Delhi District Court
Haripal & Anr. vs . Nirmal Singh & Ors. on 3 October, 2018
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, PO : MACT (SOUTHWEST
DISTRICT), DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
MACP No. : 1355/16
Haripal & Anr. Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors.
CNR No. DLSW010011942014
1. Haripal
S/o Sh Trimal
2. Smt. Ramkhilauna
W/o Sh. Hari Pal
Both Residents of :
WZ800A,
Badiyal Mohalla,
Palam Village,
New Delhi
Permanent Resident of :
H. No.82, Purani Ansh,
Tehsil : Dataganj,
District Badaun ... Petitioners
Vs
1. Sh. Nirmal Singh (Driver)
S/o Sh. Amar Singh
R/o Village Poonda,
Tehsil : Basholi,
District ; Kathua,
Jammu.
2. Nitco Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (Owner)
R/o 18/4, Mathura Road,
Faridabad, Haryana
(MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 1/36
2
3. HDFC ERGO General Insurance
Company Ltd. (Insurer)
6th Floor, Leela Business Park,
AndheriKurla Road,
Andheri (E), Mumbai400059 ... Respondents
MACP No. : 1356/16
Rajeev Kumar Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors.
CNR No.DLSW010011952014
Sh. Rajiv Kumar
S/o Sh. Mahendrapal
R/o WZ800A,
Badiyal Mohalla,
Palam Village,
New Delhi
Permanent resident of
H. No. 39, Ahmadganj,
PS Usawan, Tehsil : Dataganj
District :Badaun (UP) ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Sh. Nirmal Singh (Driver)
S/o Sh. Amar Singh
R/o Village Poonda,
Tehsil : Basholi,
District ; Kathua,
Jammu.
2. Nitco Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (Owner)
R/o 18/4, Mathura Road,
Faridabad, Haryana
(MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 2/36
3
3. HDFC ERGO General Insurance
Company Ltd. (Insurer)
6th Floor, Leela Business Park,
AndheriKurla Road,
Andheri (E), Mumbai400059 ... Respondents
Date of institution of MACP No. 1355/16 28.05.2014
Date of institution of MACP No. 1356/16 28.05.2014
Date on which, judgment have been reserved11.09.2018
Date of pronouncement of judgment 03.10.2018
JUDGMENT:
The present claim petition (bearing MACP No. 1355/16) has been filed on behalf of petitioners Hari Pal & Anr. against respondent Nirmal Singh & Ors for grant of compensation in respect of death of Sh. Pitesh @ Hitesh caused in the road traffic accident on 04.04.2014.
The connected claim petition (bearing MACP No. 1356/16) has been filed on behalf of petitioner/injured Rajiv Kumar against respondents Nirmal Singh & Ors for grant of compensation qua the injuries sustained by him in the same road accident.
2. Brief facts as made out from the abovesaid petitions are that Sh. Pitesh @ Hitesh (since deceased) alongwith Nand Lal and Rajiv Kumar were coming from Maneswar towards Delhi by truck bearing no. DL 1M 4988 and said truck was being driven by Rajeev Kumar and when they reached Atlas Chowk, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, another truck Eicher bearing no. HR 55J 2806, which was moving ahead of their vehicle, suddenly stopped due to failure of excels and as a result of which, the victim's truck hit the said truck. It is further stated that driver of the abovesaid truck (MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 3/36 4 as well as driver of the victim's truck were standing on the road side, when suddenly the offending vehicle bearing no. HR 38 S 9138 came from IFCO chowk, Gurgaon side at a very high speed and being driven in a negligent manner and hit the above said victim's truck DL 1M 4988 from back side and as a result of the same, Pitesh @ Hitesh and Rajiv Kumar sustained injuries and were taken to the hospital, where Pitesh @ Hitesh was declared brought dead by the doctor. It is stated that accident took place due to negligence of respondent no. 1, who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. It is further stated that respondent no. 2, being the owner and respondent no. 3 being the insurer of the offending vehicle were liable to pay compensation and it has been prayed in petition bearing MACP no. 1355/16 that an award for a sum of Rs.25 lacs may be passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents and in the petition bearing MACP no. 1356/16, it has been prayed that an award for a sum of Rs.35 lacs may be passed in favour of the petitioner/ injured - Rajiv Kumar and against the respondents
3. WS has been filed on behalf of R2 Nitco Logistics Pvt. Ltd, (owner of the offending vehicle) and therein it has been stated that contents of petition are false, fabricated and manipulated and it has been filed by the petitioners for grabbing compensation amount from the respondent on the basis of false implication in the FIR. It is further stated that the offending vehicle, registered in the name of R2, was insured with R3 /Insurance company on the alleged day of accident and liability, if any was of respondent no. 3/ insurance company.
Further, in reply on merits, contents of para 1 to 4 and 8 to 14, 17 & 18 of the petitions are stated to be matter of record. Contents of remaining para have been denied on behalf of R2 and it has been prayed that the present petitions filed on behalf of the petitioners may be dismissed with cost.
(MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 4/36 5
4. WS to the present claim petition has also been filed on behalf of R3/ HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd., wherein it has been stated that the liability of R3/ insurance company , if any, shall be subject to term and conditions and exception and limitation of the insurance policy. It is further stated that respondent insurance company has no knowledge about the accident and there was no compliance of section 134 ( C ) of MV Act. It is also stated that accident took place due to negligence of drivers of vehicles no. HR 55J 2806 and DL 1M 4988 and insurers of the said vehicles were liable to pay compensation in the present case.
Further, in parawise reply, contents of para 1 to 5, 10 to 17 of the petitions are denied for want of knowledge and contents of para 8, 9, 18 and 24 to 26 are stated to be matter of record. Contents of remaining paras of the petition have been denied on behalf of R3/ insurance company and it has been prayed that the present petition filed on behalf of the petitioners may be dismissed with cost.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that R1 Nirmal Singh (driver of the offending vehicle) has not appeared during trial of this case and he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 09.09.2014 passed by one of the Ld. Predecessors of this court.
6. In the present case, since, common question of law and facts were involved in both these cases/petitions bearing MACP No.1355/16 & MACP No. 1356/16, the common issues were framed and the same were consolidated for the purpose of recording the evidence by treating the case/ bearing MACP No. 1355/16 as "Leading Case" vide order dated 09.09.2014 by one of the Ld. Predecessors of this court.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were (MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 5/36 6 framed in the abovesaid petitions on 09.09.2014 by one of the Ld. Predecessors of this court :
ISSUES :
1. Whether Sh. Pitesh @ Hitesh sustained fatal injuries and Sh.
Rajeev Kumar sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 04.04.2014 due to rash or negligent driving of vehicle no. HR 38S 9138 by R.1 ? ...OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ? ...OPP
3. Relief.
7. In support of their case, petitioners have examined PW1 Dr. Anurag Sharma, SR( Orthopedics ),DDU Hospital and they have also examined PW2 Rajiv Kumar ( petitioner/injured) in MACP No. 1356/16) and PW3 Hari Pal ( petitioner no.1 in MACP No.1355/16) and thereafter, PE was closed on behalf of the petitioners.
8. In the instant cases, perusal of record reveals that no RE have been led on behalf of the respondents and accordingly, RE was closed vide order dated 30.08.2016 passed by Ld Predecessor of this court.
9. I have heard the arguments put forward by Ld. counsels for the petitioners and respondents and have carefully gone through record of the case. I have carefully considered the evidence led by the petitioners in support of their case.
(MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 6/36 7 I have also carefully perused written submissions filed on behalf of the petitioners and R3/ insurance company.
It is pertinent to mentioned here that the arguments have not been addressed in this case on behalf of R1 Nirmal Singh and R2 Nitco Logistics Pvt. Ltd. despite opportunity being given.
10. The issuewise findings are as under :
11. ISSUE No. 1Whether Sh. Pitesh @ Hitesh sustained fatal injuries and Sh. Rajeev Kumar sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 04.04.2014 due to rash or negligent driving of vehicle no. HR 38S 9138 by R.1 ? ...OPP The onus to prove the abovesaid issue no. 1 was upon the petitioners/ injured and in order to discharge the said onus , the petitioners have examined PW2 Rajiv Kumar, who has filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A), wherein it has been stated that Sh. Pitesh @ Hitesh (since deceased) alongwith him and Nand Lal were coming from Maneswar towards Delhi by truck bearing no. DL 1M 4988 and said truck was being driven by him and when they reached Atlas Chowk, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, another truck Eicher bearing no. HR 55J 2806, which was moving ahead of their vehicle, suddenly stopped due to failure of excels and as a result of which, their truck hit the said truck. PW2 further deposed that he as well as driver of the abovesaid truck were standing on the road side, when suddenly the offending vehicle bearing no. HR 38 S 9138 came from IFCO chowk, Gurgaon side at a very high speed and being driven in a negligent manner and hit the abovesaid truck DL 1M 4988 from back side and as a result of the same, he and Pitesh @ Hitesh (MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 7/36 8 sustained injuries and were taken to the hospital, where Pitesh @ Hitesh was declared brought dead by the doctor. PW2 further deposed that a case in this regard was registered vide FIR no. 128/2014 u/s 279/337/304A/427/338 at PS Udyog Vihar. PW2 also deposed that accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1/ driver of the offending vehicle/ truck bearing no. HR 38 S 9138, who was driving the said truck in a very rash and negligent manner and in contravention to traffic rules and regulations and in a very high speed.
The important fact is that the abovesaid witness i.e. PW2 Rajiv Kumar was cross examined by Ld counsels for R2 and R3/ insurance company, but nothing material has come on record which could assail the credibility or trustworthiness of this witness.
In his cross examination by the Ld. counsel for R2, PW2 Rajiv Kumar, PW2 denied the suggestion that he had deliberately not impleaded driver, owner and insurance company of the vehicle bearing no. HR 55J 2806 and owner of insurance company of vehicle bearing no. DL 1N 4988 in order to conceal the facts and manner of the accident.
Further, in his cross examination by the Ld. counsel for R3/ insurance company, PW2 Rajiv Kumar, stated that the road, where the accident took place was four lane and there was demarcation of each lane. PW2 denied the suggestion that he was driving the vehicle in wrong lane. PW2 further denied the suggestion that he had suddenly applied brakes without giving any indication. PW2 denied the suggestion that driver of vehicle bearing no. HR 38 S 9138 was not negligent. PW2 also denied the suggestion that accident took place due to his own negligence or that he was deposing falsely. In these circumstances, nothing material has come on record which could shake the credibility of this witness qua his deposition regarding the manner in which the accident was caused in this case.
(MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 8/36 9 Hence, in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that Pitesh @ Hitesh sustained fatal injuries and died and petitioner/injured Rajiv Kumar sustained injuries in motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing no. HR 38 S 9138, which was being driven by R1 Nirmal Singh, owned by R2 Nitco Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and insured with R3 HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd at the time of accident.
Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners/ injured and against the respondents.12. ISSUE No. 2
Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ? ...OPP The onus to prove the abovesaid issue no. 2 in case bearing MACP No. 1355/16 was upon the petitionersHaripal & Smt. Ram Khilauna and in order to discharge the said onus , the said petitioners have examined PW1 Haripal ( petitioner no.1 in MACP No. 1355/16), who has filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW3/A), wherein it has been stated that he was father of the deceased in the said case and was well conversant with the facts of the case. PW3 deposed that on 04.04.2014 at about 3:30 AM, his son alongwith Nand Lal and driver Rajiv Kumar met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing no. HR 38 S 9138 and in the accident, his son Pitesh @ Hitesh received grievous injuries and was taken to government hospital, Gurgaon, where he was declared dead by the doctors and the case in this regard was registered vide FIR No. 128/2014 at PS (MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 9/36 10 Udyog Vihar, PW3 further deposed that at the time of of accident, his son was doing job of Conductor and was earning Rs.10,000/pm. PW3 has relied upon the documents i.e. school leaving certificate, domicile certificate and postmortem report and he has proved the said documents as Ex. PW1/ 1 to Ex. PW1/3 respectively.
Hence, in view of the above and in view of the material and evidence on record, it is clear that Pitesh @ Hitesh sustained fatal injuries and died in a motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing no. HR 38S 9138, which was being driven by R1 Nirmal Singh, owned by R2 Nitco Logistics Pvt. Ltd and insured with R3/HDFC Ergo General Insurance company Ltd at the time of accident and as such, petitioner Hari Pal & Smt. Ram Khilauna ( parents/Lrs of deceased Pitesh @ Hitesh ) have become entitled to claim compensation for the death of deceased Pitesh @ Hitesh in the said accident.
13. Quantum of compensation payable to the petitioners Haripal & Anr. (MACP No. 1355/16) is ascertained under the following heads:
14. AGE & MULTIPLIER As per his postmortem report and death report, deceased Pitesh @ Hitesh was about 23 years of age at the time of accident on 04.4.2014. Hence, the multiplier of '18' is taken in this case.
15. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY In the present case, in view of the material/evidence on record, it is evident that at the time of accident, the deceased Pitesh @ Hitesh was unmarried and has left behind two LRs i.e. Sh. Hari Pal ( father ) and Smt. Ramkhilauna (MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 10/36 11 ( mother ). In these circumstances, in view of the law/guidelines laid down in the case titled as 'Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. DTC & Anr' [ reported as (2009 )6SCC 121] , 50% of the income of the deceased is liable to be deducted from his total income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.
In view of the above and in view of the material on record, the annual contribution of the deceased to the family multiplied by a multiplier as per above guidelines shall give the loss of dependency to the entire family.
In the instant case, it is being submitted on behalf of the petitioners that at the time of accident, deceased Pitesh @ Hitesh was working as a conductor and was earning Rs.10,000/pm, however no evidence, documentary or otherwise, regarding the said employment or income of the deceased have been brought on record by the petitioners and in absence thereof, the minimum wages prescribed during the relevant period i.e Rs. 8,554/p.m is taken as criteria for calculating the loss of dependency in the instant case: In view of the above, the loss of dependency to the family on account of the death of the deceased Pitesh @ Hitesh can be calculated as under:
a) Income of deceased Pitesh @ Hitesh :Rs. 8,554/ p.m
b) 40% addition towards future prospects : Rs. 3,421/
c) 50% deduction towards on personal and living expenses of deceased. : Rs. 5,987/
d) Monthly loss of dependency (Rs. 8,554/ + Rs. 3,421/ : Rs. 5,988/ Rs 5,987/) (MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 11/36 12
e) Annual loss of dependency to the family due to death of deceased : Rs. 71,856/ (Rs. 5,988/ x 12)
f) Total loss of dependency to the family due to death of deceased ( Rs. 71,856/ x 18) : Rs.12,93,408/ Hence, in view of the above, the total loss of dependency to the family on account of death of the deceased Pitesh @ Hitesh comes to Rs. 12,93,408 / and as such, the petitioners shall be entitled to the said amount i.e Rs. 12,93,408 / (Rupees Twelve Lacs, Ninety Three Thousand, Four Hundred Eight only) as compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'.
16. LOSS OF ESTATE In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as ' National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. ( reported as 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1720), a sum of Rs. 15,000/ is awarded towards the head 'loss of estate'.
17. FUNERAL EXPENSES Further, in terms of the law /guidelines laid down in the case National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi ( supra), a sum of Rs. 15,000/ is awarded to the petitioners towards ' funeral expenses'.
18. The break up of compensation that has been awarded in favour of the petitioners have been tabulated as below : (MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 12/36 13 S. No. HEAD AMOUNT 1 Loss of dependency Rs. 12,93,408 / 2 For funeral expenses Rs.15,000/
3. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/ TOTAL Rs. 13,23,408/ rounded of Rs. 13,24,000/
19. Further, in the instant case, the perusal of the record reveals that an interim award of Rs. 50,000/ has been passed in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 12.4.2016 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court and accordingly, the said amount of interim award i.e Rs 50,000/ is required to be adjusted/deducted from the compensation amount i.e Rs. 13,24,000/ being awarded in this case and as such, the award amount in the instant case comes to Rs.12,74,000/ ( i.e Rs. 13,24,000/ Rs. 50,000/) .
Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 12,74,000/ (Rupees Twelve Lacs Seventy Four Thousand only) is awarded as compensation to the petitioners in the present case .
20. INTEREST In the instant case, there is nothing on record, which could justify the withholding of interest on the award amount. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to award interest @ 9% per annum on the award amount in this case. Hence, the petitioners are awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the abovesaid compensation / (MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 13/36 14 award amount i.e Rs. 12,74,000/ from the date of filing of petition i.e. 28.5.2014 till realization.
21. APPORTIONMENT The abovesaid award amount i.e Rs. 12,74,000/ (Rupees Twelve Lacs, Seventy Four Thousand only) shall be apportioned amongst the LRs of the deceased Pitesh @ Hitesh in the following manner with proportionate interest .
S. No. Name of the petitioner/relation with deceased Amount
1. Petitioner no.1 Sh. Haripal ( father ) Rs.4,00,000/
2. Petitioner no.2 Smt. Ramkhilauna ( mother ) Rs. 8,74,000/ Total Rs. 12,74,000/
22. RELIEF IN MACP No. 1355/16 ( Haripal & Anr. Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors.) Thus in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, an award for a sum of Rs. 12,74,000/ (Rupees Twelve Lacs, Seventy Four Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the petition i.e 28.5.2014 till realization is passed in favour of the petitioners-Haripal & Smt. Ramkhilauna and against the respondents .
23. FORMIVA SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
i) Date of accident : 04.4.2014
ii). Name of the deceased : Sh. Pitesh @ Hitesh (MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 14/36 15
iii). Age of the deceased : 23 years ( at the time of accident)
iv). Occupation of the deceased: conductor
v). Income of the deceased : Rs. 8,554/
vi). Name , age and relationship of legal representative of deceased S.No. Name Age Relation with deceased
(i) Sh. Haripal 55 years Father
(ii) Smt. Ramkhilauna 50 years Mother Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) Rs. 8,554/per month
8. AddFuture Prospects (B) Rs. 3,421/
9. LessPersonal expenses of the deceased (C) Rs. 5,987/
10. Monthly loss of dependency Rs. 5,988/ [ (A+B)C=D]
11. Annual Loss of dependency ( D x12) Rs 71,856/ 12. Multiplier (E) 18
13. Total loss of dependency (D x 12x E=F) Rs. 12,93,408/
14. Medical Expenses (G)
15. Compensation for loss of love and affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of consortium (I) (MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 15/36 16
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs. 15,000/
18. Compensation towards funeral expenses (K) Rs. 15,000/
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 13,23,408/ rounded of (F+G+H+I+J+K=L) Rs. 13,24,000/ Rs. 50,000/ (interim award) = Rs.12,74,000/
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED
21. Interest amount up to the date of award (M) @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 28.5.2014 till realization.
22. Total amount including interest ( L+M) Rs.12,74,000 / + @9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 28.5.2014 till realization.
23. Award amount released As per table given below
24. Award amount kept in FDRs As per table given below
25. Mode of disbursement of the award amount to By credit in the SB Account of the claimant (s) (Clause 29) the petitioners
26. Next Date for compliance of the award. 13.11.2018 ( Clause 31)
24. Further, the statement of petitioner/LRs of the deceased ( in MACP NO. 1355/16) regarding their financial status, needs and liabilities have also been recorded in this case. In view of the said statement of the petitioner / LRs of the (MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 16/36 17 deceased & having regard to facts and circumstances of the present case, the award amount shall be distributed as follows: S.No Name Status Amount of Release Amount of FDR Period of Award Amount Rs. FDR
1. Hari Pal father Rs. 4,00,000/ Rs. 40,000/ Rs. 36,000/ 1 year Rs. 36,000/ 2 years Rs. 36,000/ 3 years Rs. 36,000/ 4 years Rs. 36,000/ 5 years Rs. 36,000/ 6 years Rs. 36,000/ 7 years Rs. 36,000/ 8 years Rs. 36,000/ 9 years Rs. 36,000/ 10 years
2. Smt. Ram mother Rs. 9,24,000/ Rs. 1,24,000/ Rs. 80,000/ 1 year Khilauna Rs. 80,000/ 2 years Rs. 80,000/ 3 years Rs. 80,000/ 4 years Rs. 80,000/ 5 years Rs. 80,000/ 6 years Rs. 80,000/ 7 years Rs. 80,000/ 8 years Rs. 80,000/ 9 years Rs. 80,000/ 10 years
25. The onus to prove the abovesaid issue no. 2 in MACP No. 1356/16 was (MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 17/36 18 upon the petitioner/injured Rajiv Kumar and in order to discharge the said onus, PW2 Rajiv Kumar ( petitioner/injured in MACP No. 1356/16) has filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A), wherein it has been stated that he met with an accident on 04.04.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending truck bearing no. HR 55J 2806 and the case in this regard was registered vide FIR No. 128/2014 at PS Udyog Vihar. PW2 further deposed that after the accident, he remained admitted in the hospital Samvit Healthcare, Gurgaon from 04.04.2014 to 14.04.2014 and due to the injuries sustained in the said accident, his left hand has been imputed and he had to spend Rs.1,64,543/ upon his treatment. PW2 deposed that there was nobody to look after him and he had to hire an attendant for a sum of Rs.6,000/pm. PW2 deposed that he was driver by profession at the time of accident and he was drawing salary of Rs.15,000/pm and was sole bread earner of his family but after the accident, he has lost one of his hands and became handicapped and it was not possible for him to earn his livelihood. PW2 has relied upon the documents i.e. estimate cost of elbow prosthesis, medical bills, treatment record, chargesheet, final report, site plan, MLC, arrest memo, insurance policy, RC of offending vehicle and DL of R1 and has proved the said documents as Ex. PW2/A to Ex. PW2/12 respectively.
Hence, in view of the above and in view of the material and evidence record, it is clear that petitioner/injured Rajiv Kumar sustained injuries in motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle no. HR38S 9138 which was being driven by R1Nirmal Singh, owned by R2 Nitco Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and insured with R3/HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd at the time of accident and as such, petitioner/injured Rajiv Kumar has become entitled to claim compensation for the injuries caused to him in the abovesaid accident.
(MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 18/36 19 Quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner/injured Rajiv Kumar (MACP No. 1356/16) is ascertained under the following heads:
26. NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURIES As per the medical treatment record, petitioner/injured Rajiv Kumar is a case of above elbow amputation left side.
Further as per Disability Certificate No. F.1 (1)/DDU/MB/2014/7048 dated 10.10.2014 issued by DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi the petitioner/ injured Rajiv Kumar is a case of above elbow amputation left side and he has permanent physical disability of 80% in relation to left upper limb.
27. MEDICINES & TREATMENT In the present case, as per record, the petitioner/injured Rajiv Kumar has undergone treatment at Samvit Health Care, Gurgaon.
In the instant case, petitioner/injured - Rajiv Kumar ( PW2) deposed that after accident he was taken to Samvit Health Care, Gurgaon , where he remained admitted from 04.4.2014 to 14.4.2014 and was operated upon and also got treatment for the injuries received in the accident. Further, in regard to the treatment undergone by him , PW1 has placed on record the medical bills, Ex. PW2/2 ( colly.) amounting to Rs. 1,30,000/. There is no reason to doubt the said bills, Ex. PW2/2 ( colly.). In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner/injured is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,30,000/ and accordingly, the petitioner/ injured Rajiv Kumar is awarded the said amount i.e Rs. 1,30,000/ ( Rupees One Lakh, Thirty Thousand Only ) towards medicines and medical treatment.
(MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 19/36 20
28. CONVEYANCE & SPECIAL DIET In the present case, as per the medical treatment record, petitioner/ injured Rajiv Kumar is a case of above elbow amputation left side. In these circumstances, the petitioner/injured must have visited the hospital / doctors for his treatment and would also have required special diet for certain period to recover from the injuries sustained in the accident.
It is being submitted on behalf of the petitioner/injured that he has spent Rs. 25,000/ on conveyance and Rs. 35,000/ on special diet, however no evidence, documentary or otherwise, in this regard has been brought on record on behalf of the petitioner/ injured . Further, it is pertinent to note that from the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner/injured has suffered 80% permanent physical disability in relation to left upper limb due to the injuries sustained in the accident in this case.
Hence, in view of the above and in view of the material on record, petitioner/ injured is entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/ (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards conveyance. Further, in view of the injuries suffered by him, the petitioner/ injured must have needed special diet for a certain period to have a fast and proper recovery. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner/injured is also awarded Rs. 25,000/ ( Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) towards expenses for special diet.
29. LOSS OF INCOME In the present case, the petitioner/injured stated that he was working as a driver and was earning Rs.15,000/ p.m at the time of accident, however, no documentary evidence in this regard has been placed on record and in absence thereof, the minimum wages during the relevant period i.e Rs. 8,554/ p.m is (MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 20/36 21 taken as criteria for calculating the loss of income to the petitioner/injured.
In the instant case, petitioner/injured has suffered above elbow amputation left side and has remained hospitalized for about ten days . Further, in view of the material on record, it appears that it might have taken about six months for the petitioner/ injured to recover from the said injuries sustained by him in the accident. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 8,554/ x 6= Rs. 51,324/ (Rupees Fifty One Thousand, Three Hundred Twenty Four only) under the head ' Loss of Income'.
30. ATTENDANT CHARGES In the present case, the petitioner/injured has deposed that he has spent a sum of Rs. 24,000/ p.m on attendant, however neither the said attendant have been examined nor any documentary proof regarding the payment being made to the abovesaid attendant have been brought on record by the petitioner /injured in this case.
In the instant case, the perusal of the record reveals that petitioner / injured Rajiv Kumar is a case of above elbow amputation left side and he remained hospitalized for about ten days due to the said injuries sustained by him in the accident. In these circumstances, the petitioner/injured must have required the services of attendant for about six months. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner/injured would have also needed an attendant to look after him, even if the gratuitous services were rendered by the some or the other of this family members. In the case titled as "Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. V. Lalita" (reported as AIR 1981 Delhi 558), it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that a victim cannot be deprived of compensation towards gratuitous services rendered by (MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 21/36 22 some of the family members.
In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner/injured shall be entitled to an amount of Rs. 3,000 X 6 = Rs. 18,000/ (Rupees Eighteen Thousand Only) towards 'Attendant Charges'..
31. PAIN & SUFFERINGS As per the settled law, for assessing the pain & sufferings, the following factors have to be taken into account :
(a) Nature of injury
(b) Parts of body where injuries occurred
(c) Surgeries, if any
(d) Confinement in hospital
(e) Duration of the treatment.
In the instant case, in view of the material/evidence on record, there is no element of doubt that the petitioner/injured has suffered above elbow amputation left side and has remained hospitalized for about ten days due to the said injuries sustained by him. In these circumstances and in view of the law laid down in the case titled as "Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd." (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 564951 of 2012), the petitioner / injured is entitled to compensation on account of pain & suffering due to the accident. The pain and sufferings of petitioner/injured can not be adequately compensated in terms of money however, in view of the facts & circumstances of the present case and in view of the material on record, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ ( Rupees One Lakh only) is awarded to the petitioner towards the head " pain & sufferings".
32. LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE AND AMENITIES The petitioner/injured has claimed that he has suffered the enjoyment of (MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 22/36 23 life and other amenities on account of the accident. The petitioner/injured was about 24 years of age at the time of accident and has suffered above elbow amputation left side and was hospitalized for about ten days due to the said injuries sustained in the accident. In these circumstances and in view of the law laid down vide judgment of Rekha Jain (Supra), the petitioner/injured shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 70,000/ (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) as compensation towards loss of enjoyment of life and amenities. In addition to this, the petitioner/ injured shall also be entitled to a sum of Rs. 30,000/ (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) as compensation for mental and physical shock suffered by him due to the accident in this case.
33. LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME/PROSPECTS In the present case as per medical record, petitioner/injuredRajiv Kumar has suffered above elbow amputation left side in the accident in this case and as per Disability Certificate dated 10.10.2014 (Ex. PW1/1) issued by DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi , the petitioner/injured Rajiv Kumar has 80% permanent physical disability in relation to left upper limb.
In the instant case, petitioner/injuredRajiv Kumar has also examined PW1 Dr. Anurag Sharma, SR ( Orthopedics), DDU Hospital, New Delhi and he has proved the Disability Certificate qua injuredRajiv Kumar as Ex. PW1/1. PW1 also deposed that it may be possible that after implanting the artificial limb, the patient may or may not be able to drive a vehicle. Further, in his cross examination, PW1 admitted that petitioner/injured can do any other work , which involve sitting or other desk work, where involvement of left hand is not required.
Hence, in view of above and in view of the material on record, the functional disability of the petitioner/injured in the instant case can be taken as 50% and qua the income of the petitioner / injured, this comes to approximately (MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 23/36 24 Rs. 4,280/ p.m . In the instant case, the petitioner/injured was about 24 years of age at the time of accident and hence, the multiplier of '18' is to be taken and therefore the loss of future income/prospects comes to Rs. 4,280/ x 12 x 18 = Rs. 9,24,480/ .
Thus, in view of the above, the petitioner/injured Rajiv Kumar shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 9,24,480/ ( Rupees Nine Lacs, Twenty Four Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Only) as compensation under this head.
34. The breakup of compensation that has been awarded to the petitioner/ injuredRajiv Kumar ( MACP No. 1356/16) is tabulated as below : S.No. HEADS AMOUNT (in Rupees) 1 Medicines & Treatment Rs. 1,30,000/
2. Conveyance Rs. 20,000/
3. Special Diet Rs. 25,000/
4. Loss of Income Rs. 51,324/
5. Attendant Rs. 18,000/
6. Pain & Sufferings Rs. 1,00,000/
7. Loss of Enjoyment of Life and Amenities Rs. 70,000/
8. Compensation for mental and physical shock Rs. 30,000/
9. Loss of future income /prospects Rs. 9,24,480/ Total Rs. 13,68,804/rounded of Rs. 13,69,000/
35. Further, in the instant case, the perusal of the record reveals that an interim award of Rs. 25,000/ has been passed in favour of the petitioner/injured Rajiv Kumar vide order dated 12.4.2016 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court and accordingly, the said amount of interim award i.e Rs 25,000/ is required to be adjusted/deducted from the compensation amount i.e Rs. 13,69,000/ being (MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 24/36 25 awarded in this case and as such, the award amount in the instant case comes to Rs.13,44,000/ ( i.e Rs. 13,69,000/ Rs. 25,000/) .
Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 13,44,000/ (Rupees Thirteen Lacs Forty Four Thousand only) is awarded as compensation to the petitioners in the present case .
36. INTEREST In the instant case, there is nothing on record, which could justify the withholding of interest on the award amount. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to award interest @ 9% per annum on the award amount in this case. Hence, the petitioner is awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the abovesaid compensation/ award amount i.e Rs. 13,44,000/ from the date of filing of petition i.e. 28.5.2014 till realization.
37. ARTIFICIAL LIMB In the instant case, petitioner/injured has suffered above elbow amputation left side and as per Disability Certificate dated 10.10.2014 (Ex. PW 1/1) issued by DDU Hospital, New Delhi, the petitioner/injured Rajiv Kumar has 80% permanent physical disability in relation to left upper limb. Further, the petitioner/injured has placed on record estimate for prosthetics ( Ex. PW2/1) from Total Prosthetics and Orthotics India Pvt. Ltd., Chhatarpur Hills , Delhi wherein it has been recommended that petitioner/injured would require Lt. Above Elbow Prosthesis with double walled laminated socket with suction valve with steeper myoelectric hand with gloves and mechanical elbow with control cable /harness system for additional suspension and functional comfort.
(MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 25/36 26 As per the abovesaid document ( Ex. PW2/1), the estimate cost /price for the abovesaid prosthetics system qua petitioner/injured Rajiv Kumar would be Rs. 5,90,000/ . In these circumstances and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case and in view of his physical/ medical condition, the petitioner/injured Rajiv Kumar shall be entitled to the abovesaid amount i.e Rs. 5,90,000/ (Rupees Five Lacs, Ninety Thousand only) for the implantation of afore said artificial limb ( Elbow Prosthesis ).
38. RELIEF IN MACP No. 1356/16 ( Rajiv Kumar Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors.) Thus in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, an award for a sum of Rs. 13,44,000// (Rupees Thirteen Lacs, Forty Four Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the petition i.e 28.5.2014 till realization is passed in favour of the petitioner/injured-Rajiv Kumar and against the respondents.
Further, petitioner / injured shall also be entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,90,000/ ( Rupees Five Lacs, Ninety Thousand only) towards cost/expenses for implantation of Artificial Limb ( Elbow Prosthesis).
39. FORMIVB SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
i) Date of accident : 04.4.2014
ii). Name of the injured : Rajiv Kumar
iii). Age of the injured : 24 years ( at the time of accident) (MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 26/36 27
iv). Occupation of the injured : Driver (at the time of accident)
v). Income of the injured : Rs. 8,554/ p.m
vi). Nature of injury : Grievous
vii). Medical treatment taken : Samvit Health Care, Gurgaon by the injured
viii). Period of hospitalization : About 10 days
ix). Whether any permanent : 80% permanent physical disability in relation to disability?If yes, give details left limb
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 1,30,000/
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 20,000/
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 25,000/
(iv) Cost of attendant Rs 18,000/
(v) Loss of earning capacity
(vi) Loss of income Rs. 51,324/
(vii) Any other loss which may require any
special treatment or aid to the injured for
the rest of his life
12. Non Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and physical Rs. 30,000/
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 1,00,000/
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 70,000/
(iv) Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage prospects
(MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 27/36
28
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, hardships,
disappointment, frustration, mental stress
dejectment and unhappiness in future life
etc.,
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature 80% permanent physical of disability as permanent or temporary disability in relation to left upper limb
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in 50% relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income(Income x % Rs 9,24,480/ Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. Total Compensation Rs. 13,68,804/ rounded of Rs. 13,69,000/ Rs. 25,000/ (interim award) = Rs.13,44,000/
15. INTEREST AWARDED
16. Interest amount up to the date of award @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 28.5.2014 till realization.
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 13,44,000/ + interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 28.5.2014 till realization.
18. Award amount released As per table given below
19. Award amount kept in FDRs As per table given below
20. Mode of disbursement of the award By credit in the SB Account of amount to the claimant(s) (Clause29) the petitioner/injured. 21 Next Date for compliance of the award. 13.11.2018 ( Clause 31) (MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 28/36 29 Further, petitioner / injured shall also be entitled to a sum of Rs.5,90,000/ ( Rupees Five Lacs, Ninety Thousand only) towards cost/expenses for implantation of Artificial Limb ( Elbow Prosthesis).
40. Further, the statement of petitioner/injured Sh.Rajiv Kumar regarding his financial status, needs and liabilities have also been recorded in this case. In view of the said statement of the petitioner/injured and having regard to facts and circumstances of the present case , the award amount shall be distributed as follows: S.No. Name Status Amount of Release Amount of Period of Award Amount in Rs. FDR FDR
1. Rajiv Kumar Injured Rs.13,44,000/ Rs. 1,44,000/ Rs. 1.2 lacs 1 year Rs. 1.2 lacs 2 years Rs. 1.2 lacs 3 years Rs. 1.2 lacs 4 years Rs. 1.2 lacs 5 years Rs. 1.2 lacs 6 years Rs. 1.2 lacs 7 years Rs. 1.2 lacs 8 years Rs. 1.2 lacs 9 years Rs. 1.2 lacs 10 years
2. Artificial Limb Rs. 5,90,000. Petitioner/injured may get released the said (Elbow Prosthesis) amount of Rs. 5.9 lacs as and when he opts for implantation of Elbow Prosthesis.
Meanwhile the said amount be kept in the form of FDR for one year with automatic renewal.
(MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 29/36 30
41. LIABILITY ( In both the cases bearing MACP No. 1355/16 & MACP No. 1356/16) The offending vehicle bearing no. HR 38S9138 was being driven by respondent No. 1Nirmal Singh , owned by respondent no. 2Nitco Logistics Pvt.Ltd. and was insured with respondent no.3/ HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd at the time of accident and as such, respondent no. 3/ HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd being the 'principal tort feasor', is liable to pay the awarded amount in both these cases bearing MACP No. 1355/16 & MACP No. 1356/16).
Further in the present case, it is being submitted on behalf of the R3/ Insurance company that R1 Nirmal Singh (driver of the offending vehicle) was not holding any valid driving licence at the time of accident as was evident from the report/information dated 07.7.2014 of District Transport Officer, Tuensang, Nagaland and as such , it is being requested on behalf of R3/Insurance company that it may be given right to recover the awarded amount from R1 Nirmal Singh (driver) and R2 Nitco Logistics Pvt. Ltd. ( owner of offending vehicle) .
In the instant case, the perusal of the record reveals that report/ information qua verification of driving licence from District Transport Officer , Tuensang, Nagaland has been filed and in the said report dated 07.7.2014, it has been stated that driving licence no. N19403/08 was not issued by the said office i.e Office of District Transport Officer, Tuensang, Nagaland, which implies that the driving licence produced by R1 Nirmal Singh (driver) was not a valid or genuine licence.
In addition to above, the perusal of the record reveals that the route permit and fitness certificate qua the offending vehicle ( truck ) bearing no. HR38S9138 have also not been filed/proved on record by the R1 ( driver) or R2 ( owner of the offending vehicle).
(MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 30/36 31 Further, it is pertinent to note here that validity or genunity, if any of the driving licence of R1 Nirmal Singh ( driver of the offending vehicle) or availability of route permit or fitness certificate qua the offending vehicle ( truck) bearing no. HR38S9138 could have been brought/proved on record by respondent no.1 Nirmal Singh ( driver) or respondent no.2 Nitco Logistcis Pvt. Ltd. ( owner of offending vehicle), however, they have not led any evidence in this regard despite opportunity being given and in absence thereof , the R3/ HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. shall be entitled to recover the compensation amount (being payable by R3/ Insurance company to petitioners herein in MACP No. 1355/16 & MACP No. 1356/16) from R1 Nirmal Singh and R2 Nitco Logistics Pvt. Ltd., in accordance with law.
Hence, in view of the above, Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly.
42. In both these cases bearing MACP No. 1355/16 & MACP No. 1356/16 , the award amounts shall be deposited /transferred by respondent no. 3/ HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd in the Account No. 37665510911 of 'MACT (SouthWest), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi ' at State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector10, Dwarka New Delhi (IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and MICR Code 110002483) by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS under intimation, with proof of notice to the claimant/petitioners and their counsel, to the Nazir of this court .
43. In MACP No. 1355/16 , petitioner no.1 Sh. Hari Pal has produced the passbook of his SB Account No. 595202010006831 at Union Bank of India, Indra Chowk, Badaun , UP (IFSC Code No. UBIN0559521), wherein it has been endorsed that " No Cheque book & ATM issued ".
It is being requested on behalf of the petitioner no.1 Hari Pal that the (MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 31/36 32 abovesaid cash amount may be transferred to his aforesaid SB Account at Union Bank of Indra, Indira Chhowk, Badaun, UP .
Accordingly, the Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex,Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to transfer the abovesaid cash amount to the abovesaid SB Account No. 595202010006831 of petitioner no.1 Sh. Hari Pal at Union Bank of India, Indra Chhowk, Badaun, UP and to keep the remaining amount in the form of above mentioned FDRs.
Manager, Union Bank of India, Indira Chhowk, Badaun, UP is directed to release the abovesaid cash amount to petitioner no.1 Sh. Hari Pal as per rules, as prayed.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner no.1.
All the original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioner no.1.
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDRs to the petitioner no.1 Sh. Hari Pal without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the petitioner no.1 Sh. Hari Pal.
The abovesaid Union Bank of India, Indra Chowk, Badaun, UP is also directed not to issue any cheque book and / or debit card to the petitioner no.1 and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner no.1 Sh. Hari Pal .
(MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 32/36 33 Union Bank of India, Indra Chhowk, Badaun, UP shall permit account holder i.e petitioner no.1 Sh. Hari Pal withdraw money from her abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form .
44. In MACP No. 1355/16, petitioner no.2 Smt. Ram Khilauna has produced the passbook of her SB Account No. 595202010006834 at Union Bank of Indra Chowk, Badaun , UP (IFSC Code No. UBIN0559521), wherein it has been endorsed that " No Cheque Book & ATM issued ".
It is being requested on behalf of the petitioner no. 2 Smt. Ram Khilauna that the abovesaid cash amount may be transferred to her aforesaid SB Account at Union Bank of Indra Chowk, Badaun , UP .
Accordingly, the Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex,Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to transfer the abovesaid cash amount to the abovesaid SB Account No. 595202010006834 of petitioner no. 2 Smt. Ram Khilauna at Union Bank of Indra Chowk, Badaun , UP and to keep the remaining amount in the form of above mentioned FDRs.
Manager, Union Bank of Indra Chowk, Badaun , UP is directed to release the abovesaid cash amount to petitioner no. 2 Smt. Ram Khilauna as per rules, as prayed.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner no.2.
All the original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioner no.2.
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDRs to the petitioner no. 2 Smt. Ram (MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 33/36 34 Khilauna without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the petitioner no.2 Smt. Ram Khilauna .
The abovesaid Union Bank of Indra Chowk, Badaun , UP is also directed not to issue any cheque book and / or debit card to the petitioner no.2 and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner no. 2 Smt. Ram Khilauna .
Union Bank of Indra Chowk, Badaun , UP shall permit account holder i.e petitioner no. 2 Smt. Ram Khilauna to withdraw money from his abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form .
45. In MACP No. 1356/16 , petitioner/injured - Sh. Rajeev Kumar has produced the passbook of his SB Account No. 36509559602 at SBI, Labhari, Badaun , UP (IFSC Code No. SBIN0009451), wherein it has been endorsed that "
ATM facility & Cheque book facility closed ".
It is being requested on behalf of the petitioner/injuredRajeev Kumar that the abovesaid cash amount may be transferred to his aforesaid SB Account at SBI, Labhari, Badaun , UP.
Accordingly, the Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex,Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to transfer the abovesaid cash amount to the abovesaid SB Account No. 0341000100485424 of petitioner /injured
- Sh. Rajeev Kumar at SBI, Labhari, Badaun , UP and to keep the remaining amount in the form of above mentioned FDRs.
Manager, SBI, Labhari, Badaun , UP is directed to release the abovesaid (MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 34/36 35 cash amount to petitioner/injured Sh. Rajeev Kumar as per rules, as prayed.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner/injured.
All the original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioner/injured.
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDRs to the petitioner/injured - Sh. Rajeev Kumar without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the petitioner/injured - Sh. Rajeev Kumar.
The abovesaid SBI, Labhari, Badaun , UP is also directed not to issue any cheque book and / or debit card to the petitioner no.1 and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner/injured - Sh. Rajeev Kumar .
SBI, Labhari, Badaun , UP shall permit account petitioner /injured - Sh. Rajeev Kumar to withdraw money from his abovesaid saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form .
46. The R3/Insurance company shall inform the petitioners in both the case bearing MACP No.1355/16 & MACP No 1356/16 as well as their counsel through registered post that the award amount is being transferred/ deposited so as to facilitate the petitioners to know about the deposit in the account.
Copy of this award be sent to the concerned Manager, SBI, District (MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 35/36 36 Courts Complex, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi & Manager, Union Bank of India, Indira Chowk, Badaun, UP and Manager, SBI, Labhari, Badaun, UP , for information / compliance.
Copy of this award be also given ''Dasti' to the petitioners/their counsel and Ld. Counsel for the respondent/insurance company.
The main judgment be placed in the file pertaining to the leading/ main case bearing MACP No. 1355/16 and the copy thereof be placed in the file of connected case bearing MACP No. 1356/16 .
Ahlmad is directed to prepare the separate misc. files and put up the same for filing of the compliance report on 13.11.2018.
File be consigned to the record room.
(Announced in the open (Paramjit Singh)
Court on 03.10.2018) PO, MACT (SouthWest District)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
03.10.2018
Digitally
signed by
PARAMJIT
PARAMJIT SINGH
SINGH Date:
2018.10.03
16:06:05
+0530
(MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 36/36
37
(MACP Nos.1355/16 & 1356/16) Haripal and Rajiv Vs. Nirmal Singh & Ors 37/36