Delhi District Court
Sh. Surender Kumar S/O Sh. Soran Lal vs Sh. Yusuf Ali S/O Sh. Abdul Gaffar on 2 May, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MS. SANTOSH SNEHI MANN,
JUDGE, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL02, WEST DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No.: 200/2014
Unique Case ID No.: 02401C0478572011
1. Sh. Surender Kumar S/o Sh. Soran Lal
(Father of the deceased Aakash Nimmi @ Sunny)
2. Smt. Mukesh W/o Sh. Surender Kumar
(Father of the deceased Aakash Nimmi @ Sunny)
Both R/o: House No. 415, Bhagwatpura,
Meerut, Uttar Pradesh .......... Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Yusuf Ali S/o Sh. Abdul Gaffar
R/o: Village & Post Bisaula, PS Icholi,
District Meerut, Uttar Pradesh
(Driver)
2. Sh. Ikrammuddin S/o Sh. Abdul Rehman
R/o: Mohalla Mallahan Kumaharn,
Kasba Baghpat, District Baghpat,
Uttar Pradesh
Also at: House No. 34, Inderlok Colony,
Kidwai Nagar, Hapur Road, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh
(Owner)
3. ICICI Lombard Insurance Company Limited
Birla Towers, 5th Floor, 25 - Barakhamba Road,
GPO, New Delhi - 110001
(Insurer) .......... Respondents
Date of Institution : 14.09.2011
Arguments heard on : 02.05.2016
Judgment pronounced on : 02.05.2016
Suit No.: 200/2014 Page No. 1 of 18
AWARD
1. This is a claim petition for compensation under Section 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as M. V. Act) filed by parents of the deceased Aakash Nimmi @ Sunny, who died in a vehicular accident on the intervening night of 06/07.06.2011with respect to which FIR No. 161/2011, under Section 279/337 IPC was registered at PS Nangloi and charge sheet under Section 279/304A IPC has been filed against Yusuf Ali, driver of the offending vehicle (Respondent No. 1).
2. Detailed Accident Report (DAR) has been filed by the Investigating Officer alongwith copies of the criminal proceedings including FIR and Charge Sheet.
3. Brief facts of the vehicular accident as averred in the DAR and Claim Petition are that on the intervening night of 06/07.06.2011 at about 01.00 am at Main Rohtak Road, near Metro Pillar No. 454, Nangloil, Delhi, deceased Aakash Nimmi @ Sunny was travelling in the Canter bearing Registration No. UA07C7559, driven by Yusuf Ali (Respondent No. 1), who banged the Canter on the back side of a Truck bearing Registration No. DL1GB2800 parked on the road side due to technical fault, with back side indicators on, bounded by the stones to demarcate and tree branches hung on its back side to indicate to the traffic moving on the road. Besides, the driver of the parked truck was guiding the traffic to pass aside the parked truck. Allegedly, the Canter was driven at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner by its driver Yusuf Ali (Respondent No. 1) and as a result of the collision, Aakash Nimmi @ Sunny, who was sitting in the cabin of the canter, was seriously injured and succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. Suit No.: 200/2014 Page No. 2 of 18 Ikrammuddin (Respondent No. 2) is the registered owner of the offending vehicle which was insured with ICICI Lombard Insurance Company Limited (Respondent No. 3).
4. Respondents No. 1 & 2 have not filed the written statement despite being given opportunity and therefore their defence was struck off by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 09.12.2011. They subsequently absented from the proceedings.
5. In the written statement filed by ICICI Lombard Insurance Company Limited (Respondent No. 3), it is admitted that the offending vehicle i.e. Canter bearing Registration No. UA07C7559 was insured with the Insurance Company vide Policy No. 3003/58739646/01/000 valid for the period from 15.02.2011 to 14.02.2012, including the date of accident. However, the liability is contested on the ground that the driver was not holding any valid & effective driving license at the time of the accident and that there was no valid permit issued by the competent authority to drive the vehicle in Delhi. It is further claimed that the deceased died due to his own negligence, who was an unauthorized passenger.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, contentions raised and material on record, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 09.12.2011:
1. Whether the deceased Sh. Aakash Nimmi @ Sunny suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 07.06.2011 at about 01.00 hours involving Container bearing No. UA07C7559 driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3? OPP Suit No.: 200/2014 Page No. 3 of 18
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation?
If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
7. Petitioner No. 1 Sh. Surender Kumar, father of the deceased, has examined herself as PW1 and has deposed on affidavit Ex. PW1/A. He has placed on record photocopy of the High School Certificate of the deceased as Ex. PW1/1, photocopy of his Voter Identity Card as Ex. PW1/2, photocopy of the family Ration Card as Ex. PW1/3 and photocopy of Voter Identity Card of the petitioner No. 2 Mukesh, mother of the deceased, as Ex. PW1/X. He has relied on DAR, collectively exhibited as Ex. PW1/4.
PW2 Sh. Fakira is an eye witness.
8. Insurance company has examined two witnesses. R3W1 Sh. Sunanda Nimisha is the Manager (Legal), who has deposed on the affidavit Ex. R3W1/A. He has also relied on DAR (Ex. PW1/4), copy of Registration Certificate of the vehicle (Ex. R3W1/1) and copy of Permit of the vehicle (Ex. R3W1/2) filed alongwith the DAR. He has placed on record copy of the Insurance Policy as Ex. R3W1/3 and Conditions of the Policy as Ex. R3W1/4.
R3W2 Sh. Afaq Sherwani is the Manager (Legal), who has deposed on the affidavit Ex. R3W2/A. He has proved the Legal Notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC given to the respondents No. 1 & 2 as Ex. R3W2/1 and its postal receipts Ex. R3W2/2 to Ex. R3W2/4 respectively.
9. I have heard Sh. S. K. Vashisht, counsel for the petitioners and Sh. Ankit Kalra, counsel for the respondent No. 3 Insurance Company. None Suit No.: 200/2014 Page No. 4 of 18 appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 1 & 2 to address the arguments. I have carefully perused the record.
10. My findings on the issues are as under:
Issue No. 1:
Whether the deceased Sh. Aakash Nimmi @ Sunny suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 07.06.2011 at about 01.00 hours involving Container bearing No. UA07C 7559 driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3? OPP In a claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased for compensation under Section 166 of the M. V. Act, onus is on the petitioners to prove that the deceased suffered fatal injuries in a vehicular accident caused by the wrongful act or negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
11. PW2 Sh. Fakira is an eye witness, who has deposed on the affidavit Ex. PW2/A that at the time of the accident he was also present in the Canter bearing Registration No. UA07C7559, which was driven by Yusuf Ali (Respondent No. 1). The witness deposed that deceased Aakash Nimmi @ Sunny was carrying his goods/kabaad items in the Canter from Meerut to Nangloi, Delhi. He further deposed that the driver was driving the Canter at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which when it reached near Pillar No. 454 at Main Rohtak Road, it collided with the back side of a Truck bearing Registration No. DL1GB2800, which had broken down and was parked on the left side of the road. It has come in his affidavit that due to the impact, the cabin of the vehicle got squeezed and driver alongwith deceased Aakash Nimmi @ Sunny were stuck inside, who were taken out with the help of police and were taken to hospital where Suit No.: 200/2014 Page No. 5 of 18 Aakash Nimmi @ Sunny succumbed to the injuries.
12. In the crossexamination by the counsel for the respondent No. 3 Insurance Company, PW1 Sh. Surender Kumar stated that neither his statement was recorded by the police nor he himself approached the police to give the statement. In reply to a question, he stated that he was sitting on the back side of the Canter over the goods lying therein. He denied the suggestion that he is not an eye witness.
13. It is a settled legal position that while deciding the petition under Section 166 of the M. V. Act, the Claims Tribunal has to decide negligence on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities. Reference in this regard is made to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kaushnumma Begum and Others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, wherein it was held that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of the driver of motor vehicle involved in the accident is of secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable under Section 166 & 140 of the M. V. Act.
14. In this context observation of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287 is also relevant. It was held that if the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record showing the completion of investigation by the police or filing of charge sheet for the offences under Section 279/304A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR in addition to copy of recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are Suit No.: 200/2014 Page No. 6 of 18 sufficient proof to reach at the conclusion in the enquiry proceedings that the driver was negligent. Hon'ble High Court also observed that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and therefore strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this proceedings.
15. This aspect was also considered recently by the High Court of Delhi in a matter titled United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Rinki @ Rinku & Others, MAC App. No. 200/2012 decided on 23.07.2012. The Court held as under:
"The Claims Tribunal was conscious of the fact that negligence is a sine qua non to a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act). It is also true that the proceedings for grant of compen sation under the Act are neither governed by the criminal procedures nor are a civil suit. A reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court Bimla Devi and Ors. vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors, (2009) 13 SC 530 where it was held as under:
15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of any accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimant. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
16. Besides the testimony of eye witness PW2 Sh. Fakira, DAR filed on record includes the copies of the FIR, charge sheet, site plan, MLC & Postmortem Report of the deceased Aakash Nimmi @ Sunny, driving license of driver of the offending vehicle and Mechanical Inspection Reports of the two vehicles involved in the accident. These documents are admissible in evidence and presumed to be correct as per Rule 7 of the Motor Accidents Suit No.: 200/2014 Page No. 7 of 18 Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008, till proved to be contrary. The criminal proceedings have not been controverted or disputed by any of the respondents.
17. As per the criminal proceedings, FIR was registered on the statement of Sh. Tej Narayan, driver of the Truck bearing Registration No. DL1GB2800, who had parked the truck on the road side after it was broken down and was present at the spot. As per contents of the FIR he had taken all precautions with respect to the parked truck in the given circumstances.
18. Spot of the accident is shown in the Site Plan as MarkA, where the truck was parked, which is the extreme left side of the road. It has clearly come in the FIR that the driver of the parked truck had switched on the back side indicators of the truck, had bounded the area with stones and had also hung tree branches on its back side to ward off the moving traffic. Rather, he himself was present at the spot to guide the traffic. All these facts have not been controverted or rebutted by any of the respondents and have gone unrebutted. The impact and collision was so forceful that the cabin of the Canter was squeezed and the occupants had to be taken out with great effort.
19. The Mechanical Inspection Reports of the two vehicles involved in the accident filed on record show fresh damage on the front body/cabin and front wind screen of Canter bearing Registration No. UA07C7559, whereas the Truck bearing Registration No. DL1GB2800 had fresh damage on the rear side of the body, which corroborates the testimony of eye witness PW2 Sh. Fakira about the manner of the collision between the two vehicles and has gone unrebutted.
Suit No.: 200/2014 Page No. 8 of 18
20. Copy of the criminal proceedings on record are sufficient to establish gross negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle irrespective of the independent testimony of eye witness PW1 Sh. Surender Kumar, whose testimony could not be shaken in the crossexamination. Just because he has not been cited as an eye witness in the charge sheet by the police, is no ground to discredit his testimony until and unless there is independent cogent material to suggest contrary.
21. According to the Postmortem Report of deceased Aakash Nimmi @ Sunny from Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, cause of death was due to hemorrhage & shock consequent upon blunt force impact to abdomen and chest, which could be possible consequent to Road Traffic Accident.
22. On the basis of material on record, above observations and discussion, I hold that the accident involving Canter bearing Registration No. UA07C 7559, took place due to rash and negligent driving of its driver Yusuf Ali (Respondent No. 1) and further that deceased Aakash Nimmi @ Sunny, who was a passenger in the Canter suffered fatal injuries in this accident.
Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
23. Finding on Issue No. 2 :
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
Since, Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners, they are entitled for compensation.
Suit No.: 200/2014 Page No. 9 of 18
24. In Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down general principals for computation of compensation in death cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:
18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:
(a) age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependents.
This issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:
1. additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
2. the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and
3. the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.
If these determinations are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the Insurance Companies to settle accident claims without delay.
19. To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well settled steps:
Step1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand. Step2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multiplier with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased. Step3 (Actual Calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the 'loss of dependency' to the family. Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/ to Rs. 10,000/ may be added as loss of estates. Where the deceased is Suit No.: 200/2014 Page No. 10 of 18 survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/ to Rs. 10,000/ should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased. The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and the cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also be added.
Age of the deceased
25. PW1 Sh. Surender Kumar, father of the deceased has placed on record High School Certificate of the deceased as Ex. PW1/1, according to which his Date of Birth is 28.08.1993. This certificate has also been verified by the IO and filed alongwith the DAR. This document has not been controverted and there is no reason to disbelieve the age of deceased mentioned in this document. The accident took place in the early hours on 07.06.2011. On the basis of High School Certificate, age of the deceased was approximately 18 years on the date of the accident.
Income of the deceased:
26. PW1 Sh. Surender Kumar, father of the deceased, has deposed in the affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that his deceased son was assisting him in the business of scrap and was also independently doing the business of scrap and earning Rs. 10,000/ per month.
27. In the crossexamination by the counsel for the respondent No. 3 Insurance Company, he stated that he does not have any document to show that his deceased son was working as kabariwala. Petitioners have placed on record High School Certificate of the deceased. In these circumstances, income of the deceased can be assessed on the basis of Minimum Wages Rate of a Matriculate prevailing in Delhi on the date of the accident.
Accident took place on 07.06.2011 when the Minimum Wages Rate of a Suit No.: 200/2014 Page No. 11 of 18 Matriculate in Delhi was Rs. 7,826/. Accordingly, annual income of the deceased is assessed as Rs. 93,912/ {(7,826 X 12) (Rupees Ninety Three Thousand Nine Hundred Twelve Only)} Addition in the income towards future prospects:
28. The issue was considered recently by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC. Appeal No. 622/2014 (The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lekharaj @ Lekh Raj & Ors.) decided on 27.01.2016. Relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced for reference:
4. In the case reported as Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, Supreme Court interalia, ruled that the element of future prospects of increase in income will not be granted in cases where the deceased was "self employed" or was working on a "fixed salary". Though this view was affirmed by a bench of three Hon'ble Judges in Resham Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65, on account of divergence of views, as arising from the ruling in Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54, the issue was later referred to a larger bench, interalia, by order dated 02.07.2014 in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pushpa & Ors., (2015) 9 SCC 166.
5. Against the above backdrop, by judgment dated 22.01.2016 passed in MAC Appeal No. 956/2012 Sunil Kumar Vs. Pyar Mohd & Ors., this court has found it proper to follow the view taken earlier by a learned single judge in MAC Appeal No. 189/2014 (HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Lalta Devi & Ors.) decided on 12.01.2015, presently taking the decision in Reshma Kumari (Supra) as the binding precedent, till such time the law on the subject of future prospects for those who are "self employed" or engaged in gainful employment at a "fixed salary" is clarified by a larger bench of the Supreme Court. This applies to the matter at hand because the claimant here pleaded about gainful employment at a fixed salary and has not led any evidence showing the salary was subject to any periodic increase.
29. In the present case, since there is no proof of employment or income of the deceased, no addition can be made towards future prospects in the income Suit No.: 200/2014 Page No. 12 of 18 of the deceased Aakash Nimmi @ Sunny.
Number of dependents:
30. According to the petition, deceased was unmarried. As per the list of LRs filed by the IO alongwith the DAR, deceased is survived by his parents, two sisters and one brother. Petition is filed by the parents of the deceased. It has come in the crossexamination of PW1 Sh. Surender Kumar, father of the deceased, that he is a Scrap Dealer. In these facts and circumstances, petitioner No. 2 Smt. Mukesh, mother of the deceased is the sole dependent LR of the deceased Aakash Nimmi @ Sunny. Deduction towards personal living expenses of the deceased:
31. Since deceased Aakash Nimmi @ Sunny was unmarried at the time of the accident, therefore as per the criteria laid down in Sarla Verma (Supra), ½ (half) of the income of the deceased would be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Therefore, annual contribution to the family by the deceased would be Rs. 46,956/ {(Rs. 93,912/ (annual salary) X ½) which is ascertained as multiplicand.
Selection of multiplier:
32. Deceased was a bachelor, therefore, in view of Vijay Laxmi & Anr. vs. Binod Kumar Yadav & Ors. ILR (2012) 6 DEL 447 and HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited vs. Smt. Lalta Devi & Others (Supra), the multiplier applicable to calculate total loss of dependency shall be as per the age of the mother of the deceased.
33. Voter Card of the petitioner No. 2 Smt. Mukesh, mother of the deceased is filed as Ex. PW1/X, according to which her age was 38 years as on 01.01.2007. Accident took place on 07.06.2011. Accordingly, age of the Suit No.: 200/2014 Page No. 13 of 18 petitioner No. 2 Smt. Mukesh was 42 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable would be 14 as per the criteria laid down in Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others (Supra).
Loss of financial dependency:
34.On the basis of facts of this case and the material on record, total loss of financial dependency of the petitioner would be Rs. 6,57,384/ (Rupees Six Lacs Fifty Seven Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Four Only) {Rs. 46,956/ (multiplicand) X 14 (multiplier)}.
Compensation under nonpecuniary heads:
35. In view of the judgment in Rajesh & Others v. Rajbir Singh & Others (2013) 9 SCC 54, petitioner is also entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lac Only) towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 25,000/ (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards loss of estate.
Computation of compensation:
36. The total compensation is assessed as under:
Sl. No. Heads Amount
1. Loss of financial dependency 6,57,384
2. Loss of Love and Affection 1,00,000
3. Funeral Expenses 25,000
4. Loss of Estate 10,000
Total 7,92,384
Accordingly, total compensation is assessed as Rs. 7,92,384/ (Rupees Seven Lacs Ninety Two Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Four Only). Suit No.: 200/2014 Page No. 14 of 18
Liability:
37. Respondent No 1 Yusuf Ali is liable to pay compensation, being the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Canter bearing Registration No. UA07C7559 as accident took place due to his rash and negligent conduct. Respondent No. 2 Ikrammuddin is vicariously liable for the conduct of the driver, being owner of the offending vehicle.
38. It is admitted by ICICI Lombard Insurance Company Limited (Respondent No. 3) that the offending vehicle i.e. Canter bearing Registration No. UA 07C7559 was duly insured vide Policy No. 3003/58739646/01/000 valid for the period from 15.02.2011 to 14.02.2012, including the date of accident.
Though, statutory defence of Driving License and Permit was taken in the written statement, it was conceded by the counsel for the respondent No. 3 Insurance Company during arguments, by submitting that the documents have been found valid during investigation and have been verified by the IO.
39. However, liability is contested by the respondent Insurance Company on the ground that deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle.
40. As per Seizure Memo of the offending vehicle filed alongwith the DAR, it was loaded with plastic scrap. It has come in the deposition of PW1 Sh. Surender Kumar, father of the deceased that he is a Scrap Dealer and his son was travelling in the Canter alongwith the scrap. Though, he has not placed any document on record to show the purchase of scrap, he offered to produce the document.
Suit No.: 200/2014 Page No. 15 of 18
41. The Seizure Memo of the offending vehicle which mentions the contents of the load in the offending vehicle at the time of the seizure has not been disputed. This corroborates the testimony of PW1 Sh. Surender Kumar, father of the deceased, and defence taken by the Insurance Company about the decessed to be an unauthorised passenger fails in the absence of any independent evidence to controvert the material which shows that deceased was travelling in the Canter as agent of owner of the goods being carried in the vehicle. Therefore, deceased would fall in the category of 'third party' for the purpose of the insurance cover and policy.
42. In view of the above observations and discussion, respondent Insurance Company neither has any statutory defence nor has proved breach of any conditions of the policy. All the three (03) respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. However, since the offending vehicle was duly insured to cover the third party risk, respondent No. 3 Insurance Company is under the statutory liability to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
Relief:
43. On the basis of findings on Issues No. 1 & 2, I award an amount of Rs. 7,92,384/ (Rupees Seven Lacs Ninety Two Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Four Only) as compensation to the petitioners with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the DAR i.e. 14.09.2011 till its realisation.
Suit No.: 200/2014 Page No. 16 of 18 Apportionment:
44.Share of the petitioners in the award amount shall be as under:
Sr. No. Name Relationship with Share in the
the deceased award amount
1. Sh. Surender Kumar Father 20%
2. Smt. Mukesh Mother 80%
Mode of payment and disbursement:
45. Respondent No. 3 Insurance Company shall deposit the award amount within 30 days from the date of Award in the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch, Delhi in the name of the petitioners under intimation to the petitioners and the Tribunal. In default of payment within the prescribed period, respondent No. 3 Insurance Company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. for the period of delay till its realisation.
46. While making the deposit, Insurance Company shall mention the particulars of this case, name of the Tribunal and the date of decision on the back side of the cheque. Insurance Company shall also file copy of the award attested by its responsible officer in the bank at the time of deposit. Insurance Company is further directed to place on record proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice to the petitioner in respect of deposit of the award amount and complete details in respect of calculation of interest etc. in the Tribunal within 30 days with effect from today.
47. In order to avoid the money being frittered away, 50% of the share of Smt. Mukesh (Petitioner No. 2), mother of the deceased, shall be kept in FDR for a period of five (05) years. No loan or advance shall be allowed against the deposit. However, she can withdraw the quarterly interest from Suit No.: 200/2014 Page No. 17 of 18 the deposit.
48. Petitioners shall open accounts in State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch, Delhi. Manager of the Bank shall comply and release the award amount to the petitioners in terms of the Award.
49. Copy of the Award be given to the parties free of cost.
50. Nazir is directed to prepare a separate file for compliance and be put up on 06.06.2016.
51. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Santosh Snehi Mann) on 02.05.2016 Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Suit No.: 200/2014 Page No. 18 of 18