Delhi District Court
Satish Kumar vs . Sivanikka Enterprises on 17 April, 2013
Satish Kumar Vs. Sivanikka Enterprises
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJIV JAIN : PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT02
SOUTH DISTT. : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
In Suit No. : 230/12
Unique Case ID : 02403C0395532008
Sh. Satish Kumar
S/o Sh. Lal Mani
R/o H. No. 5/277, Trilokpuri,
Delhi - 110 091 ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s Sivanikka Enterprises
(M/s Indane Sivannika Enterprises)
Through its partner - Ms. Vanita Ghose
W/o Sh. G C Ghosh
At : Road No. 71, Opp. Yamuna Sports Complex,
Vivek Vihar, Delhi - 95 .......... Owner
2. Ram Naresh
S/o Sh. Ram Chander Mandal,
R/o Magra Pur Gode, Post Baaj Patti,
PS Baaj Patti, Distt. Sitamandhi,
Bihar .......... Driver
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
28, 11th Floor, Scope Minar,
North Tower, Laxmi Nagar, Core2,
District Centre, Delhi - 110 092 .......... Insurer
.......Respondents
Suit No. : 230/12 1/26
Satish Kumar Vs. Sivanikka Enterprises
2
Date of Institution : 04.06.2008
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 21.03.2013
Date of pronouncement : 17.04.2013
J U D G M E N T :
1. This Petition U/s 166 & 140 of the M.V. Act, 1988 as amended upto date (hereinafter referred to as Act) has been filed by Satish Kumar for claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/ for the injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 27.06.2007 at about 10.50 PM at Agra Canal Road, near LPG Gas Plant, Madan Pur Khadar, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that on 27.06.2007 evening he and his friend Bhim Sen were going to Meetha Pur from Mayur Vihar PhaseIII to meet their friend in a Maruti car bearing no. DL 3C D 5226. After the crossing of Kalindi Kunj bridge, their car was hit by a truck bearing no. DL 1G B 3455 resulting injuries on the person of Satish Kumar and death of Bhim Sen. It was alleged that the truck was being driven in a manner so rash and negligent. A case was registered vide FIR 487/07 at the police station Sarita Vihar. The car and the truck which was loaded with gas cylinders were seized. The driver of the truck fled away from the spot. The Suit No. : 230/12 2/26 Satish Kumar Vs. Sivanikka Enterprises 3 mechanical inspection of both the vehicles was got conducted. Both, injured and the deceased were taken to the hospital where their MLCs were prepared. Postmortem of the deceased was conducted. Cause of death was opined as shock due to multiple injuries caused by blunt force which could be possible in road traffic accident. The truck was being driven by the respondent no.2 at the time of accident. It was owned by respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no.3. The petitioner Satish Kumar was aged 37 years. He was Proprietor of Neha Cosmetics and used to earn Rs. 25000/ p.m. Due to multiple injuries he remained admitted in AIIMS from 28.06.07 to 30.07.07 and incurred heavy expenditure on his treatment.
3. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents.
4. Respondent no.1 and 3 contested the petition and filed their written statements. Respondent no.1 denied the averments made in the petition however, admitted that it was the registered owner the truck and it was insured with respondent no.3. It was alleged that the respondent no.1 had handed over the truck to Gonu Sahani who had a valid driving license on the date of alleged accident.
Suit No. : 230/12 3/26
Satish Kumar Vs. Sivanikka Enterprises 4
5. Respondent no.3 alleged that the owner and the insurer of the car allegedly involved in the accident have not been impleaded in the petition. However, it admitted that the truck was insured with it vide policy no. 361700/31/06/6300003151 in the name of respondent no.1 for the period from 19.08.06 to 18.08.07.
6. Respondent no.2 did not appear and was proceeded Exparte.
7. From the pleadings, following issues were framed vide order dated 05.07.2012 :
(i) Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in a road accident that took place on 27.06.2007 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no. DL 1G B 3455 by respondent no. 2?
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any
compensation? If so, to what amount and from
whom?
(iii) Relief.
8. Parties were thereafter called upon to substantiate their case by leading their evidence.
Suit No. : 230/12 4/26
Satish Kumar Vs. Sivanikka Enterprises 5
9. The petitioner examined himself as PW1 and Mrs. Nandini Pandey, Record Clerk, Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital as PW2.
10. Respondent no.1 examined Ishan as R1W1. Respondent no.3 examined Sh.
Ramesh Kumar, its Administrative Officer as R3W1.
11. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. counsel Sh. Parmanand for the petitioner, Sh. Sameer Chandra for respondent no.1 and Sh. V K Gupta for the respondent no.3 and perused the record.
12. It is pertinent to mention that the LRs of the deceased Bhim Sen had filed a claim petition bearing no. 280/10 against the respondents for claiming compensation for untimely death of Bhim Sen in the aforesaid accident which was disposed off vide order dated 02.05.12. The petitioner also placed on record its certified copy.
13. My findings on the issues are as under :
I S S U E N O . 1
14. 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 Suit No. : 230/12 5/26 Satish Kumar Vs. Sivanikka Enterprises 6 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 is simply to quantify the compensation which is just rational and reasonable on the basis of inquiry. 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.
15. PW1 has stated that an accident between the car bearing no. DL 2C D 5326 and the truck DL 1G B 3455 loaded with LPG Gas Cylinders had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.2 who after causing the accident ran away from the spot. He stated that he and his friend (deceased) were taken to AIIMS where his friend was declared dead. He placed on record the certified copy of charge sheet Ex.PW1/9. PW1 has stated that his statement Ex.PW1/R1 was recorded by the police on 08.07.07 and he had seen the offending vehicle before the accident from a distance of about 1 ½ km. He denied that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of car by Bhim Sen.
Suit No. : 230/12 6/26
Satish Kumar Vs. Sivanikka Enterprises 7 In the case titled "Rekha K. C. & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd." Suit No. 280/10 this issue was dealt in detail. In that case, eye witness PW2, petitioner herein was examined. He had testified that on 27.06.07 he was going with the deceased in his Maruti car from Mayur Vihar PhaseIII to Meetha Pur. When they reached Kalindi Kunj, by the side of Agra canal, a truck came from the side of Meetha Pur Gas Godown and hit their car. They were on the left side of the road. He became unconscious. The public took him out from the car and removed him to the Hospital. After 810 days, he came to know that Bhim Sen died in the accident. He had stated that they were on the correct side of the road and the accident had occurred due to the fault of the truck driver. He had stated that the road was quite wide and 23 trucks could pass on the road at that time and the truck had come from front. He denied that the car was hit from behind. He had stated that the impact was so high that the car got badly damaged. He denied that no accident took place with the truck or due to hit from behind, the car driver lost the balance of the car and the car rammed into the truck which was coming from the opposite direction or they were drunken at the time of accident or the accident took place due to their own negligence or their car was on the middle of the road not on its side. He had stated that the speed of the truck was higher than that of the car. Suit No. : 230/12 7/26
Satish Kumar Vs. Sivanikka Enterprises 8 The Tribunal had also considered the certified copy of the charge sheet which revealed that when the police reached the spot, the accident had already occurred. They had found the truck and the car in the accidental condition. They had taken the photographs of the spot. IO had recorded the statement of injured/petitioner Satish Kumar, prepared the site plan and the got both the vehicles inspected. He had also given the notice u/s 133 MV Act to the owner of the truck who replied that at the time of accident Ram Naresh was driving the truck and after the accident he managed to escape. Investigation had revealed that Ram Naresh could not be apprehended and he was got declared Proclaimed Offender. The mechanical inspection report of the vehicles showed fresh damages on the front portion of the truck and the car. It was observed that there was nothing on record to indicate that the car was hit from behind due to which it rammed into the truck which was coming from the opposite direction or the car was in the middle of the road or it was being driven by the deceased Bhim Sen rashly or negligently at the time of accident, as alleged, rather the testimony of PW2 was consistent and cogent on the aspect that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by the respondent no.4 (Ram Naresh, respondent no.2 herein) which resulted in the injuries on the person of Satish Kumar, PW2 (petitioner herein) and the death of Bhim Sen. Suit No. : 230/12 8/26
Satish Kumar Vs. Sivanikka Enterprises 9
16. Thus, from the testimony of PW1, certified copy of the charge sheet and the documents placed on record and the observations made by the Tribunal in the case titled "Rekha K.C. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd." petition no. 280/10, it is established that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing no. DL 1G B 3455 by the respondent no.2, owned by respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no.3.
17. Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
I S S U E N O . 2
18. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 10,00,000/ as compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by him. In a road accident a person is entitled to compensation for the pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages.
19. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in R.O. Hattangadi V/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755 that : "Broadly speaking, while fixing the amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas nonpecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages Suit No. : 230/12 9/26 Satish Kumar Vs. Sivanikka Enterprises 10 may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as nonpecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters ie. on account of injury, the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit ; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, ie. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life." Let me assess the compensation which the petitioner is entitled for under different heads.
COMPENSATION FOR EXPENSES INCURRED ON MEDICAL TREATMENT & PHYSIOTHERAPY :
20. PW1 has stated that after the accident he was taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre where he remained admitted from 28.06.07 to 30.07.07. As per the discharge summary he sustained fracture medial condyle (R) femur 3,4,5,6,7 ribs (R) side. Rib fractures were conservatively managed. He was also advised physiotherapy. As per the disability certificate Ex.PW1/4, he sustained 52% disability in relation to his right lower limb nonprogressive. He now walks with the help of stick. He has filed the medical bills of Rs. 41,689.65. Looking into his injuries and the treatment he undergone, I award Suit No. : 230/12 10/26 Satish Kumar Vs. Sivanikka Enterprises 11 Rs. 42,000/ to the petitioner on account of medical expenses. COMPENSATION FOR PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
21. Testimony of PW1 shows that the petitioner sustained fracture medial condyle (R) femur 3,4,5,6,7 ribs (R) side. Rib fractures were conservatively managed. He was advised physiotherapy. As per the disability certificate Ex.PW1/4, he sustained 52% disability in relation to his right lower limb non progressive. He remained admitted in the hospital from 28.06.07 to 30.07.07. He cannot walk freely. The injuries might have given lot of pain and agony. Looking into the injuries and the facts and circumstances of the case, I award Rs. 35,000/ to the petitioner towards pain & sufferings and enjoyment of life.
COMPENSATION FOR SPECIAL DIET, ATTENDANT CHARGES AND CONVEYANCE CHARGES :
22. Testimony of PW1 shows that he sustained multiple fractures. He was advised physiotherapy. He remained admitted in the hospital from 28.06.07 to 30.07.07. He cannot walk freely. He regularly visited the hospital as an OPD patient for a long time. Still he has not been recovered fully and is on Suit No. : 230/12 11/26 Satish Kumar Vs. Sivanikka Enterprises 12 medication. The doctor has opined the injuries grievous. Due to the accident, he could not do his routine functions freely. It is seen that a person who gets injured in a road accident is advised to take protein in his diet to recover from injuries. He would have incurred expenses on conveyance for going to the hospital and taken the assistant of attendant to perform his ordinary pursuits. Taking into consideration his multiple injuries and all the facts, I award Rs. 9,000/ towards special diet, Rs. 9,000/ towards conveyance and Rs. 12,000/ towards attendant charges. COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF INCOME & FUTURE LOSS OF INCOME :
23. Petitioner has stated that at the time of accident he was proprietor of M/s Neha Cosmetics. He used to earn Rs. 25,000/ p.m. He has filed the income tax return to substantiate this fact. Perusal of it reveals that in the year 200506 his income was Rs. 1,10,690/, in the year 200607 it was Rs. 1,18,640/, in the year 200708 it was Rs. 1,30,940/, in the year 200809 Rs. 1,70,390/, in the year 200910 it was Rs. 1,91,200/ and in the year 201011 Rs. 2,04,160/. In his crossexamination he has admitted that his income tax returns show upward trend in the income but he denied that he has not suffered any loss of income due to the accident.
Suit No. : 230/12 12/26
Satish Kumar Vs. Sivanikka Enterprises 13 In the instant case the petitioner after the accident has 52% disability in relation to his right lower limb. He cannot walk freely. He has a business of Cosmetics and Gift items which requires mobility. Had he not sustained injuries due to the accident he would have earned more. I am of the view that due to his injuries and immobility, he had loss of income.
The accident took place on 27.06.07. As per the income tax return, his income in the year 200607 was Rs. 1,18,640/. The injuries were such that he might have remained bed ridden for about six months. He was 37 years of age at the time of accident. He had good prospects to excel in his future. The injuries and physical disability have also affected his business prospects for which he needs be compensated. Keeping in view all these facts, I award Rs. 2,50,000/ as compensation to the injured on account of loss of income and loss of future prospects due to disability. COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF AMENITIES :
24. In the present case the petitioner has a permanent disability of 52% in relation to right lower limb. He had a business of cosmetics and gift items. He was 37 years of age at the time of accident. Due to injuries and disability, he will not be able to participate in normal activities of daily life, talents, interest, hobby etc. I award Rs. 50,000/ to the petitioner towards Loss of Amenities.
Suit No. : 230/12 13/26
Satish Kumar Vs. Sivanikka Enterprises 14
25. Thus, the total compensation awarded in favour of the petitioner is assessed as under :
Medical & Physiotherapy Expenses : Rs. 42,000/
Pain & Sufferings & Enjoyment of Life : Rs. 35,000/
Special Diet, Attendant and Conveyance : Rs. 30,000/
Loss of Income & Future Loss of Income : Rs. 2,50,000/
Loss of Amenities : Rs. 50,000/
============
TOTAL : Rs. 4,07,000/
============
: L I AB I L I T Y :
26. As the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 2 therefore primary liability to compensate the petitioner is that of respondent no. 2. As the offending vehicle was owned by respondent no. 1 therefore, it becomes vicariously liable to compensate the petitioner. It is an admitted position on record that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3. Therefore, respondent no. 3 becomes contractually liable to compensate the petitioner for the above mentioned amount to the extent of liability of the insured.
27. Ld. counsel for the respondent no.3 in his quest to exonerate the insurance company from its liability contended that the respondent no.2 did not have a Suit No. : 230/12 14/26 Satish Kumar Vs. Sivanikka Enterprises 15 valid and effective license to drive the offending vehicle. He relied on the testimony of R3W1. Ld. counsel for the respondent no.1 on the contrary argued that the respondent no.1 had entrusted the truck to Gonu Sahani which fact has also come in the testimony of R1W1 who has placed the judgment of the case titled "Rekha K. C. & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. and Others" Ex.R1W1/2 relating to the same accident. Ld. counsel also placed on record the documents which were relied in the above judgment Ex.R1W1/3 and Ex.R1W1/4 and stated that Gonu Sahani had admitted that he was under the employment of respondent no.2 and on 27.06.07 he was handed over the vehicle as usual by R1, Vanita Ghosh. Since he got an information from his native place that his father has expired, he had to leave Delhi without informing respondent no.1 and before leaving, he handed over the keys of the truck to respondent no.2 to be handed over to respondent no.1. At that time he had parked the truck on the extreme left side of Agra Canal road near LPG plant. He had also seen the license of Ram Naresh which was valid for HMV.
28. I have considered the arguments and perused the file.
29. In the instant case as evident from the charge sheet Ex.PW1/9 the Suit No. : 230/12 15/26 Satish Kumar Vs. Sivanikka Enterprises 16 respondent no.2 who was driving the offending truck at the time of accident could not be apprehended. He was declared Proclaimed Offender. Notice of this claim petition was also given to respondent no.2 but he could not be served. Publication was effected but he did not appear and was proceeded Exparte.
30. R3W1 has stated that a notice U/o 12 R 8 CPC was given to the owner and the driver as mentioned in the criminal record but no reply was received from the respondent no.1. He stated that the owner failed to produce the driving license of Ram Naresh Mandal thus violated the conditions of the insurance policy Ex.R3W1/D.
31. As per the charge sheet Ex.PW1/9, the driver of the offending vehicle after causing the accident fled away from the spot. A notice U/s 133 Motor Vehicle Act was served on Smt. Vanita Ghosh, the Proprietor of respondent no.1 calling her upon to produce the vehicle alongwith the driver who had driven the vehicle at the time of accident. She in response to the notice had stated that at that time Ram Naresh was driving the truck.
It is true that Ram Naresh was driving the truck but from the notice and the reply given by respondent no.1, it cannot be inferred that she had Suit No. : 230/12 16/26 Satish Kumar Vs. Sivanikka Enterprises 17 entrusted the truck to respondent no.2 to drive or that respondent no.2 was the driver on the truck. Record and the judgment/award dated 02.05.12 in the case Rekha K.C. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. would show that on 27.06.07 she had handed over the truck to the valid driving license holder Gonu Sahni after seeing his license which had the endorsement. She had placed on record the copy of license of Gonu Sahni. The owner had also examined Gonu Sahni. He had stated that he had a valid and effective license and it was valid on 27.06.07. He was employed by respondent no.1 on the truck DL 1G B 3455 and on that day he was handed over the truck as usual by the respondent no.1. He had stated that since he got information from his native place that his father has expired, he had to leave Delhi without informing respondent no.1 and before leaving he handed over the keys of the truck to respondent no.2 to be handed over to respondent no.1. At that time he had parked the truck on the extreme left side of Agra Canal road near LPG plant. He had also seen the license of Ram Naresh which was valid for HMV. Respondent no.1 has also placed on record the seizure memo in the case of FIR 460/06 registered at the police station Friends Colony wherein the driving license of Gonu Sahni was seized which also goes to show that Gonu Sahni was the regular driver of the respondent no.1. Suit No. : 230/12 17/26
Satish Kumar Vs. Sivanikka Enterprises 18
32. Further, the respondent no. 1 in its written statement had also taken the plea that the respondent no. 2 was not authorised to drive the alleged vehicle. She had handed over the vehicle to Gonu Sahni after seeing his license.
Thus, from the proceedings and the observations made in the case (supra) it is proved that at the time of accident respondent no.2 was driving the vehicle without the knowledge/consent of the owner of the alleged vehicle. Facts and circumstances and the testimony of the witnesses and record also go to show that the registered owner i.e respondent no. 1 had entrusted the truck to Gonu Sahani and not to the respondent no. 2.
33. It was held in the case of Mohd. Hanif & Anr. Himachal Pradesh State Transport Corporation 1 (2000) ACC 272 that the liability of owner to compensate the victim in an accident due to the negligent driving of his servant is based on the law of tort. Regarding negligence of his servant, the owner is made liable on the basis of vicariously liability. Before the master could be made liable, it is necessary to prove that the servant was acting during the course of his employment and that he was negligent. In the instant case there is nothing to indicate that Gonu Sahani whom the vehicle was entrusted was negligent in driving or he did not have valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. It was held in a case of National Insurance Suit No. : 230/12 18/26 Satish Kumar Vs. Sivanikka Enterprises 19 Company Vs. Swaran Singh & Ors 1 (2004) CLT 1 (SC) that mere absence, fake, invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time are not themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the conditions of policy regarding the use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time.
34. In the case of Skanvia Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Kokila Ben Chandravadan & Ors 1987 ACJ 411, a truck driver left the truck with engine in motion after handing over control of the truck to the cleaner who was not a duly licensed person and the cleaner drove the truck and caused the accident. It was contended that the accident occurred when an unlicensed person was at the wheel and the insurance company would be exonerated from liability. The question arose whether the insurance company of the truck could claim immunity against the obligation to satisfy the award against the insured against the third party risk. It was answered in negative by the Apex Court. It was held that exclusion clause does not exonerate the insurer as the insured had done everything in his power to keep, honour and fulfill the Suit No. : 230/12 19/26 Satish Kumar Vs. Sivanikka Enterprises 20 promise and he is not guilty of a deliberate breach . Unless the insured is at fault and guilty of breach, the insurer cannot escape from its obligation to indemnify the insured. The insured placed the vehicle in charge of a licensed driver, with express or implied mandate to drive himself, it cannot be said that the insured is guilty of any breach.
35. In Sohan Lal Passi Vs. P. Sesh Reddy and Others, reported in 1996 ACJ 1044 it was held that : "12...... As such the insurance company will have to establish that the insured was guilty of an infringement or violation of a promise. The insurer has also to satisfy the Tribunal or the Court that such violation or infringement on the part of the insured was willful. If the insured has taken all precautions by appointing a duly licensed driver to drive the vehicle in question and it has not been established that it was the insured who allowed the vehicle to be driven by a person not duly licensed, then the insurance company cannot repudiate its statutory liability under sub section (1) of Section 96."
36. In the present case also the insured had placed the vehicle in the charge of Gonu Sahani and not with the respondent no. 2 nor there was any express or implied mandate by the respondent no. 1 in favour of respondent no. 2 to drive the offending vehicle. So, it cannot be said that insured was guilty of any breach. Although in the present case, respondent no. 2 was not driving Suit No. : 230/12 20/26 Satish Kumar Vs. Sivanikka Enterprises 21 the offending vehicle with a valid and effective licence but it is also evident from the record that there was no express or implied consent by the respondent no. 1 in favour of respondent no. 2. Thus, it cannot be said to have breached the conditions of the policy.
37. For the foregoing reasons, applying the principles enunciated in the case law Supra, I am of the view that the insurance company of the truck cannot claim immunity against the obligation to satisfy the award against the respondent no. 1 in respect of petitioners risk. Therefore, it is liable to compensate the petitioner and cannot escape from its obligation to indemnify the insured.
38. For the foregoing reasons, the respondent no. 3 is directed to pay compensation to the petitioners within the time given in the award on account of its liability to indemnify the insured i.e respondent no. 1.
39. Issue no. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent no.3.
R E L I E F
40. Petitioners are thus awarded a sum of Rs. 4,07000/ (Rs. Four Lacs Seven Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing Suit No. : 230/12 21/26 Satish Kumar Vs. Sivanikka Enterprises 22 the petition till realization of the amount (excluding the period from 27.03.09 to 20.04.09 and 12.07.10 to 18.10.12).
41. Out of this awarded amount, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ is directed to be deposited in the form of FDR in the name of petitioner for a period of three years.
Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
42. 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.
43. 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 claimants.
44.In consonance to the idea by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to Suit No. : 230/12 22/26 Satish Kumar Vs. Sivanikka Enterprises 23 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 petitioners with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioners.
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).
45. 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 petitioner / claimant 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 claimant / petitioner after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimant / petitioner to facilitate identity.
(iii) No cheque book be issued to claimant / petitioner 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 claimant / petitioner alongwith the photocopy of the FDR's . Suit No. : 230/12 23/26
Satish Kumar Vs. Sivanikka Enterprises 24
(v) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to claimant / petitioner 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.
(viii)On the request of claimant / petitioner, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
(ix) Claimant / petitioner 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.1
46. 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.
47. The Respondent no.3 shall intimate to the claimant / petitioner about its having deposited the cheque in favor of the petitioner in terms of the award, at the address of the petitioner mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate him to withdraw the same.
Suit No. : 230/12 24/26
Satish Kumar Vs. Sivanikka Enterprises 25
48. Copy of this award / judgment be given to the petitioner who is directed to furnish the same to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch for necessary compliance after his having received the notice of the deposit of awarded amount from the Insurance company.
49. The case is fixed for compliance by the insurance company for 17.05.2013.
Announced in the open court
on 17th Day of April, 2013 (SANJIV JAIN )
Presiding Officer : MACTII
South Distt. : Saket Courts
New Delhi : 17.04.2013
Suit No. : 230/12 25/26
Satish Kumar Vs. Sivanikka Enterprises
26
Satish Kumar Vs. M/s Sivanikka Enterprises
Suit No. : 230/12
17.04.2013
Present : None.
Vide separate order of even date an Award of Rs. 4,07,000/ (Rs. Four Lacs Seven Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the petition till the date of realisation of the amount (excluding the period from 27.03.09 to 20.04.09 and 12.07.10 to 18.10.12) is passed in favour of petitioner.
Copy of the award be given to the parties.
The case is fixed for compliance by the insurance company for 17.05.2013.
(SANJIV JAIN ) Presiding Officer : MACTII South Distt. : Saket Courts New Delhi : 17.04.2013 Suit No. : 230/12 26/26