Delhi District Court
Smt. Geeta vs Mamman Khan on 26 February, 2014
Petition No. : 206/13
IN THE COURT OF SH. K S MOHI : PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT
SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
In Petition No. : 206/13
Unique Case ID : 02406C0211902011
1. Smt. Geeta
W/o Late Mukesh ..... Wife
2. Peeyus
S/o Late Mukesh ..... Son
3. Ishant
S/o Late Mukesh ..... Son
4. Mahabir Singhal
S/o Sh. Kishna ..... Father
5. Smt. Bimla
W/o Sh. Mahabir Singhal ..... Mother
All R/o WZ75, Harijan Camp,
80 feet, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi.
(The petitioner no.2 and 3 are minors and being
represented through petitioner no.1, their mother/natural guardian).
..... Petitioners
Versus
1. Mamman Khan
S/o Sh. Sulemani
R/o Vill. Chidwa, Teh.Ramgarh
PS - Nauvgaon, Distt. Alwar,
Rajasthan ..... Driver
2. Ashwani Kumar
S/o Sh. Raj Kumar
R/o Gali no.3, Keshav Nagar
Geeta & Ors. Vs. Mamman Khan & Ors. Page No. 1 of 23
Petition No. : 206/13
Narnaul, Distt. Mahender Garh,
Haryana ..... Owner
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
60, Okhla Industrial Area
New Delhi ..... Insurer
..... Respondents
Date of Institution : 11.08.2011
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 11.02.2014
Date of pronouncement : 26.02.2014
J U D G M E N T :
1. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 08.06.2011 at about 0630 hrs. deceased Mukesh S/o Sh. Mahavir was going on his motorcycle bearing no. DL 10 S 3590 and that when he stopped his motorcycle at Jia Sarai red light, outer Ring Road, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, in the meantime a loaded Dumper bearing no. HR 47 D 0775 being driven by respondent no.1 driver in a rash and negligent and in contravention of rules of traffic, hit the motorcycle of the deceased and ran over his body. As a result, the deceased sustained multiple injuries. He was removed to Trauma Center, AIIMS where doctor declared him brought dead. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 who was the driving the Geeta & Ors. Vs. Mamman Khan & Ors. Page No. 2 of 23 Petition No. : 206/13 Dumper at the time of accident. The Dumper was owned by respondent no. 2 and it was insured with respondent no.3. It is further stated that the deceased at the time of accident was 33 years of age and was doing private service (Karate Coach) and earning Rs. 29,000/ p.m. The petitioner Smt. Geeta widow of the deceased Mukesh alongwith other petitioners has filed the present petition claiming Rs. 1,00,00,000/ as compensation for untimely death of her husband.
2. Notice was sent to the respondents. All the respondents put their appearance in the Court. Respondent no.1 and 2 did not contest the case and accordingly their defence was struck off whereas respondent no.3 filed written statement by taking preliminary objection and interalia that vehicle had no valid permit to ply the vehicle at the place where accident took place. The insured was charge sheeted u/s 66(1)/192A of Motor Vehicles Act as per DAR filed by the IO. On merits the respondent no.3 denied the contents of the petition. Respondent no. 3 however, admitted that the offending vehicle bearing no. HR 47 D 0775 was insured with it vide cover note no. 110001027330 valid for the period from 30.01.11 to 29.01.12.
3. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed vide order dated 02.12.2011 for disposal of the case :
1. Whether deceased suffered fatal injuries in an accident which took Geeta & Ors. Vs. Mamman Khan & Ors. Page No. 3 of 23 Petition No. : 206/13 place on 08.06.2011 at about 0630 hrs. involving vehicle Dumper bearing no. HR 47 D 0775 driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3? ..... OPP.
2. Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents?
3. Relief.
4. Petitioners examined PW1 Sh. Mahavir Singhal, father of the deceased who tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex.PW1/A and also relied upon the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/20. In crossexamination by counsel for insurance he admitted that he was not the eyewitness of the accident. At the time of accident the deceased was taking karate classes in 34 schools vide Ex.PW1/16 to Ex.PW1/18 and was earning Rs. 29,000/ to Rs. 35,000/ p.m. He could not tell if the deceased was filing income tax returns or not.
5. PW2 is Sh. Vijay Prakash Chauhan, who deposed that he was a junior instructor and proved sanction order of the deceased as Ex.PW2/1. He also proved copy of the order dated 13.05.04 Ex.PW2/2, Ex.PW1/18 and also proved attendance register of the deceased Ex.PW2/3. In crossexamination by counsel for the driver and owner he stated the department was not maintaining original register of attendance sheet. He admitted that there was no stamp of department on any of the documents. He proved original bill voucher vide which Mukesh was paid his wages Ex.PW2/A (Colly.) and Geeta & Ors. Vs. Mamman Khan & Ors. Page No. 4 of 23 Petition No. : 206/13 attendance sheet from 14.09.09 to 30.09.09 as Ex.PW2/B. He further stated that training was held only once in a year. The deceased was not a permanent employee in Directorate General of Home Guard and Civil Defence. He was a temporary employee. A specific Court question was put to this witness as to whether the deceased was employee of Directorate General of Home Guards, Govt. of NCT, Delhi. The witness replied that as per record available at Central Training Institute of Directorate General of Home Guards, the deceased had taken classes of self defence training for which he had only being paid honorarium. There was no record of salary or leave as he was not an employee of this Directorate. He proved the certificate of Sh. D S Rawat, Commandant (CTI) dated 30.09.12 as Ex.CW1/A.
6. PW3 is Kamal Kumar Verma who deposed that the deceased Mukesh was the Karate teacher in six schools of Delhi Cantt. Board. He proved his identity card Ex.PW3/A. He was paid honorarium of Rs. 1,000/ p.m. per school. The copy of the letter addressed to the deceased dated 02.07.08 was proved as Ex.PW3/1 and CBR no. 15 dated 22.02.08 as Ex.PW3/2. The deceased was paid Rs. 6,000/ p.m. for six schools from July, 2008 to May, 2011. The copy of the payment details were proved as Ex.PW3/3. In cross examination he stated that he prepared the reports as per the record submitted by the respective school incharge. He denied that the documents Geeta & Ors. Vs. Mamman Khan & Ors. Page No. 5 of 23 Petition No. : 206/13 proved by him are forged and fabricated. He admitted that Ex.PW3/1 to Ex.PW3/3 did not bear stamp of Cantonment Board.
7. The insurance company on the other hand examined R3W1 Sh. Sunil Kumar, Assistant Manager who deposed that he got the permit of the offending vehicle verified from the Licensing Authority, Rewari and as per the report, the permit was valid for Haryana state only and not for other states.
He proved the report Ex.R3W1/1 (Colly.). He was not crossexamined by the petitioners.
8. R3W2 Sh. Navneet Goel, Assistant Manager (Legal) of the insurance company tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex.R3W2/X. He proved the certified copy of the insurance policy Ex.R3W2/1, copy of the permit filed by the investigator Ex.R3W2/2, notice u/o 12 rule 8 CPC sent to owner of the vehicle Ex.R3W2/3 and postal receipts Ex.R3W2/4. He was also not cross examined by the petitioners.
9. I have heard the arguments led by Ld. counsel Ms. Kanta Chaudhary for the petitioners and Sh. Ganesh Pandey for the insurance company.
10. My findings on the issues are as under :
Geeta & Ors. Vs. Mamman Khan & Ors. Page No. 6 of 23
Petition No. : 206/13
I S S U E No. 1
11. It is well settled law that where petition under Section 166 of the Act is instituted, it becomes the duty of the petitioner to establish rash and negligent driving. To prove rash and negligent driving in a petition under Motor Vehicles Act, Tribunal need not go into the technicality because strict rules of procedure and evidence are not followed. Basically, in road accident cases, Tribunal has simply to quantify the compensation which is just rational and reasonable on the basis of enquiry. The proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit. Further, roving enquiry is not required to prove the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver as has been held in Kaushumma Begum and others Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2001 ACJ 421 SC.
12. PW1 has stated that on 08.06.11 at about 0630 hrs. his son namely Mukesh Kumar aged about 33 years, was going on a motorcycle bearing no. DL 10 S 3590 and when he stopped his motorcycle at Jia Sarai Red Light, outer Ring Road, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, all of a sudden a loaded Dumper bearing no. HR 47 D 0775 came at a high speed which was driving by the driver, who is respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner and in contravention of rules of traffic and came in fast speed and hit the motorcycle of his son/deceased with very great force and due to this forceful impact his son/deceased fell down on the road alongwith his motorcycle and the offending vehicle ran Geeta & Ors. Vs. Mamman Khan & Ors. Page No. 7 of 23 Petition No. : 206/13 over his body. He sustained fatal injuries. He was removed to Trauma Center, AIIMS where the doctor declared him brought dead. His postmortem was conducted.
In the instant case the SHO of police station Vasant Vihar has also filed a Detailed Accident Report (DAR), perusal of which shows that the case was registered on the statement of one Rajender Dagar who was doing a morning walk at the place of accident. He also deposed the same facts as stated by PW1 in his evidence. Perusal of site plan also corroborates the testimony of PW1. Mechanical inspection report of both the vehicles shows fresh damages on them. The motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling was hit by the Dumper from behind. Hitting a vehicle from behind perse amounts to negligence. The charge sheet was also filed against the respondent no.1 after the investigation. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death was shock as a result of crush injury of the lower abdomen caused due to blunt force impact. All injuries are antemortem in nature and could be caused due to road traffic accident. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled ''National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pushpa Rana'' reported as 2009 ACJ 287 has held that whenever criminal proceedings are placed on record on completion of investigation by the police, then that in itself is sufficient proof of the negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle involved in the accident.
Geeta & Ors. Vs. Mamman Khan & Ors. Page No. 8 of 23
Petition No. : 206/13
13. For the foregoing discussions, it is established that Mukesh Kumar died of the injuries due to rash and negligent driving of Dumper bearing no. HR 47 D 0775 being driven by the respondent no.1. Documents show that the vehicle was owned by respondent no.2 and it was insured with respondent no.3.
14. Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
I S S U E No. 2
15. It has been held in a catena of judgments that emphasis in cases of personal injury and fatal accident should be on awarding substantial, just and fair compensation and not a token amount. General principle in calculating such sum of compensation, should be so as to put the injured or legal heirs of a deceased in case of fatal accident, in the same position as he would have been, if accident had not taken place. The amount of compensation no doubt cannot bring back the dead but it certainly helps the LR's and dependents to live life with dignity and comfort as they were living during the lifetime of the deceased. The amount of compensation is awarded on the basis of age, the earning capacity and other liabilities of the deceased. The appropriate method of calculating compensation in fatal cases is multiplier method. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments has laid down that in India, the multiplier method is proper for calculation of compensation.
Geeta & Ors. Vs. Mamman Khan & Ors. Page No. 9 of 23
Petition No. : 206/13
16. In order to calculate the amount of compensation, the sum is required to be considered under the various heads :
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY :
17. PW1 has stated that the deceased left behind his widow (wife), two minor children and old aged parents who were totally dependent upon the income of the deceased. He was the only earning member of his family. He stated that at the time of accident, the deceased was giving coaching classes of Karate at different schools and institutions. He was earning Rs. 29,000/ p.m. There is no documentary evidence to hold that deceased Mukesh was a salaried person with Directorate General of Home Guards and Civil Defence. Besides this, the petitioner has not placed on record any other cogent evidence to prove that he worked as a permanent / regular employee with the said department by filing income tax return for the relevant period. It was stated by Sh. D S Rawat Commandant (CTI) vide letter Ex.CW1/A that the deceased had taken classes of Self Defence Training as Guest/Visiting Faculty for which he had only been paid honorarium. There is no record of salary / leave as he was not an employee of the Directorate. In the absence of such evidence the Court is left with the option to switching over to the minimum wages at the time of accident. Admittedly, the petitioner has placed on record two documents Ex.PW1/17 and Ex.PW1/18 which indicate that Mukesh was Higher Secondary pass and as such the deceased is Geeta & Ors. Vs. Mamman Khan & Ors. Page No. 10 of 23 Petition No. : 206/13 treated as a Matriculate. The accident took place on 08.06.2011. The minimum wages of a Matriculate as on the date of accident were Rs. 7,826/ p.m. Thus, the annual salary of the deceased comes to Rs. 93,912/ (Rs. 7,826 x 12). The deceased left behind his wife, two minor sons and old aged parents. In the case of Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. 2013 (6) Scale 563 it was held as under :
Since, the Court in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Manu/SC/0322/2012, actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) Scale 129 and to make it applicable also to the selfemployed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of selfemployed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Additional should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years.
18. In the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh & Ors. MAC App. No. 846/2011 the Hon'ble High Court in its judgment dated 30.09.2013 considered the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 (6) Scale 129, Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Manu/SC/0322/2012, Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Ors. 2013 (5) Scale and Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. 2013 (6) Scale 563, Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vohra Community & Anr. (2005) 2 SCC 673 and Geeta & Ors. Vs. Mamman Khan & Ors. Page No. 11 of 23 Petition No. : 206/13 held as under :
"In view of the above, this Court is guided by the legal principles as set out in Reshma Kumari and Rajesh in order to assess the just compensation as it is envisaged in Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In Reshma Kumar, the Apex Court affirmed the findings of Sarla Verma; and in Rajesh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has agreed with the dictum of Santosh Devi. Specifically, for the assessment of future prospects in respect of the persons falling under the category of selfemployment/fixed wages this court is guided by the dictum laid down in Rajesh. In my considered opinion, there is no contradiction in the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Reshma Kumari and Rajesh.
19. The Hon'ble High Court has also referred the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Raja Ram decided by this Court on 25.08.09 in MAC App. 175/2006 and case of Sajha Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. 2010 ACJ 627 whereby it was held that schedule of minimum wages show wages slightly increases from time to time after every six months; and within next 10 years wages would have become double. Therefore, the increase in the wages has to be taken into consideration while assessing the compensation on account of future prospects. It was held that in view of the dictum laid down in Rajesh (Supra), the Trial Court / Tribunal has rightly added 50% towards future prospects. In that case the petitioner was self employed i.e. an electrician.
20. The petitioners have placed on record the educational certificate of the deceased. As per which he had born on 18.07.1978. The accident took Geeta & Ors. Vs. Mamman Khan & Ors. Page No. 12 of 23 Petition No. : 206/13 place on 08.06.2011. So, as on date of his death, was 33 years of age. So, 50% are to be added to the income of the deceased for computing future prospects. Adding the future prospects, the annual income comes to Rs. 93,912 + 46,956 (50% of Rs. 93,912/) = Rs. 1,40,868/. In the present case there are five dependents. After deducting onefourth towards personal and living expenses, the net income for calculating the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1,05,651/. It was also held in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 (6) Scale 129 that while calculating the dependency, the multiplier is to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased since he was married. Hence, a multiplier of '16' is taken for calculating the loss of dependency. Using the multiplier of '16', the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1,05,651 x 16 = 16,90,416/ which is rounded off to Rs. 16,90,500. I therefore, award Rs. 16,90,500/ to the petitioners towards "Loss of Dependency".
LOVE AND AFFECTION :
21. Petitioners at this stage of their life lost their husband/father/son. The love and care which they could have got from him cannot be measured in terms of money. In view of the law laid down in Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. 2013 (6) Scale 563, I award Rs. 1,00,000/ to the petitioners towards "Love and Affection".
Geeta & Ors. Vs. Mamman Khan & Ors. Page No. 13 of 23 Petition No. : 206/13 LOSS OF CONSORTIUM :
22. It was held in the case "Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. 2013 (6) Scale 563" (Supra) that in legal parlance, consortium is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection etc, the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. It was held that it would only be just and reasonable that the Courts award at least Rs. 1,00,000/ for the loss of consortium. Following the case law (Supra), I award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ to the petitioner no.1 i.e. wife of the deceased towards "Loss of Consortium".
FUNERAL EXPENSES :
23. It was held in the case of "Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. 2013 (6) Scale 563" that the funeral expenses does not mean the fee paid in the Crematorium or fee paid for the use of space in the Cemetery. There are many other expenses in connection with the funeral and if the deceased is follower of any particular religion, there are several religious practices and conventions pursuant to death in a family. All those are quite expense. It will be just, fair and equitable under the head of funeral expenses in the absence of evidence to the contrary for higher expenses, to award at least an amount of Rs. 25,000/. Following the case law (Supra), I award Rs. 25,000/ to the Geeta & Ors. Vs. Mamman Khan & Ors. Page No. 14 of 23 Petition No. : 206/13 claimants towards "Funeral Expenses".
LOSS OF ESTATE :
24. I award a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the petitioners towards "Loss of Estate".
25. The total compensation in favour of the petitioners is calculated as under :
1) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY = Rs. 16,90,500/
2) LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION = Rs. 1,00,000/
3) LOSS OF CONSORTIUM = Rs. 1,00,000/
4) FUNERAL EXPENSES = Rs. 25,000/
5) LOSS OF ESTATE = Rs. 10,000/ ============ Rs. 19,25,500/ Less : Interim award vide order dated 02.12.2011 = Rs. 50,000/ ============ TOTAL = Rs. 18,75,500/ ============ L I A B I L I T Y
26. As the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1 therefore, primary liability to compensate the petitioners remain with that of respondent no. 1. Since the offending vehicle was owned by respondent no. 2 so, he is vicariously liable to compensate the petitioners. It is an admitted position on record that the vehicle was insured with respondent no.3, therefore, respondent no. 3 becomes contractually liable to compensate the petitioners for the above mentioned amount.
Geeta & Ors. Vs. Mamman Khan & Ors. Page No. 15 of 23 Petition No. : 206/13
27. Ld. counsel for the respondent no.3 in order to exonerate the insurance company from its liability contended that the offending vehicle was being driven by the respondent no.1 without a valid permit. In support of his contention he referred the testimony of of R3W1 and R3W2.
28. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
29. R3W1 is the Investigator of the insurance company. He stated that pursuance to the instructions given by the insurance company he has got the permit verified from the Licensing Authority, Rewari, Haryana. As per verification report issued by the authority, the permit is valid for Haryana State only and not valid for other states. He proved his report Ex.R3W1/1. R3W2 Sh. Navneet Goel, Assistant Manager (Legal) of the insurance company has deposed that the respondent no.3 is not liable to pay any compensation as the vehicle was plying without holding valid permit at the time of accident. The insured vehicle was having a permit of Haryana State only but the accident had occurred in the state of New Delhi which is against the Motor Vehicle Act and Rules. It is a breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy also. He proved the permit Ex.R3W2/2. As per which the vehicle had a permit to ply in the state of Haryana only. R3W2 who has brought the policy Ex.R3W2/1 has stated that notice u/o 12 rule 8 CPC Ex.R3W2/3 was issued to the respondent no.1 and 2. So, it is a case of Geeta & Ors. Vs. Mamman Khan & Ors. Page No. 16 of 23 Petition No. : 206/13 violation of permit.
On perusal of the criminal record, I find that the insured was charge sheeted u/s 66(1)/192A of Motor Vehicles Act. No reply has been filed by the owner/insured as to the validity of the permit of the vehicle in question at the time of accident in the area of Delhi. No explanation has come from the side of the owner as to how the vehicle came in the area of Delhi in violation of permit condition.
30. The main plea taken by the insurance company is that the respondent driver was not driving the offending vehicle on authorised route, thus violated the terms and conditions of the permit, so insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. Admittedly, the driver was driving the offending vehicle within the territory of Delhi, whereas the permit was valid for Haryana state only.
31. Now, main issue is that whether on the basis of 'route violation', insurance company can avoid its liability towards the owner/insured. The answer is in negative.
32. In this context it has to be understood that there is lot of difference between route violation and violation of other terms and conditions of the permit. Every violation of terms and condition of the permit does not absolve the Geeta & Ors. Vs. Mamman Khan & Ors. Page No. 17 of 23 Petition No. : 206/13 insurance company from its liability. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled 'Devender Singh Vs. Dukhi Shah MAC App. 496/2009' held that Section 149(2) talks of permit purpose and not of other violations of permit condition. Punjab and Haryana Court in case titled 'National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajender Giri & Ors. 2013 ACJ 1213' held that mere plying of the vehicle in other State in violation of route is no ground for insurance company to avoid its liability. The aforesaid authority becomes crystal clear that violation of route or plying the vehicle on the different route or region is not the breach of statutory provisions as envisaged u/s 149(2) of MV Act. Thus, insurance not able to raise valid statutory defence, hence, liable to indemnify the owner, and not entitled for any recovery right.
33. In view of the observations stated above, insurance company is directed to discharge its liability to pay compensation awarded to the petitioners within the time given in the award.
34. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent no.3.
R E L I E F
35. In view of my findings on issues, I award Rs. 18,75,500/ (Rs. Eighteen Lacs Seventy Five Thousand Five Hundred only) to the petitioners as Geeta & Ors. Vs. Mamman Khan & Ors. Page No. 18 of 23 Petition No. : 206/13 compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petitioner till realisation of the amount.
: RELEASE OF THE AWARDED AMOUNT : In the share of petitioner no. 1 : (Wife of the deceased)
36. A sum of Rs. 10,75,500/ alongwith the proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner no.1 being wife of the deceased.
Out of this awarded amount, a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/ be deposited in the form of FDR in the name of petitioner no.1 in the following phased manner :
1. Rs. 2,00,000/ for a period of 2 years.
2. Rs. 1,50,000/ for a period of 4 years.
3. Rs. 1,50,000/ for a period of 6 years.
4. Rs. 1,50,000/ for a period of 8 years.
5. Rs. 1,50,000/ for a period of 10 years.
In the share of petitioner no. 2 and 3 : (Minor Sons of the deceased)
37. A sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ each alongwith the proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner no.2 and 3 being minor sons of the deceased. This amount shall be kept in form of FDRs till they attain the age of 18 years.
In the share of petitioner no. 4 and 5: (Parents of the deceased)
38. A sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ each alongwith the proportionate interest thereon, is Geeta & Ors. Vs. Mamman Khan & Ors. Page No. 19 of 23 Petition No. : 206/13 awarded to the petitioner no. 4 and 5 being parents of the deceased. Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
39. In terms of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in case titled "Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors." bearing FAO number 842/2003 decided on 08.06.2009, UCO Bank/ State Bank of India has agreed to open a Special Fixed Deposit Account for the victims of road accidents.
40. As per orders of Hon'ble High Court in case titled "New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Ganga Devi & Ors bearing MAC. App. 135/2008" as well as in another case titled as " Union of India V/s Nanisiri" bearing M.A.C. Appeal No. 682/2005 dated 13.01.2010, directions were given to the Claims Tribunal to deposit part of the awarded amount in fixed deposit in a phased manner depending upon the financial status and financial needs of the petitioners.
41. In consonance to the idea by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit / savings account by Hon'ble High Court, Insurance Company is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the claimants with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioners.
Geeta & Ors. Vs. Mamman Khan & Ors. Page No. 20 of 23 Petition No. : 206/13 within a period of 30 days from today, failing which respondent no. 3 Insurance Company shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
42. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "fixed deposit / saving account'' in the following manner:
(i) The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioners /claimants by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank accounts with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
(ii) Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to petitioners /claimants after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to petitioners / claimants to facilitate identity.
(iii) No cheque book be issued to petitioners /claimants without the permission of this Court.
(iv) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the petitioners /claimants alongwith the photocopy of the FDR's .
(v) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to petitioners /claimants at the end of the fixed deposit period.
(vi) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.
(vii)Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court. Geeta & Ors. Vs. Mamman Khan & Ors. Page No. 21 of 23 Petition No. : 206/13
(viii)On the request of petitioners /claimants, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
(ix) Petitioners/Claimants shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT NO. 3
43. Respondent no. 3 is directed to file the compliance report of its having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this Tribunal within a period of 30 days from today.
44. The Respondent no.3 shall intimate to the petitioners about its having deposited the cheques in favor of the petitioners in terms of the award, at the address of the petitioners mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate them to withdraw the same.
45. Copy of this award / judgment be given to the petitioners who are directed to furnish the same to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch for necessary compliance after their having received the notice of the deposit of awarded amount from the Insurance company.
Geeta & Ors. Vs. Mamman Khan & Ors. Page No. 22 of 23 Petition No. : 206/13
46. The case is now fixed for compliance by the insurance company for 26.03.2014.
Announced in the open court
on 26h Day of February, 2014 (K S MOHI)
Presiding Officer : MACT
South Distt. : Saket Courts
New Delhi : 26.02.2014
Geeta & Ors. Vs. Mamman Khan & Ors. Page No. 23 of 23