Delhi District Court
Mrs. Mithlesh W/O Late Sh. Krishan Avtar ... vs Sh. Shambhu Nath S/O Sh. Jai Ram on 16 February, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI GURVINDER PAL SINGH
JUDGE,MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL(WEST)
TIS HAZARI COURTS,DELHI
(Suit No. 730/08)
1.Mrs. Mithlesh w/o Late Sh. Krishan Avtar Gupta
2.Mrs. Geeta Devi w/o Sh. Rajender Prasad
3.Mrs. Rekha Devi w/o Sh. Vijay Gupta
4.Mrs. Daya w/o Sh. Naveen Gupta
5.Sh. Yatish Gupta s/o Late Sh. Krishan Avtar Gupta
6.Sh. Rajat Gupta s/o Late Sh. Krishan Avtar Gupta
7. Mrs. Neetu w/o Sh. Raj Kumar
All r/o 313/97, Tulsi Nagar, Inderlok,
New Delhi-110035.
........PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. Sh. Shambhu Nath s/o Sh. Jai Ram
r/o E-126, Resettlement Colony,
Vikas Nagar, New Delhi (Driver)
2. M/s Ashok Transport Service (P) Ltd.
11363, Idgah Road, near Singhara Chowk,
New Delhi (owner)
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
88, Janpath, New Delhi( insurer)
.....RESPONDENTS
Date of filing of the petition : 22/08/07 When reserved for judgment : 02/02/10 Date of final judgment/ award : 16/02/10 2 (Suit No. 731/08) Sh Rajat Gupta s/o Late Sh. Krishan Avtar Gupta R/o 313/97, Tulsi Nagar, Inderlok, New Delhi 110035. ........PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. Sh. Shambhu Nath s/o Sh. Jai Ram r/o E-126, Resettlement Colony, Vikas Nagar, New Delhi (Driver) 2. M/s Ashok Transport Service (P) Ltd. 11363, Idgah Road, near Singhara Chowk, New Delhi (owner) 3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 88, Janpath, New Delhi( insurer) .....RESPONDENTS Date of filing of the petition : 22/08/07 When reserved for judgment : 02/02/10 Date of final judgment/ award : 16/02/10 3 JUDGMENT / AWARD
Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off two claim petitions u/s 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 viz. (1) Mrs. Mithlesh & Ors Vs. Shambhu Nath & Ors, bearing Suit No. 730/08, ; (2) Sh. Rajat Gupta Vs. Sh. Shambhu Nath & Ors, bearing Suit No. 731/08, since these two cases were consolidated vide order dated 10/02/09 by this Tribunal, since they had arisen out of the same accident dated. 04/08/07. The claim petition bearing Suit No. 730/08 was treated as leading case.
2. Brief resume of facts of the claim petitions is that on 04/08/07 at about 9 a.m, petitioner Sh Rajat Gupta was driving motor cycle No. DL-6SP- 1730 having on pillion seat Sh. Krishan Avtar Gupta , his father and now deceased at Metro Railway Station infront of Camp No.4, Service Road, Rohtak Road, Delhi within area of P.S. Nangloi , when a truck No. HR-38K- 4276 came from behind at high speed, driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently and struck against the motor cycle from behind causing injuries on person of petitioner Sh. Rajat Gupta and death of Sh. Krishan Avtar Gupta.
3. The petitioners in Suit No. 730/08 have claimed Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs) as compensation for fatal injuries received by Sh. 4 Krishan Avtar Gupta in the abovesaid road accident.
4. The petitioner in Suit No. 731/08 has claimed Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) as compensation for injuries received by Sh. Rajat Gupta in the abovesaid road accident.
5. Respondents No.1, 2 & 3 in both claim petitions are the driver, owner and insurer respectively of the offending vehicle.
6. Summons were served upon respondents.
7. All the respondents filed the written statements and denied the claim of the petitioners.
8. Respondent No.3/ Insurer has however, admitted the fact that vehicle No. HR-38K-4276 was insured with it vide policy No. 272601/31/2008/991 valid from 30/07/07 to 29/07/08. 5
9. Vide order dated 19/09/08 of my Ld. Predecessor in claim petition bearing Suit No. 730/08, the petitioner No.1 was awarded interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith the interest @ 7.5% per annum form the date of filing the petition till its realization. Following issues were also framed in said cases on 19/09/08 by my Ld. Predecessor
1.Whether the deceased Krishan Avtar Gupta had sustained fatal injuries on 04.08.2007 at about 9 a.m. at Metro Railway Station in front of Camp No.4, Service Road, Rohtak Road, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 Shri Shambhu Nath while driving vehicle i.e. Truck bearing registration No. HR-38K-4276?
2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3.Relief.
10. Vide order dated 09/05/08 in Suit No. 731/08, following issues were also framed by my Ld. Predecessor
1.Whether the petitioner had sustained injuries on 04.08.2007 at about 9.00 a.m, at Metro Railway Station in front of Camp No.4, Service Road, Rohtak Road, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 while driving vehicle No. HR-38 K-4276?
6
2.Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
3.Relief.
11. Petitioner Smt. Mithlesh as PW-1 and Sh. Rajat Gupta as PW-2 are the examined petitioner witnesses.
12. Despite opportunity, no respondent evidence was led.
13. I have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties, perused the record and given my thoughts to the rival contentions put forth. My issue wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1 IN BOTH THE CASES
14. PW-2 Sh. Rajat Gupta testified that on the fateful night he was driving the motor cycle No. DL-6SP-1730 having on his pillion seat his father Sh. Krishan Avtar Gupta. When they reached near Metro Railway Sation in front of camp No.4, Service Road, Rohtak Road, Delhi, at that time a truck No. HR-38-4276 came from behind, driven by respondent No.1 at high speed, rashly and negligently and hit his motor cycle, causing fall of PW-2 and his 7 father. PW-2 sustained injuries. Sh. Krishan Avtar Gupta sustained fatal injuries, resulting in his death.
15. Neither the respondent No.1 stepped into the witness box to testify in contrary to the version of PW-2 nor is there any other evidence on record to disbelieve or discredit the version of PW-2, either in toto or in particular.
16. A driver of a mechanically propelled heavy vehicle is under bounden duty to observe necessary caution for avoiding striking other vehicles, persons, the users of the road ahead. Having failed to observe such necessary care and caution, being oblivious of said duty, respondent No.1 was berserk locomotion since he struck the vehicle of the deceased at the spot causing him fatal injuries and injuries on person of Sh. Rajat Gupta. Respondent No.1 was thus negligent.
17. The version of PW-2 is lent corroboration by the version and information provided in the certified copy of the charge-sheet Ex.C-1 and the 8 Accident Information Report in form-54 wherein the particulars of the driver of the offending vehicle, name of respondent No.1 is written and AIR aforesaid is accompanied by the criminal case documents including FIR No. 632/07 u/s 279/337/304-A IPC, P.S. Nangloi.
18. As per the copy of the post mortem report on the body of the deceased, the cause of death has been opined to be ' shock and coma as a result of multiple injuries consequent to Road side accident'
19. Ld. counsel for insurer argued that since the deceased Sh. Krishan Avtar Gupta was a handicapped person, it was a case of contributory negligence as he himself chose to be the pillion rider, his son Sh Rajat Gupta, PW-2 took him on the scooter at pillion seat though he was not a person fit enough to ride as pillion rider on the scooter.
20. Adverting to the copy of the first information report No. 632/07, P.S. Nangloi, it is mentioned in the report of the first informant Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, the employer of petitioner Sh. Rajat Gupta that Sh. Krishan Avtar Gupta was handicapped from one foot. PW02, son of the deceased in his 9 cross-examination denied the suggestion of his father not having one leg. Be that as it may, mere assertion of the deceased being handicapped from one foot is not a fact, which in itself without any evidence, otherwise contrary on record is sufficient , so as to presume the deceased being not a person fit to ride on the pillion seat of two wheeler scooter. Eyes cannot be shut to the facts brought on record by the material collected by the investigating agency culminating in the charge-sheet that it was the offending truck which had hit two wheeler scooter, driven by PW-2 from behind and such act of striking was the proximate cause of fall of the deceased, the pillion rider of the scooter and PW-2, the scooter driver on road. No act of deceased Sh. Krishan Avtar Gupta has been proved on record to be such an act by which it could even be inferred infer or proved that the deceased or even otherwise his son Sh. Rajat Gupta being in any manner solely or partly responsible for the accident and was being negligent in any manner whatsoever to even presume the case to be of a contributory negligence. The submissions of Ld. counsel do not hold water to cut the quantum of compensation, for which the victims of the road accident in this case are entitled.
21. Above discussion leads me to the conclusion that petitioners have 10 been able to prove that deceased Sh. Krishan Avtar Singh had sustained fatal injuries and Sh. Rajat Gupta sustained grievous injuries due to said rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1. Accordingly, issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. ISSUE NO. 2 IN SUIT NO. 730/08
22. The appropriate method of calculating the compensation in fatal cases is multiplier method. In catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held that in India the multiplier method is appropriate for calculation of compensation. It was so enunciated by their Lordship Wright in "Davies Vs. Powell Duffregn Associated Collieries Ltd" reported in 1942 AC601, that the appropriate method to calculate compensation is the multiplier method. In the cases of 'General Manager, Kerela State Road Transport Corporation, Trivendram Vs Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) & Ors', (1994) 2 SCC 176; ( 2 ) 'Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd. Vs K.I. Bindu & Ors'. (2005) 8SCC 473; (3) 'Gobald Motor Service Ltd. & Anr Vs RMK Veluswami & Ors', AIR 1962 SC 1 and of late, in the case of 'Syed Basheer Ahamad & Ors. V Mohd Jameel and Anr'. in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2009, decided by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06/01/2009, also in the case of ' Smt. Sarla Verma & ors Vs. Delhi 11 Transport Corporation & Anr, reported in III (2009) ACC 708 (SC), decided by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15/04/09, the payment of compensation in lump-sum to legal representatives of deceased by multiplier method has been approved.
23. Starting point for calculating amount of compensation to be paid to dependents of deceased in a motor accident claim is the amount of monthly income which the deceased was earning; then there is an estimate of what was required for his personal and living expenses. The balance will generally be turned into lump sum by taking certain number of years of purchase. The choice of multiplier is ascertained by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant whichever is higher.
THE MULTIPLICAND
24. As per the claim petition, the age of the deceased mentioned is 55 years. In the post mortem report, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 56 years. In the copy of PAN Card the date of birth of deceased is mentioned as 10/02/1951. In the copy of the ration card of deceased, his year of birth is mentioned as 1951. In terms thereof, I take the age of the deceased as 56 years plus as on the date of accident.
12
25. The petitioner witnesses testified that the deceased was Accountant by profession and in private service. These assertions find corroboration from the mention in the first information report,lodged by Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, the employer of deceased, also asserting the deceased being Accountant under him.
26. The deceased was of age 56 years He was an Accountant by profession. The persons engaged in such profession are seen in present society,to be working even in their older age. It can be modestly estimated that the deceased could have actively done the accountant work for at least more that 10 years, had he not expired due to road accident.
27. Petitioners have not placed on record any of document of qualification or monthly earnings of deceased.
28. In absence of any cogent evidence of monthly earnings of the deceased, the monthly income of the deceased is determined on the basis of the minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act by the Delhi 13 Government in the category of an unskilled person, which was Rs. 3516/- on the day of accident.
29. Noting that to neutralize increase in cost of living and price index, minimum wages are increased from time- to-time. Minimum wages tend to increase by 100% every 10 years.
30. It is now well settled that while estimating future loss of income, the Court has to take into account increase in minimum wages due to inflation and rise in price index. [ See (1) K. Narsimha Murthi V. The Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.,reported in 2004 ACJ 1109; (2)Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal, reported in III(2007)ACC 676 and (3) Santosha Devi Vs. Abdul Kareem & ors, in MAC Appeal No.440/2009, decided on 08/10/09 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. R. Midha]
31. Thus, Tribunal has to consider future increase in minimum wages of deceased while awarding compensation to dependents of deceased. 14
32. Benefit of future increase in the income of the deceased is to be given. Thus mean average income of the deceased is determined as Rs. 5274/- per month [{minimum wage+ double the minimum wage} divided by 2] for purpose of computation of compensation in this case.
33. Amongst the petitioners the youngest daughter was of age 24 years viz., petitioner No.7 as on the date of accident. Only petitioner No.6, the son of the deceased was unmarried. The other children of the deceased were married, major. All the four daughters of the deceased viz. petitioners No.2,3,4 &7 were married and settled in their respective matrimonial home. Only petitioner No.1, wife of the deceased was dependent on the earnings of the deceased. Fact remains, since the deceased had four married daughters, it cannot be presumed that deceased would be spending more than 1/3rd on his own expenses, since he had to meet all kinds of expenses arising at various and numerous occasions on visits of the daughters. In view of aforesaid, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, would be one-third (1/3rd ), out of his monthly earnings i.e.,Rs. 1758/-( Rs. 5274/- divided by 3). The loss of monthly dependency to the legal representatives of the deceased accordingly is Rs. 3516/-.(Rs. 5274/- minus 15 Rs. 1758/-).
MULTIPLIER
34. The petitioner No.1, the wife of the deceased was of age 55 years as on the date of accident as per the copy of her identity card of Election Commission of India and the copy of her ration card.
35. In terms of law laid in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma(supra) and as per the age 56 years of the deceased, multiplier of 9 (for the age group 56 to 60 years )is being adopted in this case. The total loss of dependency of the petitioners would accordingly be Rs. 3,79,728/- Rs. 3516/ x 12x 9). COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
36. In terms of law laid by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors (Supra), the claimant, the widow of deceased, petitioner No.1 is entitled to sum of Rs. 10,000/- under the head of loss of consortium. COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF ESTATE
37. In terms of law laid by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors (Supra), the claimants are entitled to sum of Rs. 10,000/- under the head of loss of estate.
COMPENSATION TOWARDS FUNERAL EXPENSES 16
38. In view of the law laid by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors (Supra) , the claimants are entitled to Rs. 5,000/- under this head.
COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION.
39. No amount would suffice to compensate the loss of love and affection to petitioners. Yet, relying upon the pronouncements of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. R. Midha in case of ' Rajesh Tyagi & ors Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors as FAO No. 842/2003, orders dated 08/05/09, the claimants, seven in number, are entitled to sum of Rs. 10,000/- each i.e., totalling Rs. 70,000/- as loss of love and affection.
COMPENSATION FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT EXPENSES ON DECEASED BEFORE DEATH
40. The petitioners have placed on record the receipts, Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/3. Total of these bills comes to Rs. 28,000/-. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to a sum of Rs. 28,000/- as compensation for the medical treatment expenses on deceased before death.
41. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation to which the petitioners are entitled to comes as under:-
1. Compensation for Loss of dependency Rs. 3,79,728/- 17
2. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/-
3. Compensation for loss of estate Rs. 10,000/-
4. Compensation for funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/-
5. Compensation for loss of love and affection Rs. 70,000/-
6. Compensation for medical treatment expenses on deceased before his death Rs. 28,000/-
_____________ Rs. 5,02,728/-
Less Interim Compensation - Rs. 50,000/-
Balance payable sum ______________
Rs. 4,52,728/-
______________
42. In view of the above discussions, Issue No.2 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. Petitioners are, thus, entitled to Rs. 4,52,728/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization from the respondents ISSUE NO.2 IN SUIT NO. 731/08
43. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) as compensation for the injuries sustained by him. Let me now assess the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled to under different heads? Compensation for the expenses incurred on medical treatment.
44. The petitioner has placed on record the medical bills, Ex. PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/8; Ex. PW1/40 to Ex. PW1/45; Ex.PW1/58 to Ex. PW1/61.Total of these bills comes to Rs. 93,113/82 p. rounded off to Rs. 93,114/-. (Totalling 18 done by Sh. Kulbhushan Khurana, Civil Nazir as per directions).The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to sum of Rs. 93,114/- as compensation for his medical expenses.
Compensation for conveyance & Special diet.
45. In terms of the copy of MLC of Action Medical Institute, petitioner Sh. Rajat Gupta, sustained crush injury over left thigh, multiple injuries all over his body and he was admitted there on 04/08/07 till 17/08/07. Petitioner was admitted in Navjeewan Medical Centre from 18/08/07 till 27/08/07 as per Ex. PW1/8. Petitioner sustained compound fracture of femur, tibia as per Ex. PW1/50.
46. Though there is no cogent evidence on record for the money spent by the petitioner for conveyance and special diet, yet considering the period hospitalization of petitioner and nature of injuries a suffered by the petitioner elicited above and treatment papers of petitioner on record, I am of the considered opinion that petitioner must have spent some sum under this head. Petitioner is accordingly entitled for sum of Rs. 15,000/- for expenses incurred on conveyance and special diet.
19Compensation for attendant charges
47. Though there is no cogent evidence on record for the money spent by the petitioner for attendant charges, yet considering the period hospitalization of petitioner and nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner elicited above and treatment papers of petitioner on record, I am of the considered opinion that petitioner must have spent some sum under this head. Petitioner is accordingly entitled for sum of Rs. 8,000/- for expenses incurred on attendant charges.
Compensation for loss of income
48. Petitioner No.2 testified that he was doing business and was an income tax payee. In terms of income tax return, Ex. PW1/1, of assessment year 2006-2007(year ending 31/03/06), the annual income of the petitioner Sh. Rajat Gupta was Rs. 1,00,700/-. The said income tax return was filed on 19/02/07 i.e. prior to accident.
49. In terms of law laid in the cases (1) Delhi Development Authority Vs. Rukmani Bansal & ors, reported in IV(2007) ACC 697; (2) Jasbir Kaur & Ors Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Anr, reported in II(2007) ACC 68 and (3) V. Subbu Lakshmi & Ors Vs. S. Lakshmi & Anr, reported in I(2008) ACC 851(SC), the 20 income-tax returns filed prior to the accident are to be relied upon and those filed later to the accident are not to be relied upon for assessing the income of the deceased or the injured, the victim of the road accident.
50. In terms of the aforesaid, income-tax return of the injured, his monthly earnings would be Rs. 8391/67 p. ( Rs. 1,00,700/- divided by 12), rounded off to Rs. 8400/-.
51. Though there is no document placed on record by the petitioner for any bed rest advised by the doctor and in respect of the period for which the petitioner was not able to do his work on account of which he suffered loss of income, yet considering the nature of injuries of petitioner elicited above, period of his hospitalization, his treatment papers on record elicited above, I am of the opinion that petitioner must have not been able to do work for a period of at least 5 months. Petitioner is according held entitled for Rs. 42,000/-(Rs. 8400/- x 5) as compensation for loss of income Compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life
52. In the present case, keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of 21 the case and the fact that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries, I am of the opinion that sum of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for pain, suffering and loss of amenities of life will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
53. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation to which the petitioner is entitled to comes as under:-
1. Compensation for medical expenses Rs. 93,114/-
2. Compensation for conveyance & special diet charges Rs. 15,000/-
3. Compensation for attendant charges Rs. 8,000/-
4. Compensation for loss of income Rs. 42,000/-
5. Compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life Rs. 30,000/-
_____________ Rs. 1,88,114/-
_____________
54. In view of the above discussions, Issue No.2 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. Petitioner is thus, entitled to Rs. 1,88,114/-as compensation alongwith interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization from the respondents, payable by the insurer.
RELIEF IN SUIT NO. 730/08
55. In view of abovesaid discussion, it is hereby held that the petitioners are entitled to Rs. 4,52,728/- as compensation alongwith interest 22 @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization from the respondents, payable by insurer.
RELIEF IN SUIT NO.731/08
56. In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is hereby held that petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,88,114/- alongwith interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the present petition till its realization from the respondents, payable by insurer.
APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION IN SUIT NO. 730/08
1.Smt. Mithlesh (wife) Rs. 3,80,728/-
2.Mrs. Geeta Devi (married daughter) Rs. 12,000/-
3.Mrs. Rekha Devi (married daughter) Rs. 12,000/-
4.Mrs. Daya (married daughter) Rs. 12,000/-
5.Sh. Yatish Gupta s/o Lt. Sh. Krishan Avtar Gupta (son)Rs. 12,000/-
6.Sh. Rajat Gupta s/o Lt. Sh. Krishan Avtar Gupta(son) Rs. 12,000/-
8. Mrs. Neetu (married daughter) Rs. 12,000/-
Investment of award sum in Suit No. 730/08
57. Since the amount awarded should not be frittered away by beneficiaries owing to the ignorance, illiteracy etc., the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled 'G. M. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas' reported in 1994(2) SCC 176, has laid guidelines pronouncing that in a case of compensation for death, it is appropriate that Tribunals do keep in mind the principles enunciated by this 23 court in 'Union Carbide Corporation Vs. Union of India', 1991(4) SCC 584, in the matter of appropriate investments to safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptible to exploitation. Guidelines inter alia included of investment of share of the claimants in FDRs in nationalized banks with conditions that bank will not permit any loan or advance on the fixed deposits and interest on the amount invested is paid monthly / periodically directly to the claimant and such investment may be made in more than one fixed deposit. In case of any exigency, claimants are at liberty to apply to Tribunal for withdrawal of such investment.
58. In terms thereof, out of the award amount, 50% amount of petitioner No. 1 be invested in shape of two FDRs of equal (almost) in the name of the said claimant/ petitioner for a period of 7 years in State Bank of India. The FDRs shall have no facility of loan or advance. Petitioner No.1 can withdraw the interest monthly. However, petitioner/claimant is at liberty to take steps for premature encashment in case of exigency, as per law laid before this Tribunal.
59. State Bank of India,Tis Hazari, has agreed to open Special Fixed 24 Deposit Accounts for the victims of road accidents.
60. Aforesaid fixed deposits are to be made by State Bank of India, Tis Hazari in the following manner:-
(1) The State Bank of India,Tis Hazari, shall open separate Savings Account in the name of claimant and the entire interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits be credited in the said account.
(2) The interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits shall be paid monthly by automatic credit of interest in the Savings Account. (3) Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to the claimant after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card /Pass Book with attested photograph to claim to facilitate her identity.
(4) No cheque book be issued to the claimant without the permission of this Court.
(5) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
(6) The original FDRs shall be retained by the Bank in the Safe 25 custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the claimant alongwith the photocopy of the FDRs. (7) The original Fixed Deposit Receipts shall be handed over to the claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period. (8) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said FDRs without the permission of this Court. (9) On the request of the claimant, the Bank shall transfer the Saving Account to any other branch of State Bank of India according to the convenience of the claimant.
61. Respondent No.3, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to deposit the cheques in the names of the petitioners/claimants within 30 days.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court (Gurvinder Pal Singh)
today i.e. 16/02/10 Judge, MACT(West)
Delhi.