Delhi District Court
Ms.Geeta Devi W/O Late Sh. Madan Lal vs Sh. Mahender Singh S/O Sh. Kartar Singh on 8 October, 2009
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI GURVINDER PAL SINGH
JUDGE, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL(WEST)
TIS HAZARI COURTS,DELHI
(Suit No. 463/08)
1.Ms.Geeta Devi w/o Late Sh. Madan Lal
2.Ms.Manju w/o Sh. Lavkesh d/o Late Sh.Madan Lal
r/o Bombay Studio,Nehru Road,Talwandi Bhai,
Firozpur, Punjab.
3.Ms.Anju w/o Sh. Vikram d/o Late Sh. Madan Lal
c/o Sanwar Mal Chauhan, Lilgaraon Ka Mohalla,
Safulpur Road, Pillani, Rajasthan.
4.Sh. Sunny s/o Late Sh.Madan Lal
5.Sh. Rameshwar Lal s/o Late Sh.Gangu Ram F/oLate Sh. Madan Lal
r/o Vill & Post Alisar, Distt-Jhunjhnu, Rajasthan.
Petitioner No.1 & 4, R/o B-317, Near Nangloi No.4, near Pappu
Leather Factory, Ambika Enclave, Nihal Vihar, Nangloi-4,Delhi.
...... Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Mahender Singh s/o Sh. Kartar Singh
r/o RZ-C-93, Nihal Vihar, Nangloi, Delhi.
Second Add: C/o Sh. Tej Bhan s/o Sh. Balbir Singh
r/o RZ-C-8, Nihal Vihar, Nangloi, Delhi
Third Add: C/o Dhan Raj r/o A-307, Choukhandi,
Tilak Nagar, Delhi.
2. Sh. Dhan Raj s/o Sh. Ram Narayan r/o-A-307, Choukhandi,
Tilak Nagar, Delhi.
3. Smt. Bhawari Bai w/o Sh. Rameshwar Lal r/o Vill & Post Alisar,
District Jhunjhnu, Rajasthan.
4. Sh. Ramkesh s/o Mata Parshad r/o A-98,
DDA Colony, Choukhandi, Tilak Nagar,
Delhi.
5. Sh. Gagandeep s/o Sh. Paramjeet Singh
r/o 46/9, Mukherji Park Extn, Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi.
6. Sh. Gaurav Uppal r/o WZ-92, Choukhandi Extn,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi.
....... RESPONDENTS
2
Date of filing of the petition : 22/02/2000 When reserved for judgment : 23/09/2009 Date of final judgment/ award : 08/10/2009 JUDGMENT / AWARD
Petitioners have claimed compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-( Rupees Ten Lacs) vide claim petition u/s 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 for fatal injuries sustained by Sh. Madan Lal ( herein after called as 'deceased') on 13/01/2000 at about 8 p.m, while going on bicycle in front of cycle workshop Chandan Vihar when he was hit by motor cycle bearing No. DL-4S-P-6082, driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently at high speed.
2. Respondents No.1 is driver, respondent No.2 is registered owner, respondent No.3 is the mother of the deceased as proforma party, respondents No.4 ,5 & 6 are the subsequent purchasers of the vehicle, sequence-wise. Respondents No. 4,5 & 6 were impleaded as respondents in terms of order dated 27/09/08 of my Ld. Predecessor.
3. Summons were issued to the respondents and respondents were served.
4. For non-appearance, respondents No.1 to 3 were proceeded exparte on 25/08/2000 by my Ld. Predecessor.
3
5. Vide order dated 06/11/2000, petitioners were awarded interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realisation. Also vide orders dated 06/11/2000, following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor.
1. Whether Sh. Madan Lal received fatal injuries due to rash and negligent driving of motor cycle No. DL-4S-P-6082 by its driver Mahender Singh, R-1?
2. To what amount the petitioners are entitled as compensation and from whom?
3. Relief.
6. Vide order dated 09/10/01 of my Ld. Predecessor, application u/o 9 Rule 7 CPC of respondent No.2 was dismissed.
7. Vide order dated 19/11/03 of the Hon'ble High Court in CM(M) No. 658/01 and C.M. No.2669/01, the order dated 09/10/2001 of my Ld. Predecessor was set aside and respondent No.2 was permitted to file written statement.
8. Respondent No.2 filed the written statement through counsel on 12/08/05.
9. Petitioners had examined in petitioner's evidence, initially 4 Constable Inderjeet as PW-1, again Smt Geeta Devi, petitioner as PW-1, H.Ct. Krishan Kumar as PW-2, Sh. Ashok Kumar as PW-3 before my Ld. Predecessor and Sh. Jagdish Kumar was examined as PW-4.
10. For non-appearance, respondents No.2, 4,5 & 6 were proceeded exparte on 29/04/09. In terms of order dated 23/05/09, on application, exparte order against respondent No.2 and respondent No.5 was recalled while counsels for respondents No. 2 & 5 had given in writing in the application for not wanting amendment in the issues nor wanting recalling of petitioner witnesses examined.
11. In the respondent evidence, respondent No.2 examined himself as R2W1 & respondent No.5 examined himself as R5W1.
12. I have heard submissions of Ld. Counsels for the parties, perused the record and given my thoughts to the contentions put forth. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1
13. PW-4 Sh. Jagdish Kumar testified that on the fateful night he was taking a stroll, he saw that his brother-in-law Sh. Madan lal was coming on cycle and on reaching infront of T-4, Chandan Vihar, Cycle Workshop, in the meanwhile a motor cycle No. DL-4SP-6082 came at high speed from the side of Nihal Vihar, driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently and hit 5 Sh. Madan Lal. Consequently Sh. Madan Lal suffered serious injuries,was rushed to RML Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries received.
14. Neither the respondent No.1 stepped into the witness box to testify in contrary to the version of PW-4 nor is there any other evidence on record to disbelieve or discredit the version of PW-4, either in toto or in particular.
15. A driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle is under bounden duty to observe necessary caution for avoiding striking other vehicles, persons, the users of the road. Having failed to observe such necessary care and caution, being oblivious of said duty, respondent No.1 was berserk locomotion since he struck the person of Sh. Madan Lal at the spot causing him fatal injuries. Respondent No.1 was thus negligent.
16. The version of PW-4 is lent corroboration by the version emanating from the certified copy of the charge-sheet, Ex. C-1(colly) of case FIR No. 29/2000 P.S. Nangloi u/s 279/304-A IPC, in terms of which the investigating agency opined that the respondent No.1 has committed the said offences and was responsible for the death of the deceased Sh. Madan Lal caused by his rash and negligent driving of said vehicle in question.
17. As per the copy of the post mortem report on the body of the 6 deceased, the cause of death has been opined to be' cranio cerebral damage due to blunt force impact over the head'.
18. Above discussion leads me to the conclusion that petitioners have been able to prove that deceased Sh. Madan Lal had sustained fatal 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
19. 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 7 Transport Corporation in Civil Appeal No. 3483 of 2008 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.
20. 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
21. PW-1, petitioner No.1, the wife of the deceased testified that her husband Sh. Madan Lal, now deceased was engaged in private service under private employer, namely Superfine Marbles, Mangol Puri, Delhi where he was getting salary of Rs. 4000/- per month.
22. Petitioners have not placed on record any documents regarding the employment of the deceased, salary received or income earned or any qualification nor they have proved the same by any cogent evidence.
23. In absence of any cogent evidence, documentary or otherwise, to 8 establish the 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 Government in the category of an unskilled person, which was Rs. 2348/- on the day of accident.
24. Petitioners have not proved in evidence any document in respect of the age of the deceased. PW-1 testified that the deceased was of the age 42 years. The post mortem report of the deceased also reflects the age of deceased as 42 years. I accordingly take the age of the deceased as 42 years.
25. 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.
26. It is now well settled that while estimating future loss of income, the Court has to take into account future prospects of the injured/deceased. [ 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].
27. Thus, Tribunal has to consider future increase in minimum wage while awarding compensation to the dependents of deceased. 9
28. 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. 3522/- per month [{minimum wage+ double the minimum wage} divided by 2] for purpose of computation of compensation in this case.
29. On application of petitioners, the name of respondent No.3, mother of the deceased was deleted from the array of the parties vide order dated 01/06/09, since she had expired on 01/01/08, her death certificate had been filed by petitioners on record.
30. Petitioner No.1, the wife of the deceased, petitioner no.4, the minor son of deceased, petitioner No.5,father of deceased and respondent No.3, the mother of the deceased were the dependents on the earnings of the deceased as on the date of accident.
31. In terms of law laid by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors (Supra), since there were four dependents on the earnings of the deceased, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, would be one-forth(1/4th), out of his monthly earnings. The deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased out of his said monthly income would be Rs. 880/50 p. (Rs. 3522 divided by 4). The loss of monthly dependency to the legal representatives of the 10 deceased accordingly is Rs. 2641/50 p.(Rs. 3522/- minus Rs. 880/50 p.). MULTIPLIER
32. As per the copy of the Ration Card, the petitioners No.1 to 4 were of ages 38 years, 19 years, 17 years and 10 years respectively as on the date of accident. As per the statement of PW-1, as on 17/01/07, petitioner No.5, father of the deceased was 70 years of age. As on the date of accident petitioner No.5 was 63 years of age accordingly. Respondent No.3 as per statement of PW-1dated 17/01/07, was 65 years of age then and as on the date of accident, she was of age 58 years.
33. Considering the age of the widow and the minor son of the deceased and long life ahead of them to be led and various kinds of expenses to be met for survival, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to adopt the multiplier in terms of the age of the deceased and not in terms of the age of either of the parents of the deceased.
34. In view of the age 42 years of the deceased and in terms of the law laid by the Apex Court in case of 'Sarla Verma & Ors (Supra), the multiplier of 14(for age group of 41 to 45 years) is being adopted in this case accordingly.
35. The total loss of dependency of the petitioners would accordingly be Rs. 4,43,772/- (Rs. 2641/50 x12x14).
11COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF ESTATE
36. 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 FOR LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
37. In view of the law laid by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors (Supra) the widow of the deceased, petitioner No.1 is entitled to Rs. 10,000/- as loss of consortium.
COMPENSATION TOWARDS FUNERAL EXPENSES
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 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, five in number, are entitled to sum of Rs. 10,000/- each i.e., totalling Rs. 50,000/- as loss of love and affection.
40. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation to which the petitioners are entitled to comes as under:-
12
1. Compensation for Loss of dependency Rs. 4,43,772/-
2. Compensation for loss of estate Rs. 10,000/-
3. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/-
4. Compensation for funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/-
5. Compensation for loss of love and affection Rs. 50,000/-
_____________ Rs. 5,18,772/-
Less Interim Compensation - Rs. 50,000/-
Balance payable sum ______________
Rs. 4,68,772/-
LIABILITY
41. Ld. Counsel for respondent No.2 argued that respondent No.2 had sold the vehicle to Sh. Ramkesh, respondent No.4 on 10/09/98 against delivery receipt and was not liable to make the payment of the compensation amount.
42. Ld. Counsel for respondent No.5 argued that neither respondent No.5 was owner of the vehicle nor was having possession of the vehicle as on the date of accident, so he was not liable to make the payment of the amount of compensation. It was also submitted that respondent No.5 had sold the vehicle to Sh. Gaurav Uppal, respondent No.6 on 23/07/99 vide delivery receipt, Ex.RW5/A and against consideration, so respondent No.5 was not liable to make the payment of the compensation amount.
43. R2W1 testified that as on the date of accident he was not in possession of the vehicle, having sold the vehicle in question to respondent 13 No.4 Sh. Ram Kesh on 10/09/98 and in reply to notice sent by respondent No.2, respondent no.4 had admitted of such purchase of the vehicle in question from respondent No.2.
44. R5W1 in his testimony admits of having taken possession of the vehicle on 01/04/99 against delivery receipt from respondent No.4 and he alleged that he had delivered the possession of vehicle in question to respondent No.6 on 23/07/99 vide delivery receipt, Ex. RW5/A.
45. Following facts stand proved in this inquiry proceedings:-
(1) Motor Cycle No. DL-4SP-6082 was registered in the name of Sh. Dhan Raj, as per Ex. PW3/1, computer record as on the date of accident as testified by PW-3, Dealing Clerk of MLO Office, Raja Garden, Delhi.
(2) As per PW-3, as per record of MLO Office, the registered owner of vehicle in question till the date of statement of PW-
3 dated 07/02/07 was Sh. Dhan Raj, respondent No.2 and the ownership was not transferred to any other owner. (3) As per delivery receipt Ex. PW2/A-4, respondent No.2 had delivered the possession of the vehicle to respondent No.4, Sh. Ramkesh.
(4) As per R5W1 he had taken the possession of vehicle on 01/04/99 against delivery receipt from Sh. Ramkesh, respondent no.4.
14(5) Respondent No.5 had delivered the possession of the vehicle in question to respondent No.6 Sh.Gaurav Uppal, vide delivery receipt, Ex. RW5/A on 23/07/99. No evidence, contrary to this proved fact on record has been brought on record by any of the arrayed respondents nor respondent no.6 has himself entered into the witness box.
46. Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended defines 'owner',meaning, a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is subject of a hire- purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement.
47. In the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. V. Ramachandra Naidu & Ors, reported in III(2005) ACC 892, it was held that the change of definition of owner in the new Act is not without significance. Under the new Act, registered owner is the person who is to be treated basically as the owner of the vehicle. The other contingencies , provided for in the definition can be construed as devices to identify the owner, if there is any ambiguity as to the registered owner of the vehicle.
48. Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inter alia embodies the duty of the owner of vehicle on transfer of ownership of motor vehicle specifying that in such a case, the such owner of motor vehicle is to report 15 the fact of transfer of motor vehicle to the registering authority of same State within 14 days of transfer in the prescribed form.
49. Rule 55 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 embodies inter alia the duty of transferor of motor vehicle to report the fact of transfer in form-29 to the registering authority in terms there of.
50. In the case of Rajinder Kumar Vs. Smt. Neelam Gadhok & Ors, reported in III (2008) ACC 121, it had been held that mere intimation of transfer of ownership by registered owner/ transferor to registering authority is not sufficient and it is mandatory duty of the owner of vehicle cast upon him in terms of section 50 of Motor Vehicle Act to inform the registering authority in prescribed form with requisite documents within 14 days of transfer of the Motor Vehicle. His Lordship even made it clear that Tribunal can even hold the transferee also liable to pay the compensation amount in the final award.
51. In the case of P.P. Mohammed Vs. K. Rajappan & Ors, reported in 2003 ACJ, 1595, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the registered owner as well as the person in whose actual possession the motor vehicle was on the date of accident is liable for claim before Tribunal, when the registered owner has not done the requisite compliance by giving requisite information in prescribed form to registering authority.
16
52. In terms of law laid in the case of (1)Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kailash Nath Kothari & Ors, reported in II(1997) ACC 370(SC);(2)P. Satyanarayana Vs. Kesari Manevva & Ors, reported in II(2009)ACC 490, if the vehicle meets with an accident when in the custody of defacto owner, the defacto owner would also be liable to pay the compensation. He cannot escape his liability on the ground that dejure owner had undertaken to meet the liability of third parties.
53. Ld. Counsel for petitioner argued that liability to pay compensation would rest upon respondents No.1,2 & 5. He argued that respondent No.5 had not signed any document at the time of alleged transfer/sale of vehicle to respondent No.6 nor had taken steps for summoning respondent No.6 which showed that respondent No.6 was not existing person.
54. Adverting back to the processes issued by this Tribunal to respondent No.6 to be served through Process Server and Registered Post, the reports of various dates, not only of Process Server but also of postal employees reflect that respondent No.6 was residing at the given address few years ago as a tenant and had shifted to place unknown. Per se, it cannot be said that respondent No.6 was non-existing person in absence of any evidence to the contrary. On that count submissions of Ld. Counsel for petitioner do not hold water. Fact remains respondent No.6 was served by 17 publication and is exparte. None for respondent No.6 came forward to bring on record and prove any fact contrary to fact proved by respondent No.5 of having delivered the possession of the vehicle on 23/07/99 to respondent No.6 vide delivery receipt, Ex. PW5/A. Admittedly, respondent No.5 was neither the registered owner of the vehicle in question nor was in possession of the vehicle as on the date of accident.
55. In view of law laid in the case of P.P. Mohammed (supra);Rajinder Kumar(supra); Kailash Nath Kothari(supra) & P. Satya Narayan(supra), respondent No.2 being registered owner and respondent No.6 being possessor of the vehicle as on the date of accident and respondent No.1 being the driver, the person responsible for the death of deceased by rash and negligent driving, the tort feasors are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the compensation sum to the claimants
56. 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. 4,68,772/- 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 respondent No.2 being registered owner and respondent No.6 being possessor of the vehicle as on the date of accident and respondent No.1 being the driver, jointly and severally. Relief 18
57. In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is hereby held that petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs. 4,68,772/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the present petition till its realization from the respondents,payable by the respondent No.2 being registered owner and respondent No.6 being possessor of the vehicle as on the date of accident and respondent No.1 being the driver, jointly and severally.
APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION
1. Smt.Geeta Devi (Wife) Rs. 2,64,772/-
2. Ms. Manju(Married daughter) Rs. 12,000/-
(as share of compensation for loss of estate and Love & affection)
3. Ms. Anju (married daughgter) Rs. 12,000/-
(as share of compensation for loss of estate and Love & affection)
4. Sh. Sunny(son) Rs. 1,00,000/-
5. Sh. Rameshwar Lal (Father) Rs. 80,000/-
58. 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 court in 'Union Carbide Corporation Vs. Union of India', 1991(4) SCC 584, in the matter of appropriate investments to safeguard the feed from 19 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.
59. In terms thereof, out of the award amount, 50% amount of petitioner No. 1 be invested in shape of three FDRs of equal (almost) in the name of the said claimant/ petitioner for a period of 7 years in State Bank of India. Out of the award amount, 50% amount of petitioner No. 5 be invested in shape of two FDRs of equal (almost) in the name of the said claimant/ petitioner for a period of 3 years in State Bank of India. 50% of the award amount of petitioner No. 4 (son of deceased presently major) be invested in shape of FDR in the name of the said claimant / petitioner till he attains the age of 21years in State Bank of India. The FDRs shall have no facility of loan or advance. Petitioners can withdraw the interest monthly. However, petitioners/claimants are at liberty to take steps for premature encashment in case of exigency, as per law laid before this Tribunal. 20
60. State Bank of India,Tis Hazari, has agreed to open Special Fixed Deposit Accounts for the victims of road accidents.
61. 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 Accounts in the name of claimants and the entire interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits be credited in the said accounts.
(2) The interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits shall be paid monthly by automatic credit of interest in the Savings Accounts. (3) Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to the claimants after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card /Pass Books with attested photographs to claim to facilitate their identity.
(4) No cheque book be issued to the claimants 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 custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the claimants alongwith the photocopy of the FDRs. 21 (7) The original Fixed Deposit Receipts shall be handed over to the claimants 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 claimants, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India according to the convenience of the claimants.
62. Respondents No.1,2 & 6 are directed to deposit the cheques , jointly and severally 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. 08/10/09 Judge, MACT(West)
Delhi.