Delhi District Court
Paramjeet Kaur vs Anil Yadav on 15 September, 2011
Paramjeet Kaur Vs Anil Yadav
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJIV JAIN PO : MACT : SOUTH DISTRICTII
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI.
In Suit No. 1020/10
1. Smt. Paramjeet Kaur
W/o. Late Sh. Rajinder Saini
2. Yogita Saini
D/o. Late Shri Rajinder Saini
3. Dushyant Saini
S/o. Late Sh. Rajinder Saini
4. Rama Devi
W/o Jai Singh Saing
5. Jai Singh Saini
S/o Late Shri Banarsi Das
Permanent R/o : B89, Shiv Vihar,
Uttam nagar, New Delhi - 110 059
(Petitioner no. 2 & 3 are minor being represented through their mother Smt.
Paramjeet Kaur)
...... Petitioners
Versus
1. Anil Yadav S/o. Sh. Munshi Yadav
R/o. Village Mustafabad, PO Dewait,
PS Mehnagar, Azamgar, UP
(Driver)
Continued...........1/28
Paramjeet Kaur Vs Anil Yadav
2
2. Girja Shanker Sharma
S/o Sh. Hari Charan Sharma
R/o Teacher Colony, Behror, Alwar, Rajasthan 301020
( Owner )
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company
C31/32, 1st Floor Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110 002.
Also at O12A, Ashok Marg,
CScheme, Jaipur 302001, Rajasthan
(Insurer)
.......Respondents
Date of Institution : 18.12.2008
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 30.08.2011
Date of pronouncement : 15.09.2011
JUDGMENT:
1. Rajinder Saini, unaware of the fact that a calamity in the form of his 'untimely death' was standing at threshold of his destiny, was going on his motorcycle bearing no. HR07 F 2218 on 26.10.2008. This travel proved unaffordable for Rajinder Saini as he lost his life in the same, leaving behind his young widow, two minor children and his parents.
Continued...........2/28
Paramjeet Kaur Vs Anil Yadav 3
2. It is alleged that Rajinder Saini sustained fatal injuries in the accident which took place with Truck bearing registration number HR 55 G 4226 being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no. 3.
3. The said accident changed the course of life of the petitioners who were emotionally and financially dependent on Rajinder Saini, as Rajinder Saini lost his life in the said accident and petitioners lost their sole support system.
4. Subsequent thereto, widow of deceased along with her two minor children and the parents of deceased, being the sole legal heirs of deceased, invoked the jurisdiction this Tribunal by filing the present petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation against the above respondents.
5. Relevant facts necessary for adjudication and disposal of the present petition as emanating out of the same, apart from those stated herein above are that:
(a) On 26.10.2008 at about 11.50 PM, the deceased was going on his motorcycle bearing no. HR 07 F 2218.
(b) When he reached at Delhi Gurgaon road NH 8 Mahipalpur Continued...........3/28 Paramjeet Kaur Vs Anil Yadav 4 Flyover, one truck bearing registration no. HR 55 G 4226 came from his backside driven by respondent no.1 at a fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased.
(c) As a result of forceful impact of the offending truck, Rajinder Saini fell down on the road and came underneath the rear wheel of the truck.
(d) Immediately after the accident, he was taken to Jai Parkash Narayan apex Trauma Centre, where his postmortem was conducted.
(e) It is stated that Rajinder Saini was doing the job of commercial driver with Neeraj Singhal, at Sainik Nagar, Nawada, Uttam Nagar and was getting a salary of Rs. 12,000/ per month, which used to increase annually, with which he was supporting himself as well as his family members.
(f) It is stated that petitioners be adequately compensated.
6. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. Pursuant to the notice, respondents appeared and filed their respective written statements.
7. It was submitted by respondents no. 1 and 2 that the respondent no. 1 was driving the vehicle as per traffic rules and at normal speed and the alleged accident had occurred due to mistake of the deceased. It was also submitted that respondent no. 1 was having a valid and effective driving licence and the offending Continued...........4/28 Paramjeet Kaur Vs Anil Yadav 5 vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3.
8. Respondent no. 3 admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with them vide policy no. OG08140118030005467 which was valid from 29.12.2007 to 28.12.2008 however, it denied the other allegations levelled against the respondent.
9. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 10.08.2009,following issues were framed :
i) Whether Late Rajinder Saini died due to injuries received by him in an accident on 26.10.2009 at about 11.50 PM on Delhi Gurgaon Road NH 8, Mahipal Pur flyover, New Delhi which was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Truck no. HR 55 G 4226 by R1, the vehicle owned by R2 and insured with R3 Insurance Company? ...OPP
ii) The amount of compensation petitioners are entitled to?
iii) Relief.
10. (i) Petitioner No. 1 Smt. Paramjeet Kaur examined herself as PW 1 by Continued...........5/28 Paramjeet Kaur Vs Anil Yadav 6 tendering in evidence her affidavit Ex. PW1/A reiterating the averments made in the petition. She proved the copy of licence and badge Ex PW1/1 & PW1/2; educational papers of her husband Ex PW1/3 &PW1/4 ; copy of progress reports of her children Ex PW1/5 & PW1/6 and the copy of ration card Ex. PW1/7.
(ii) PW 2 Sh. Niraj Kumar Singhal deposed that in the year 2007 deceased Rajinder Saini joined him as a bus driver on a monthly salary of Rs. 11,000/. In 2008 his salary was enhanced to 12,000/ per month. He proved the copy of DL, Batch and election I card marked as X. Copy of the RC of the blue line bus marked as X1; copy of income tax acknowledgment and statement of income marked as X2; copy of income tax paper and statement of account Ex PW2/1. He stated that whenever, deceased performed his duties for whole month, he used to be paid an additional sum of Rs. 500600/ as reward.
11. Respondent no. 3 examined Sh. Sachin Ohri as R3W1. He tendered his affidavit Ex R3W1/A and relied upon the documents Ex R3W1/1 to R3W1/10 viz :
authorisation, carbon copies of notices, insurance policy, report of investigator and endorsement, report on summon and a complaint.
12. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel Sh. Fauzi Continued...........6/28 Paramjeet Kaur Vs Anil Yadav 7 Sayyed for the petitioners and Ms. Lalita Bajaj for the insurance company and perused the record.
13. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were emotionally and financially dependent on the deceased. The deceased was 36 years of age at the time of accident and would have gone on to earn much more than what he was earning at the time of his death to support his family. It is contended that deceased was the sole earning member in their family, whose sudden demise due to negligent driving by R1, has brought miseries to their lives. It is submitted that none of the petitioners is working anywhere or earning any amount, therefore it has become very difficult for them, after the death of Rajinder Saini to meet their needs.
14. On the other hand, it is contended by Ld. Counsel for the Insurance Company that the driving license of respondent no. 1 was found to be fake during investigation which fact is proved by R3W1, thus, Insurance company is not liable to compensate the petitioners.
15. My issuewise findings are as under : Continued...........7/28 Paramjeet Kaur Vs Anil Yadav 8 I S S U E NO. 1:
16. Standard of proof of negligence required in order to dispose off the claim stands on a much lesser footing than what is required in a criminal case or in a civil case. It was held in " Ranu Bala Paul and Ors. V/s Bani Chakraborty and Ors., 1999 ACJ 634 by Hon'ble Guahati High Court :
"In deciding a matter Tribunal should bear in mind the caution struck by the Apex Court that a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is neither a criminal case nor a civil case. In a criminal case in order to have conviction, the matter is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and in a civil case the matter is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence, but in a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the standard proof is much below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in a civil case. No doubt before the Tribunal, there must be some material on the basis of which the Tribunal can arrive or decide things necessary to be decided for awarding compensation. But the Tribunal is not expected to take or to adopt the nicety of a civil or of a criminal case. After all, it is a summary inquiry and this is a legislation for the welfare of the society."Continued...........8/28
Paramjeet Kaur Vs Anil Yadav 9
17. In N.K.V.Bros (P) Ltd. V/s M.Karumai Ammal & Others, (1980) 3 SCC 457, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, specially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes.
We are emphasizing this aspect because we are often distressed by transport operators getting away with it thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter of careful driving. The heavy economic impact of culpable driving of public transport must bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their 'neighbour'. Indeed, the State must seriously consider no fault liability by legislation."
Continued...........9/28
Paramjeet Kaur Vs Anil Yadav 10
18. In the backdrop of above case law, the evidence of the petitioners is required to be considered.
19. Petitioner no. 1 has filed her affidavit Ex.PW1/A and deposed that on 26.10.2008 her husband died in a road accident caused by respondent no. 1, who was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. She proved the copy of license and badge Ex PW1/1 and PW1/2.
20. From the testimony of the above witness and the record, it is clear that accident took place due to negligence of the truck driver i.e. R1 as he was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and without obeying the traffic rules. The certified copies of criminal proceedings, duly corroborate the deposition of PW1 that respondent No. 1 failed to adhere to his duties and had driven the offending vehicle in a negligent manner.
21. It has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled ''National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pushpa Rana'' reported as 2009 ACJ 287, that whenever criminal proceedings are placed on record on completion of investigations by the police, then that in itself is sufficient proof of the negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle involved in the accident. Continued...........10/28
Paramjeet Kaur Vs Anil Yadav 11
22. Petitioners thus, have been able to establish that accident took place due to negligence of respondent No. 1 which resulted in the death of deceased Rajinder Saini. It is also not in dispute that the respondent no. 2 was the owner of the offending vehicle which was insured with respondent no. 3.
23. Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners.
I S S U E N o. 2
24. As issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners in affirmative, petitioner thus become entitled for the compensation. Quantum of the compensation however is required to be calculated.
25. 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.
Continued...........11/28
Paramjeet Kaur Vs Anil Yadav 12
26. In order to calculate the amount of compensation, the sum is required to be considered under the various heads :
(a) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY :
27. Petitioner No. 1 Paramjeet Kaur during the course of her deposition as PW1 has stated that she being widow, her two children and parents of the deceased are the only legal heirs of the deceased Rajinder Saini. This fact has not been disputed by the respondents and no contrary evidence to that effect has been brought on record. No one else has challenged the claim petition filed by the petitioners, therefore, deposition of PW1 is to be believed on this aspect.
28. PW1 Smt. Paramjeet Kaur has stated that her husband was 36 years of age at the time of accident. He was a commercial driver and was getting a salary of Rs. 12,000/ per month. PW2 duly corroborated the testimony of PW1. He stated that the deceased had joined his company in the year 2007 on a salary of Rs.11,000/ p.m. which was enhanced to Rs. 12,000/ in the year 2008. He also placed on record the income tax papers Ex.X1 and X2 and the statement of accounts Ex.PW2/1. PW1 has placed on record the educational qualification certificates of the deceased as per which the deceased had completed the Sr. Secondary School from Central Board of Secondary Education. He was issued a Continued...........12/28 Paramjeet Kaur Vs Anil Yadav 13 badge by the NCT of Delhi whereby he was authorised to drive bus/taxi. He had a outstanding academic record thus, had a bright future.
29. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled "Narender Bishal & Another V/s Sh. Ramit Singh & Ors." bearing MAC.App. No.100708/2006 decided on 20th February 2008. had considered the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in "General Manager Kerala Transport Road Corporation V/s. Susamma Thomas" reported as 1994 ACJ 1 (SC) as well as in Smt. Sarla Dixit & Ors. V/s Balwant Yadav & Ors. Reported as AIR 1996, SC1274" and held :
"As would be evident from catena of judgments of the Supreme Court, the future prospects have no correlation with the price index, inflation or denunciation of currency value. The future prospects would necessarily mean advancement in future career, earnings and progression in one's life. It could be considered by seeing, from which post a person began his career, what avenues or prospects he has while being in a particular avocation and what targets he/she would finally achieve at the end of his career. The promotional avenues, career progression, grant of selection grades etc. are some of the broad features for considering one's future prospects in one's career.
30. It has also been held in catena of Judgments that future prospects of Continued...........13/28 Paramjeet Kaur Vs Anil Yadav 14 advancement of life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand (annual contribution to the dependent) and the Court can take note of the prospects of the future and it will be unreasonable to estimate the loss of dependency on the actual income of the deceased at the time of the death.
31. The testimony of PW1, PW2 and the documents reveal that the deceased was a young man and had a bright future. There would have not been any obstacle in the way of the deceased in attending the highest ambition in his life. He would have earned much more in near future. Thus, future prospects are also to be taken in the present case while calculating the dependency, which as per the Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 (6) scale 129 is taken as 50 per cent of the basic salary. So, the total monthly income after adding future prospects comes to Rs. 12000/ + 50% of Rs. 12000/ = Rs. 18000/.
32. Out of this average gross income of deceased Rajinder Saini and considering that five petitioners including his wife, two children and parents were dependent on the deceased, then he by no stretch of imagination could have spent more than onefourth of his earning on himself. In view thereof, monthly loss of dependency of the petitioners would come to Rs. 18000 - 4500 [1/4th of 18000] = Rs. 13500/. Yearly loss of dependency would come to Rs. 13500 x 12 = Rs. 162000/.
Continued...........14/28
Paramjeet Kaur Vs Anil Yadav 15
33. On perusal of the date of birth of the deceased (18.04.72) from his matriculation certificate, I find that the deceased was 37 years of age at the time of his death. In view thereof and considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Smt. Sarla Verma vs. DTC 2009 (6) SCALE 129 Case", a multiplier of '15' in this case is required to be applied.
34. In view thereof, actual loss of dependency would comes to Rs. 162000 x 15 = Rs.24,30,000/.
I therefore, award a sum of Rs. 24,30000/ to the petitioners towards "Loss of Dependency".
(b) LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION :
35. Petitioner No. 1 Smt. Paramjeet Kaur at this stage of her life had lost her husband on whom she was emotionally and financially dependent. The loss of love and affection which she would have got from her husband can not quantified in terms of money. Love and affection lost by the children of deceased is not capable of any assessment, much less on any pecuniary scale. Care, love and affection Continued...........15/28 Paramjeet Kaur Vs Anil Yadav 16 which old and feeble parents of deceased had required from their son at the fag end of their lives can not be measured or assessed. It has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as Kailash Kaur vs. New India Insurance Company bearing M.A.C. Pet.. No. 318/08 decided on 24.03.2009 that compensation towards loss of love and affection should be granted at the rate of Rs. 25,000/ per petitioner.
36. In view thereof, I award a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/ i.e. Rs. 25,000 x 5 to the petitioners towards "Loss of Love and Affection".
(c) LOSS OF CONSORTIUM :
37. I award a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the petitioner No. 1 on account of "Loss of Consortium".
(d) FUNERAL EXPENSES
38. I award a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the petitioners on account of "Funeral Expenses" .
(e) LOSS OF ESTATE :
39. I award a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the petitioners on account of "Loss to Continued...........16/28 Paramjeet Kaur Vs Anil Yadav 17 Estate".
: LIABILITY :
40. The offending vehicle bearing registration no. HR55G4226 was being driven by Respondent No. 1. Therefore, the primary liability to compensate the petitioners remains with Respondent No. 1. It has come on record that the offending vehicle was owned by Respondent No. 2, thus Respondent No. 3 becomes vicariously responsible to compensate the petitioners. It is admitted on record by Respondent No. 3, the Insurance Company that the offending vehicle was insured with them, therefore, Insurance Company becomes contractually liable to compensate the petitioners.
41. Ld. Counsel for the Insurance company, however, in his quest to have the Insurance company exonerated of its contractual obligation contended that the offending vehicle was being driven by the driver using the fake licence. This fact is also proved by R3W1.
42. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled as Lal Chand Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported as 2006 (3) TAC321 SC that Insurance Company has to show and prove on record that due and adequate care was not taken by the owner or owner had the Continued...........17/28 Paramjeet Kaur Vs Anil Yadav 18 knowledge that driver was not holding a valid driving license. Only in that eventuality the Insurance Company can be absolved of its contractual obligation, not otherwise.
43. On going through the file, the report of the investigating officer Ex.R3W1/7 and endorsement from the Licensing Authority Ex.R3W1/8 and the testimony of R3W1, I find that the respondent no. 1 was driving the vehicle using the fake licence as from the record collected from the Licencing Authority, Azamgarh, no such licence bearing number A1638/AZ/2006 was issued by the authority in the name of respondent no.
1. Nothing has come in the crossexamination of R3W1 to disbelieve him. It is pertinent to mention that respondent no. 3 had also issued notice Ex.R3W1/2 and 3 to the registered owner to produce the driving licence of respondent no. 1 and to show its validity, but despite service of notice under Order 12 Rule 8, none from the side of respondent no. 1 and 2 appeared. There is no evidence led by the respondent no. 2 that he had verified the genuineness of licence allegedly in possession of respondent no. 1 before employing him on his truck number HR55G4226 nor there is any evidence to show that he got himself satisfied about the competency and the capability of respondent no. 1 to drive the offending vehicle before he was deputed on it. As per the terms of the policy, any person including insured Continued...........18/28 Paramjeet Kaur Vs Anil Yadav 19 must hold an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. This very act on the part of respondent no. 2 amounts to breach of insurance policy. Consequently, the insurance company i.e. Respondent no. 3 has been able to establish that the vehicle was not plying on the road in consonance with the terms of the policy. Thus, the liability to compensate the petitioner would remain with that of respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 i.e. driver /owner of the offending vehicle.
44. Legislature being conscious of the magnitude of the plight of the victims of road accident have introduced the present beneficial provisions to protect the interest of third parties i.e. victims of road accident so as to enable them to claim compensation from the driver/ owner of the vehicle. Legislature in its wisdom has made it a statutory obligation of every owner to have his vehicle insured against third party risks. This has been made mandatory so that victims of road accident even after being granted compensation from the court, should not run from pillar to post to have the orders of the court executed and to facilitate them to get the same from the Insurance Company.
45. Balancing the "twin interest" of the Insurance Company at one Continued...........19/28 Paramjeet Kaur Vs Anil Yadav 20 hand and that of the third party i.e. petitioners for whose benefit the present legislation was brought on the statute book, it is directed that the Insurance Company shall pay the compensation awarded to the petitioners within the time given in this award and shall have the right to recover the same from respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 jointly and severally.
46. For the foregoing reasons, the respondent no. 3 is directed to pay compensation awarded to the petitioners within the time given in the award and shall have the right to recover the same from respondent no. 1 and 2 jointly and severally.
47. Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly in favour of the petitioners.
R E L I E F
48. In view of my finding on issue No. 1 and 2, petitioners are entitled to the following compensation :
1) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY = Rs. 24,30,000/ 2) LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION = Rs. 1,25,000/ 3) LOSS OF CONSORTIUM = Rs. 10,000/ Continued...........20/28 Paramjeet Kaur Vs Anil Yadav 21 4) FUNERAL EXPENSES = Rs. 10,000/ 5) LOSS OF ESTATE = Rs. 10,000/ 6) Less : Interim award paid vide order dated 10.08.2009 = () Rs. 50,000/
__________________________________________________ Total = Rs. 25,35,000/ __________________________________________________
49. Petitioners are thus awarded a sum of Rs. 25,35,000/ alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date filing of petition till realization of the amount.
: RELEASE OF THE AWARDED AMOUNT : In the share of Petitioner No. 1 Smt. Paramjeet Kaur : (widow of deceased Late Sh. Rajinder Saini).
50. A sum of Rs. 17,35,000/ alongwith the proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to petitioner No. 1 Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, being wife of deceased Rajinder Saini.
51. Out of this awarded amount, a sum of Rs. 14,00,000/ be deposited in the form of FDR in the name of petitioner No. 1 Smt. Paramjeet Continued...........21/28 Paramjeet Kaur Vs Anil Yadav 22 Kaur in the following phased manner :
(a) A sum of Rs. 2,80,000/ for a period of 2 years
(b) A sum of Rs. 2,80,000/ for a period of 3 years.
(c) A sum of Rs. 2,80,000/ for a period of 4 years.
(d) A sum of Rs. 2,80,000/ for a period of 5 years.
(e) A sum of Rs. 2,80,000// for a period of 6 years.
In the share of Petitioner No. 2 Yogita Saini and Petitioner No. 3 Dushyant Saini : (minor children of deceased Rajinder Saini
52. A sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ each alongwith proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to petitioner No. 2 Muskan and petitioner No. 3 Dushyant Saini being minor children of the deceased Rajinder Saini. This awarded amount shall be kept in the form of separate FDR's in the respective names of Petitioner No. 2 and Petitioner No. 3 till they attain 18 years of age.
In the share of Petitioner No. 4 Rama Devi and Petitioner No. 5 Jai Singh Saini (parents of deceased Rajinder Saini)
53. A sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ each alongwith proportionate interest Continued...........22/28 Paramjeet Kaur Vs Anil Yadav 23 thereon, is awarded to petitioner No. 4 Rama Devi and petitioner No. 5 Jai Singh Saini being parents of the deceased Rajinder Saini. Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
54. 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 08.06.20009, UCO Bank/ State Bank of India has agreed to open a Special Fixed Deposit Account for the victims of road accidents.
55. 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.
56. 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 Continued...........23/28 Paramjeet Kaur Vs Anil Yadav 24 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 :
1. Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, W/o. Late Sh. Rajinder Saini
2. Yogita Saini D/o. Late Sh. Rajinder Saini
3. Dushyant Saini D/o. Late Sh. Rajinder Saini 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).
57. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank fo India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "fixed deposit / saving account'' in the following manner:
(i) Rs. 14,00,000/ in the name of Petitioner No.1 Smt. Paramjeet Kaur in a phased manner as stated in para no.51.
(ii) Remaining amount of the share of petitioner no.1 Smt. Paramjeet Kaur shall be transferred to her savings account, so as to facilitate her to withdraw the same, as per her needs.
(iii) Awarded Amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ each alongwith proportionate interest thereon, in favour of petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 3 be kept in the form of two separate FDR's, in the respective names of these petitioners, till they attain 18 years of age.
(iv) Petitioner No. 2 Yogita Saini and Petitioner No. 3 Dushyant Saini, minor Continued...........24/28 Paramjeet Kaur Vs Anil Yadav 25 children of deceased are also entitled to get monthly / quarterly interest on the FDR's prepared in their names, through their mother / natural guardian / petitioner No. 1 Smt. Paramjeet Kaur.
(v) 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.
(vi) Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to claimants / petitioners after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants / petitioners to facilitate identity.
(vii)No cheque book be issued to claimants / petitioners without the permission of this Court.
(viii)The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the claimants / petitioners alongwith the photocopy of the FDR's .
(ix) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to claimants / petitioners at the end of the fixed deposit period.
(x) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.
(xi) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
(xii)On the request of claimants / petitioners, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
Continued...........25/28
Paramjeet Kaur Vs Anil Yadav 26
(xiii) Claimants / petitioners 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 INSURANCE COMPANY
58. The Insurance company is directed to file the compliance report of their having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this tribunal within a period of 30 days from today.
59. The Insurance Company is directed to furnish a copy of this award alongwith the cheques of the awarded amount to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, so as to facilitate the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch to have the identification of the claimants/ petitioners in whose favour the award has been passed.
60. The Insurance Company is further directed to furnish the claim petition number and name of the parties at the back side of the cheques of the awarded amount, so that the same be not misplaced.
61. The Insurance Company shall intimate to the claimants / Continued...........26/28 Paramjeet Kaur Vs Anil Yadav 27 petitioners about their 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.
62. 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.
63. Copy of this Award / Judgment be given to counsel for the Insurance Company for necessary compliance.
64. File be consigned to record room after receipt of the compliance report from the Insurance company. Announced in the open court on 15th Day of September, 2011 (SANJIV JAIN) PO : MACT/SOUTHII 15.09.2011 Continued...........27/28 Paramjeet Kaur Vs Anil Yadav 28 Paramjeet Kaur Vs. Anil Yadav 15.09.2011 Present: Ld. Counsel for the parties.
Vide separate order of even date a compensation of Rs. 25,35,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Lakh Thirty Five Thousand only) with interest @9% is passed in favour of petitioner. Copy of the award be given to the parties.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(SANJIV JAIN) PO : MACT02, SOUTH DISTRICT 15.09.2011 Continued...........28/28