the time of accident.
3. Respondent no. 1 failed to file his WS despite grant of sufficient opportunities. Ultimately, defence of respondent no. 1 was struck off vide order dated 29.03.2017.
4. In its WS, the respondent no. 2 has claimed that its vehicle was not involved in the alleged accident and it has been falsely implicated in the present case. On merits, it has simply denied the averments made in the DAR petition and has prayed for dismissal of DAR petition.
5. From pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 29.03.2017 :
1) Whether deceased Firoz had suffered injuries in road traffic accident on 31.10.16 at 1:10 pm at Jhuggi No. A168, Lal Bagh, Azadpur, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS. Adarsh Nagar, due to rashness and negligence on the part of the driver Manoj who was driving vehicle bearing registration no. DL1LM3424 owned by Sh.
Sanjeev Tomar, Manager MSW Solution Ltd.?
OPP.
2) Whether the Lrs of deceased are entitled to any compensation if so to what amount and from whom?OPP
3) Relief.
6. In support of their claim, the petitioners have examined two witnesses i.e. PW1 Smt. Fatma Begum (widow of deceased) and PW2 Mohd. Mustafa (alleged eye witness) and closed their evidence on Fatma Begum Vs. Manoj & Anr. Page 3 of 17 MACP No. 7044/16 (Old MACP No. 609/16) FIR No. 469/16; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 12.09.2018 08.11.2017 through their counsel. On the other hand, no evidence has been adduced by respondent no. 1. The respondent no. 2 has examined only one witness i.e. Sh. Sanjeev Tomar, AR of respondent no. 2, as R2W1.
7. I have already heard the arguments addressed by ld counsels for the parties. I have also gone through the record. Both the sides were directed to submit their respective submissions in Form IV A vide order dated 28.08.2018 but they have not submitted the same on record till date. My findings on the issues are as under: ISSUE NO. 1.
8. For the purpose of this issue, the testimony of PW2 Mohd. Mustafa (alleged eyewitness) is relevant. He deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A) that on 31.10.2016 at about 1:10 pm, his father Mohd. Firoz Khan (since expired) was sitting in front of their house with his grandson Master Ayan on his lap. He was also standing outside the house besides both of them. In the meanwhile, one vehicle bearing registration no. DL1LM3424(Tata Ace Tipper), which was being driven by its driver at very high speed and in rash and negligent manner, came from Deepak Diesel, G.T.K Road side and hit his father Mohd. Firoz Khan with great force. As a result thereof, his father Mohd. Firoz fell down on the road alongwith son Mohd. Ayan and his father sustained severe injuries. He was immediately taken to Vinayak Hospital by his uncle(mama), where his MLC bearing no. 1067 dated 31.10.16 was prepared. During the course of treatment, Mohd. Firoz expired on the same day. Postmortem on the body of deceased was conducted at BJRM Hospital vide PMR No. 1222/16 on 01.11.16. His son Mohd. Ayan had also sustained simple injuries in the accident in question. During his crossexamination on behalf of respondent no. 2, he deposed that Fatma Begum Vs. Manoj & Anr. Page 4 of 17 MACP No. 7044/16 (Old MACP No. 609/16) FIR No. 469/16; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 12.09.2018 the accident occurred on 31.10.16 at about 1:10 pm. He denied the suggestion that he had not accompanied deceased at the time of accident or that accident had not occurred in his presence. Respondent no. 1 did not crossexamine the said witness despite grant of opportunity.
9. The careful perusal of testimony of PW2 would go to show that respondents no. 1 & 2 were not able to impeach his testimony through litmus test of crossexamination. The said witness is found to have successfully withstood the crossexamination and nothing could be elicited during his crossexamination from their side so as to discredit his testimony made on Oath.
10. The respondents have not led any evidence in order to rebut the testimony of PW2 during the course of inquiry. Moreover, FIR No. 469/16 supra is also shown to have been registered on the statement of this witness. The contents of said FIR (which is part of criminal case record) would show that this witness has narrated therein the same sequence of facts leading to the accident in question, as deposed by him during the course of inquiry. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve his uncontroverted testimony on the point of accident in question being caused due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle i.e. Tata Ace bearing registration No. DL1LM 3424 by its driver.
11. It is also pertinent to note that the respondent no.1/driver of truck, was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident had taken place. However, he preferred not to enter into witness box during the course of enquiry. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the Fatma Begum Vs. Manoj & Anr. Page 5 of 17 MACP No. 7044/16 (Old MACP No. 609/16) FIR No. 469/16; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 12.09.2018 accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving of vehicle i.e. Tata Ace bearing registration no. DL1LM3424.
12. As already noted above, the respondent no. 2 has examined one witness i.e. R2W1 Sh. Sanjeev Tomar, AR of M/s. Delhi MSW Solutions Ltd during the course of inquiry. R2W1 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. R2W1/A) that as per their record, the vehicle bearing no. DL1LM3424 was taken out from the premises of respondent no. 2 by Mr. Raju and he was driving the said vehicle. He has relied upon copy of in out register of the respondent no. 2 company as Ex. R2W1/2, apart from copy of Board Resolution dated 11.04.18 in his favour as Ex. R2W1/1. He further deposed that driver namely Raju of said vehicle was having valid DL and exhibited the same as Ex. R2W1/3. He categorically deposed that respondent no. 2 has no liability whatsoever and it is in noway concerned with the alleged accident. During his crossexamination, he admitted that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL1LM 3424 was not insured. Mr. Raju whose DL was exhibited as Ex. R2W1/3, was working with their company for the last 8 to 9 years. He admitted that whenever the company vehicle moves for collecting the garbage, one helper accompanies the driver in the vehicle. He further deposed that Sh. Manoj who was also the employee of their company, was the helper on vehicle bearing no. DL1LM3424 on the date of accident. He admitted that after leaving the office premises, there was every possibility that some other person could come on the driving seat of the said vehicle. He also admitted that Manoj was arrested by the police in criminal case and also admitted that aforesaid vehicle had met with an accident. He also admitted that FIR No. 469/16 u/s. 279/337/304A IPC and u/s. 3/181 and 146/196 M.V. Act was registered against Manoj at PS. Adarsh Nagar. He denied the suggestion that the aforesaid vehicle was being driven by Manoj and not by Raju or that Fatma Begum Vs. Manoj & Anr. Page 6 of 17 MACP No. 7044/16 (Old MACP No. 609/16) FIR No. 469/16; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 12.09.2018 said Manoj did not have any valid and effective DL as on the date of accident. He further denied the suggestion that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL1LM3424 by Manoj. Respondent no. 1 did not crossexamine this witness despite grant of opportunity.
13. It is quite evident from the aforesaid discussion that respondent no. 2 has tried to create defence that the offending vehicle was being driven by driver namely Raju who was having valid DL as on the date of accident, but the said defence remained unsubstantiated during the course of inquiry, besides the fact that said defence is totally irrelevant and immaterial so far as the liability of respondent no. 2 company is concerned. As already noted above, it is admitted by R2W1 during his crossexamination on behalf of claimants that R2 is the registered owner of offending vehicle no. DL1LM 3424 and it had caused the accident in question on the given date, time and place. It is also an admitted position on record that the said vehicle was not insured as on the date of accident. In this backdrop, the respondent no. 2 company is vicariously liable for the act done by its agent/driver under the law of tort, irrespective of the fact as to whether the said vehicle was being driven by Raju or by Manoj. While saying so, it should not be construed that the respondent no. 2 has been able to establish that the offending vehicle was being driven by its driver Raju. This plea could not be proved by said respondent by way of cogent and definite evidence. It is relevant to note that no such suggestion was put to PW2 who is an eyewitness of the accident in question. Secondly, the respondent no. 2 failed to examine Raju during course of inquiry as witness from their side. Hence, viewing from any angle, I am of the considered opinion that the respondent no. 2 company can not escape from its liability to pay the compensation amount.
Fatma Begum Vs. Manoj & Anr. Page 7 of 17MACP No. 7044/16 (Old MACP No. 609/16) FIR No. 469/16; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 12.09.2018
14. As noted above, FIR No. 469/16 (supra) was registered at PS. Adarsh Nagar with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR alongwith copy of chargesheet (which are part of criminal case record) would show that FIR was registered on 31.10.2016 i.e. on the date of accident itself. Thus, FIR was registered promptly and without any delay. Hence, there is no possibility of false implication of respondent no. 1 and / or false involvement of Tata Ace No. DL1LM3424 at the instance of petitioners. The very fact that R1 was chargesheeted(which is part of criminal case record) by the police for offences punishable u/s. 279/304A IPC would further show that Investigating Agency concluded after completion of the investigation that the said accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Ace by its driver namely Manoj i.e. R1 herein.
15. Copy of MLC (which is part of criminal case record) of deceased would show that he had been removed to Vinayak hospital, Model Town with alleged history of RTA on 31.10.16 at 1:25 pm. He is shown to have sustained multiple injuries as mentioned therein. Not only this, postmortem was got conducted on the body of deceased Mohd. Firoz. Copy of PM Report (which is part criminal case record) of Mohd. Firoz, would show that his cause of death was hemorrhagic shock secondary to polytrauma sustained, produced by blunt force impact. The injuries as noted in the relevant column with regard to extenal injuries, as mentioned therein, are consistent with the injuries which are sustained in motor vehicular accident. Again, there is no challenge to the aforesaid documents from the side of respondents.
16. Further, copy of mechanical inspection report dated 01.11.2016 (which is part of criminal case record) of Tata Ace No. DL1LM3424, would show fresh damages i.e. its front side bumper from left side corner was Fatma Begum Vs. Manoj & Anr. Page 8 of 17 MACP No. 7044/16 (Old MACP No. 609/16) FIR No. 469/16; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 12.09.2018 scratched and its front side body fiber from left side portion was broken. Said document has not been disputed by the respondents and corroborates the ocular testimony of PW2 Mohd. Mustafa to the aforesaid extent.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove on the basis of pre ponderence of probabilities that Mohd. Firoz had sustained fatal injuries in road accident which took place on 31.10.2016 at about 1.10 pm in front of Jhuggi No. A168, Lal Bagh, Azadpur, Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Ace bearing registration no. DL1LM3424 by respondent no.1. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 218. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly.
MEDICAL EXPENSES
19. PW1 Smt. Fatma Begum has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit(Ex. PW1/A) that after the accident, deceased was removed to Vinayak Hospital, Model Town, where he expired during the course of treatment on the same day i.e. 31.10.16 at about 2:10 pm. Respondent no. 2 did not crossexamine this witness on this aspect at all. Respondent no. 1 did not crossexamine this witness despite grant of opportunity. In all, the Fatma Begum Vs. Manoj & Anr. Page 9 of 17 MACP No. 7044/16 (Old MACP No. 609/16) FIR No. 469/16; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 12.09.2018 medical bills to the tune of Rs. 685/ (Ex. PW1/7 & Ex. PW1/8) have been filed by the petitioners. It is quite evident from the perusal of testimony of PW1 that the respondents have not disputed the authenticity and genuineness of the said medical bills filed on record. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 685/ is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
20. As already stated above, the claimants/petitioners are the widow and children of deceased. PW1 Smt. Fatima Begum (widow of deceased) has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit(Ex. PW1/A) that Mohd. Firoz was 52 years of age; he was working as Security Guardcumn Incharge with M/s. Krishna Trading Co and was getting monthly salary of Rs. 15,000/ besides other incentive, perks and bonus and his salary was increasing with passage of time. She has relied upon the following documents: Sr. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of Election I Card of Ex PW1/1 deceased
2. Copy of her Aadhaar Card Ex. PW1/2
3. Copy of Election I Card of son Ex. PW1/3 namely Mohd. Mustafa of deceased
4. Copy of Aadhaar Card of son Ex. PW1/4 namely Islam of deceased
5. Copy of Aadhaar Card of Mark A daughter namely Salma Khatun of deceased
6. Copy of Aadhaar Card of Ex. PW1/5 Fatma Begum Vs. Manoj & Anr. Page 10 of 17 MACP No. 7044/16 (Old MACP No. 609/16) FIR No. 469/16; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 12.09.2018 daughter namely Reshma of deceased
7. Copy of death certificate of Ex. PW1/6.
deceased
8. Medical bills of Vinayak Ex. PW1/7 & Ex.
PW1/8Hospital in the name of deceased Firoz Khan
21. During her cross examination on behalf of respondent no. 2, she deposed that her deceased husband Mohd. Firoz Khan was working as Security Guard with one company and he was permanent employee of the said company. She deposed that she could not produce any document to show that deceased was working as Security Guard or that he was getting monthly salary of Rs. 15,000/ besides other incentives, perks and bonus as claimed in para no. 3 of her affidavit. She denied the suggestion that deceased was not working as Security Guard or that he was not getting the salary of Rs. 15,000/ per month. She further deposed that no amount used to be deducted on account of PF from the salary of deceased by his employer. Deceased was working for the last 1920 years in the same company prior to the accident. She deposed that when deceased had joined the services of the aforesaid company, his salary was somewhere around Rs. 6,000/ Rs. 6,500/ per month. The monthly salary used to be paid in cash to deceased by the employer. She denied the suggestion that deceased was not working for gain or that he was unemployed at the time of accident. She deposed that her sons namely Mohd. Mustafa and Mohd. Islam both were working for gain at the time of accident. She volunteered that Mohd. Islam is presently not doing any work. She denied the suggestion that all the children of deceased were not financially dependent upon him at the time of accident. She further denied the suggestion that Mohd. Mustafa Fatma Begum Vs. Manoj & Anr. Page 11 of 17 MACP No. 7044/16 (Old MACP No. 609/16) FIR No. 469/16; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 12.09.2018 and Mohd. Islam were residing separately from deceased at the time of accident. Respondent no. 1 did not cross examine this witness despite grant of opportunity.
22. Counsel for petitioners fairly conceded during the course of arguments that for want of cogent evidence being led with regard to monthly income of deceased, his monthly income should be taken as per Minimum Wages Act applicable during the period in question. As already noted above, PW1 Smt. Fatma Begum has admitted during her cross examination that she could not produce any document to show that her deceased husband was getting monthly salary of Rs. 15,000/ at the time of accident. Mere bald statement made by PW1 in this regard, cannot be accepted under the law. No document concerning educational qualification of deceased has been placed on record by the petitioners. For want of any definite evidence regarding monthly income of deceased being led by the petitioners, his monthly income has to be assessed as that of unskilled worker as per Minimum Wages Act applicable during the relevant period. The Minimum Wages of unskilled worker under Minimum Wages Act applicable as on 31.10.16, were Rs. 9,724/ per month.
23. In copy of Voter I Card (Ex. PW1/1) of deceased Mohd. Firoz, his age is mentioned as 30 years as on 01.01.1994. The date of accident is 31.10.16. In view of said document, his age would come somewhere between 5253 years as on the date of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 11 would be applicable in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17.
Fatma Begum Vs. Manoj & Anr. Page 12 of 17MACP No. 7044/16 (Old MACP No. 609/16) FIR No. 469/16; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 12.09.2018
24. Although, counsel for claimants vehemently argued that al the five claimants should be considered as financially dependents upon deceased while considering the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses of deceased but said contention does not found favour to him for the simple reason that PW1 who is none else widow of deceased, has categorically admitted during her crossexamination that her both the sons namely Mohd. Mustafa and Mohd. Islam (petitioners no. 2 & 3 herein) were working for gain at the time of accident. Hence, they can not be termed as financially dependent upon deceased at the time of accident. Keeping in view the fact that there were three claimants who were financially dependent upon income of deceased at the time of accident, there has to be deduction of 1/3rd as held in the case of Pranay Sethi mentioned supra. There has to be addition of 10% towards element of future prospect in the monthly income of deceased(he being aged between 5253 years of age at the time of accident), in view of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", mentioned supra as well as in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.17. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 9,41,284/ (rounded off) (Rs. 9,724/ X 2/3 X 110/100 X 12 X 11). Hence, a sum of Rs. 9,41,284/ is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
25. After the celebrated judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", mentioned supra, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", mentioned supra, has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi Fatma Begum Vs. Manoj & Anr. Page 13 of 17 MACP No. 7044/16 (Old MACP No. 609/16) FIR No. 469/16; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 12.09.2018 (supra) does not recognize any other nonpecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
26. In view of celebrated judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", mentioned Supra a sum of Rs. 40,000/ is awarded in favour of petitioner no. 3 Smt. Fatma Begum (being widow of deceased) towards loss of consortium.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
27. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 15,000/ each is awarded in favour of petitioners on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses.
The total compensation is assessed as under:
1. Medical Expenses Rs. 685/
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 9,41,284/
2. Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/
2. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 30,000/ Expenses Total Rs. 10,11,969/ Rounded Off to Rs. 10,12,000/ Fatma Begum Vs. Manoj & Anr. Page 14 of 17 MACP No. 7044/16 (Old MACP No. 609/16) FIR No. 469/16; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 12.09.2018
28. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Respondent no. 1 being principal tortfeasor and respondent no. 2 being owner of the offending vehicle and thus, vicariously liable for the acts of principal tort feasor, are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount to the petitioner.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I award compensation of Rs. 10,12,000/ alongwith interest @ 9% per annum in favour of petitioners and against the respondents jointly and severally w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 06.12.16 till the date of its realization (Reliance placed on judgment "Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Devi & Ors bearing MAC. APP. 165/2011 decided on 22.02.2016).
APPORTIONMENT
30. Statement of petitioner namely Smt. Fatma Begum in terms of Clause 27 MCTAP was recorded on 28.08.2018. Remaining petitioners/claimants have made their statements on 28.08.18 that they do not want any share out of the compensation amount and their respective shares may be released to their mother/claimant namely Ms. Fatma Begum. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the said statement, it is hereby ordered that out of the award amount, a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/ (Rupees One lakh and twenty five thousand Only) shall be immediately released to the petitioner through her saving bank account no. 6663466269 with Indian Bank, Gujranwala Town, Part 1, Delhi, having IFSC Code IDIB000G078 and remaining amount alongwith interest Fatma Begum Vs. Manoj & Anr. Page 15 of 17 MACP No. 7044/16 (Old MACP No. 609/16) FIR No. 469/16; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 12.09.2018 amount be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 15,000/ each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
31. The FDRs to be prepared as per the aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following directions:
(i) Original fixed deposit receipts be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, a passbook of the FDRs alongwith photocopies of the FDRs be given to claimant/petitioner. At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be automatically credited in the savings bank account of the Claimant/petitioner.
(ii) No cheque book/Debit Card be issued to the claimant/petitioner without permission of the Court.
(iii) No loan, advance or withdrawal be allowed on the fixed deposit(s) without permission of the Court.
(iv) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit account of the victim.
(v) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank before the Tribunal.
32. During the course of hearing final arguments, claimant was asked as to whether she was entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS or not. He stated on oath that she was entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS and also furnished Form No. 15H on record.
33. Both the respondents are directed to deposit the award amount with SBI, Rohini Courts branch within 30 days as per above order. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the amount of Rs. 1,25,000/ ( Rs. One Lakh and twenty five thousand Only) directed to be released immediately to petitioner no. 1 in the aforesaid saving bank account mentioned supra, on completing necessary formalities Fatma Begum Vs. Manoj & Anr. Page 16 of 17 MACP No. 7044/16 (Old MACP No. 609/16) FIR No. 469/16; PS. Adarsh Nagar DOD: 12.09.2018 as per rules. He be further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the said claimant approaches the bank for disbursement so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Copy of this award be given dasti to claimant. Copy of this award be given dasti alongwith Form no. 15G furnished by claimant Fatma Begum (after retaining its copy on record) to both the respondents for their information and compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph, specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance. Form IV A & Form V in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as AnnexureA. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP.
Announced in the open Court on 12.09.2018 (VIDYA PRAKASH) Judge MACT2 (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi Fatma Begum Vs. Manoj & Anr. Page 17 of 17