Delhi District Court
Ranjit Singh & Anr. vs . Prashant & Anr. on 30 September, 2020
IN THE COURT OF DR. SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI, PO: MACT
(SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT), DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
MACP No. 277/12
Ranjit Singh & Anr. Vs. Prashant & Anr.
CNR No.-DLSW010001662012
1. Sh. Ranjeet Sigh (father of deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Mala Ram
2. Smt. Bimla Devi (mother of deceased)
W/o Shri Ranjeet Singh
Both resident of :
B-109, Pachhaya Mohalla,
Balbir Singh Wali Gali,
VPO Chhawla, New Delhi. -110 071.
.... Petitioners
Vs.
1. Prashant (Driver)
S/o Sh. Om Prakash
R/oVillage Dadiya Mundawar
Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan,
PIN - 301401.
2. National Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurer)
Hero Honda Vertical, 101-106, BMC House,
NI, Connaught Place,
New Delhi - 110 001.
.... Respondents
Date of institution of the case- 12.12.2012
Date on which, judgment have been reserved- 03.09.2020
Date of pronouncement of judgment- 30.09.2020
MACP No. 277/12 Ranjeet Singh & Anr. vs. Prashant & Anr. 1 of 19
JUDGMENT:
1. The present claim petition u/s 163- A of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for grant of compensation qua the death of deceased Naveen Jakhar caused in a road accident on 15.09.2010 has been filed on behalf of petitioners- Sh. Ranjeet Singh & Anr. against respondents- Prashant & Anr.
2. Brief facts as made out from the petition are that on 15.09.2010 at about 8:00 AM, Sh. Naveen Jakhar (since deceased), pillion rider of motor cycle bearing registration no. DL 9S AD 7399 owned by him and being driven by respondent no. 1 Prashant Kumar from Kothputli to Jaipur met with an accident at Rajpura ahead of Shahpura towards Manoharpur. Injured Naveen was evacuated to Indo Western Brain and Spine Hospital near Vidhan Sabha, Lal Kothi, Jaipur where he was admitted in this hospital till discharge on 27.09.2010. Later on, injured was admitted in Jaipur Golden Hospital, Rohini, Delhi from 27.09.2010 to 20.10.2010 and subsequently got admitted in Max Health Care Centre Hospital, Saket, New Delhi from 21.10.2010 to 11.04.2011. Thereafter, till 17.02.2012 he remained admitted in Army Hospital (R & R), New Delhi where he could not survive and died on 17.02.2012. It is further stated that accident was caused due to act of god while being driven by respondent no. 1, who was driving the offending vehicle with the permission but lost control of the vehicle which fell into a ditch and the said vehicle was insured with respondent no. 2 Insurance Company. It is also stated that respondent no. 1 is the driver and respondent no. 2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle and hence both the respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. It has been prayed that an award for a sum of ₹ 2,00,00,000/- (Two Crores Only) alongwith interest @ 18% pa from the date of filing of the petition till realization may be passed in favour of the petitioner and MACP No. 277/12 Ranjeet Singh & Anr. vs. Prashant & Anr. 2 of 19 against the respondents.
3. WS was filed on behalf of R2 / National Insurance Company. It was averred that deceased was pillion rider on his motorcycle bearing no. DL-9S-AD-7399 and fell down due to the alleged accident and after long treatment, he died. The alleged motorcycle was pertaining to the deceased and he himself was injured and in these circumstances, the deceased is not covered under the Third-Party Category, hence, the present application may be dismissed. It is further averred that as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy the deceased being insured was covered under the Personal Accident Policy in a sum insured of ₹ 1 Lac only subject to deceased owner who himself was insured had a valid effective DL to drive motorcycle on the date of accident.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 07.05.2014 by one of the Ld. Predecessors of this court.
ISSUES :
1. Whether deceased Naveen Jakhar sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 15.09.2010 arising out of use of vehicle no. DL 9S AD 7399 being driven by R-1 Prashant, and insured by R-2 National Insurance Company?
...OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? ...OPP
3. Relief.
5. In support of their case, petitioners have examined petitioner no. 1 Sh. Ranjeet Singh as PW-1 and relied upon documents as Ex. PW1/A to Ex. PW1/J which contain registration of motorcycle, policy of Insurance, MACP No. 277/12 Ranjeet Singh & Anr. vs. Prashant & Anr. 3 of 19 FIR, MLC/discharge certificate from IBS Hospital, admission and discharge slip with bill amounting to ₹ 2,11,310/- of Indo-Western Brain and Spine Hospital Jaipur, admission and discharge slip with bills amounting to ₹ 6,73,766/- of Jaipur Golden hospital, New Delhi; Admission and discharge slip of Max Hospital, Saket, New Delhi with bills amounting to ₹ 40,17,487/-; ambulance expenses amounting to ₹ 2,180; death certificate and 10th class Certificate issued by CBSE.
Further, petitioners have purportedly spent a sum of ₹50,28,552/- in the treatment of deceased for which they submit that they have placed the bills on record, out of which the petitioners have been reimbursed a sum of ₹20,36,645/- by the Ex-serviceman Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS), Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India and balance amount of ₹ 29,92,907/- is yet to be reimbursed.
They have also examined PW-2 Sh. Keshav Babu, Medical Record Officer, Max Heart &h Vascular Hospital, PW-3 Sh. Manmohan Sharma, Executive Admn in Jaipur Golden Hospital, Pw-4 Sh. Dharmender Sharma, Record Keeper, Indo Western Brain & Spine Hospital, PW-5 Nail C. T. Sopan, Army Hospital and one eye witness PW-6 Sh. Vinay Kumar. Thereafter, PE was closed on behalf of petitioners.
6. In their evidence, R-3 Insurance Company has examined R3W1 Sh. Naresh Kumar Bansal, Administrative Officer, NLV TP Hub, National Insurance Company Ltd. Thereafter, RE was closed.
7. Arguments put forward by Ld. counsel for the petitioner/ LRs of deceased and R-2/ insurance company have been heard. Record has been perused. Submissions considered. It is pertinent to mention here that arguments have not been addressed in this case on behalf of R-1 Prashant, despite opportunity being given.
MACP No. 277/12 Ranjeet Singh & Anr. vs. Prashant & Anr. 4 of 19
8. The issue-wise findings are as under:
ISSUE No. 1Whether deceased Naveen Jakhar sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 15.09.2010 arising out of use of vehicle no. DL 9S AD 7399 being driven by R-1 Prashant, and insured by R-2 National Assurance Company? ...OPP The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners and in order to discharge the said onus, the petitioners have examined PW-6 Vinay Kumar, who has filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW-6/A), wherein it has been stated that he was an eye witness to the accident in this case and also the friend of deceased Naveen Jakhar. PW6 further deposed in his affidavit Ex. PW6/A that on 15.09.2010 when Prashant Kumar (Respondent no. 1) was driving motor cycle bearing no. DL-9SAD-7399 and deceased Naveen Jakhar was pillion rider while going to Jaipur (college), he himself was following them. When he reached near Rajpura ahead of Shahpura towards Manoharpur, Prashant Kumar and Naveen met with an accident and fell on the road whereas he was 50-60 Yards behind them. As a result of the impact Prashant Kumar, driver of the motorcycle received injuries on the left side of the head and Naveen got multiple injuries on head and ribs. Consequently, he managed a taxi and evacuated both the injured to a nearby clinic in Manoharpur where both of them were given first aid and advised to shift to a hospital in Jaipur. Thereafter, he alongwith R-1 Prashant Kumar took deceased Naveen Jakhar to IBS Hospital, Jaipur for proper care, management and treatment and thereafter, he informed Sh. Ranjit Singh, father of deceased in Delhi telephonically regarding the accident, who reached the hospital at about 06.30 -07.00 pm. Thereafter, Naveen remained hospitalized there for about 10-12 days before shifting to Jaipur Golden hospital, New Delhi. PW-1 Ranjeet Singh has MACP No. 277/12 Ranjeet Singh & Anr. vs. Prashant & Anr. 5 of 19 himself deposed on similar lines.
The important fact is that these witnesses i.e PW-1 Ranjeet Singh and PW-6 Vinay Kumar were cross examined on behalf of respondent / Insurance Company, but nothing material has come on record which could assail the credibility or trustworthiness of these witnesses.
In these circumstances, nothing material has come on record which could shake the credibility of these witnesses qua their deposition regarding the manner in which the accident was caused in this case.
Hence, in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that deceased Naveen Jakhar sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 15.09.2010 due to use or involvement of vehicle no. DL-9SAD-7399, which was being driven R-1 Prashant Kumar and insured with R-2/ National Insurance Company Ltd. at the time of accident.
Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.9. ISSUE No. 2
Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? ...OPP The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners and in order to discharge the said onus the petitioners have examined PW-1 Sh. Ranjeet Singh (petitioner no.1 /father of deceased), who has filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW-1/A), wherein it has been stated that his son Naveen Jakhar met with an accident on 15.09.2010 and sustained fatal injuries. PW-1 further deposed that his son was student of B. Tech (3rd Year) studying in Rajasthan Technical University and had a bright future Further, deceased was the only child of petitioners. PW-1 has also relied upon the documents Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex. PW-1/3 and documents Mark A to MACP No. 277/12 Ranjeet Singh & Anr. vs. Prashant & Anr. 6 of 19 Mark C. It has been contended that petitioners, being the LRs of the deceased - Naveen Jakhar, have become entitled to claim compensation for the death of said deceased in the above-said accident from the R-2 Insurance Company.
The present claim petition for grant of compensation has been filed on behalf of petitioners in accordance with provisions of 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
Section 163A of MV Act deals with special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis and sub section (1) thereof provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Motor Vehicles Act or in any other Law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.
The petitioners have contended that the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL 9S AD 7399 was being driven by R-1 Prashant Kumar and insured by R-2 National Insurance Company Ltd. at the time of accident. As such, respondent no. 2/National Insurance Company Ltd, being the 'principal tort-feasor', shall be liable to pay the awarded amount.
On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of R- 2/Insurance company that alleged offending vehicle bearing its registration no. DL-93-AD-7399 (Motor Cycle) at the time of accident was insured with the answering respondent in the name of Sh. Naveen Jakhar (since deceased) vide policy no. 3510073110620058544 valid for the period from 12.09.2010 to 11.09.2011 but subject to the terms and conditions of the policy issued by the answering respondent. Further, it is also averred by the MACP No. 277/12 Ranjeet Singh & Anr. vs. Prashant & Anr. 7 of 19 R-2/Insurance company that this accident occurred while vehicle was being driven by Prashant Kumar with permission of deceased/ owner/ insured Naveen, who was riding pillion. Hence, the claim petition filed before the Tribunal u/s 163-A is not maintainable as this section is not applicable as the deceased was himself the owner of the vehicle.
10. THE OWNER/ INSURED IS THE DECEASED:
RAMIFICATIONS?
In this regard, the counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the decision held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil appeal no. 9694/2013 titled as United India insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunil Kumar & Anr.1 wherein it is concluded that:-
"8. ......it is clear that grant of compensation under Section 163-A of the Act on the basis of the structured formula is in the nature of a final award and the adjudication there under is required to be made without any requirement of any proof of negligence of the driver /owner of the vehicle (s) involved in the accident. This is made explicit by Section 163A(2). Though the aforesaid section of the Act does not specifically exclude a possible defence of the insurer based on the negligence of the claimant as contemplated by section 140(4), to permit such defence to the introduced by the insurer and /or to understand the provisions of Section 163A of the Act to be contemplating any such situation would go contrary to the very legislative object behind introduction of Section 163(A) of the Act, namely final compensation within a limited time frame on the basis of the structured formula to overcome situation where the claims of compensation on the basis of fault liability was taking an unduly long time. In fact, to understand Section 163A of the Act to permit the Insurer to raise the defence of negligence would be to bring a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act at par with the proceeding under Section 166 of the Act which would not only be self-contradictory but also defeat the very legislative intention.
1 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9694 OF 2013 decided on 24.11.2017.
MACP No. 277/12 Ranjeet Singh & Anr. vs. Prashant & Anr. 8 of 19
9. ......that in proceeding under Section 163A of the Act, it is not open for the insurer to raise any defence of negligene on the part of the victim."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has merely held in this case that the petitioners do not have to prove fault on part of another for invoking Section 163A. The same does not help the case of the petitioners as the Court has not given any observation regarding whether a claim qua death of owner/ insured is maintainable in such circumstances under the aforesaid provision.
The counsel for the petitioners also relied upon National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rukhshanaben Salimbai Vohra & Ors2 wherein it was held that:-
"5. ......The non-obstinate clause with which clause 163A(1) begins makes it clear that the liability of insurance company to satisfy the award is not dependent on any other provisions of the Act and, therefore, the question whether the passenger in the motorcycle was a gratuitous passenger or whether he can be said to be a third party or not would not be relevant. The contention, therefore must be rejected."
(Emphasis supplied) The Ld. Counsel for the insurance company has, au contraire, relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Ningamma and another vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd.3, wherein it was held that:-
"19. We have already extracted Section 163-A of the MVA hereinbefore. A bare perusal of the said provision would make it explicitly clear that persons like the deceased in the present case would step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. In a case wherein the victim died or where he was permanently disabled due to an accident arising out of the aforesaid motor vehicle in that event the liability to make payment of the 2 2006 lawsuit (Guj) 610.
3 2009 ACJ 2020.
MACP No. 277/12 Ranjeet Singh & Anr. vs. Prashant & Anr. 9 of 19 compensation is on the insurance company or the owner, as the case may be as provided under Section 163-A. But if it is proved that the driver is the owner of the motor vehicle, in that case the owner could not himself be a recipient of compensation as the liability to pay the same is on him. This proposition is absolutely clear on a reading of Section 163-A of the MVA. Accordingly, the legal representatives of the deceased who have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle could not have claimed compensation under Section 163-A of the MVA."
(Emphasis supplied) Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has categorically held that where the owner/ insured himself is the injured/ deceased due to the accident arising out of use of motor vehicle owned by him then no claim can lie under Section 163A. As a matter of fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone a step ahead in Ningamma4 and observed that:
"24. There are indeed cases like New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Sadanand Mukhi and Others5, wherein, the son of the owner was driving the vehicle, who died in the accident, was not regarded as third party. In the said case the court held that neither Section 163-A nor Section 166 would be applicable."
Thus, no such claim would be maintainable for the owner even under Section 166 of the Act. This opinion of the Supreme Court takes precedence over the opinion of the High Court of Gujarat being relied upon by the counsel for petitioners. Taking a view to the contrary would be absurd as it would allow the LRs of the deceased, who have stepped into the shoes of the deceased/ owner to claim compensation from the insurance company which has also stepped into the shoes of the same owner/ deceased for the purpose of payment of compensation. This absurdity is reflected from the simple fact that the petitioners/ LRs of the deceased had 4 Ibid.
5 (2009) 2 SCC 417.
MACP No. 277/12 Ranjeet Singh & Anr. vs. Prashant & Anr. 10 of 19 initially made the deceased himself as a respondent in the present case only to be deleted subsequently.
Hence, the liability of the insurance company in the present case would not be as per Section 163A but will be limited to the terms of the insurance contract only.
11. QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION: TERMS OF CONTRACT The counsel for the insurance company has conceded that as per the terms of insurance policy in question, cover of personal accident has also been provided. However, the same is limited to ₹1,00,000/-. The same is also apparent from Section III of the terms and conditions annexed with the policy on record.
The counsel for the petitioners has given a suggestion to R2W1 that the deceased was covered under the personal accident part of the policy as owner-driver only. It appears that an attempt is being made to draw a distinction between the scenario where the owner may have been the driver and one in which the owner is a pillion rider to contend that the contractual limitation of the personal accident cover would have been applicable only to the circumstances in which the owner was himself the driver of the vehicle. This line of argument, in fact, if it were to be accepted, is even more detrimental to the case of the petitioners as it seeks to make the terms of the personal accident cover applicable only when the owner is himself driving, thus further restricting its scope. Such an interpretation would not bring the owner pillion rider into the category of third party but rather would take him out of the ambit of the personal accident cover also. Hence, the same cannot be accepted in view of the beneficial nature of the legislation. The liability of the insurance company stands determined accordingly as per the terms of the personal accident cover and also as admitted by them to the extent of ₹1,00,000/-.
MACP No. 277/12 Ranjeet Singh & Anr. vs. Prashant & Anr. 11 of 19 The issue that arises as a corollary is that whether the insurance company can be directed to pay this amount in these proceedings?
In Susan V. Johan & Ors. vs. Joy Markose & Anr.6, while dealing with similar facts where the deceased had borrowed the vehicle from the owner and a case was filed under Section 163A, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that:
"15. In the present the accident took place on 26.08.2007. Now, after eight years of the accident to ask the victims, namely, the widow, her two children and the grandmother staying with the widow on this date to approach another forum would be inappropriate. I am hence persuaded to pass orders in terms of the personal accident cover. Respondent No. 2 / Insurance Company shall pay a sum of Rs. 2 lacs to appellants No. 1 to 4. 40% be paid to the appellant No. 1. Balance 60% be given to appellants No. 2 to 4 in equal proportions."
In the present case also, while the petition under Section 163A is not maintainable, it would not be appropriate to send the petitioners after 10 long years to another forum for seeking the amount assured under the personal accident cover. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioners are entitled to the compensation amount of ₹1,00,000/- (One Lakh only) under the personal accident cover.
Hence, in view of the above, Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly.
12. INTEREST In the instant case, there is nothing on record, which could justify the withholding of interest on the award amount. In these circumstances and having regard to the facts of the present case, it will be 6 MAC APP. 194/2010 decided on 26.11.2014.
MACP No. 277/12 Ranjeet Singh & Anr. vs. Prashant & Anr. 12 of 19 just and proper to award interest @ 9% per annum on the award amount in this case. Hence, the petitioners are awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the abovesaid compensation /award amount i.e ₹ 1,00,000/- from the date of filing of petition i.e. 12.12.2012 till realization.
13. LIABILITY As the vehicle was insured by the Respondent no. 2 National Insurance Company at the time of the accident, the aforesaid respondent shall be liable to pay the personal accident cover amount along with interest as aforesaid.
14. RELIEF Thus, in view of the above discussion & observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, an award for a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- (One Lakh) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the petition i.e 12.12.2012 till realization is passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent no. 2.
15. APPORTIONMENT The statements of the petitioners regarding financial status, needs and liabilities have been recorded. In the view of the same and in view of the fact that they may need money due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic as well as the fact that the amount in question is not a big amount, the abovesaid award amount i.e. ₹1,00,000/- shall be apportioned amongst the LRs of the deceased- Sh.Naveen Jakhar and released in the following manner with proportionate interest:
S.No Name Relation Amount of Release Amount /Period of FDR Award Amount
1. Sh. Ranjeet Father ₹ 50,000/- ₹ 20,000/- ₹30,000/- be kept in 6 Singh. FDRs of ₹ 5,000/- each for the period from one month MACP No. 277/12 Ranjeet Singh & Anr. vs. Prashant & Anr. 13 of 19 to 6 months in the name of petitioner with cumulative interest.
2. Smt. Bimla. Mother ₹ 50,000/- ₹ 20,000/- ₹30,000/- be kept in 6 FDRs of ₹ 5,000/- each for the period from one month to 6 months in the name of petitioner with cumulative interest.
Total: ₹ 1,00,000/- 16. FORM-IVA
SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN DEATH CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
i) Date of accident : 15.09.2010
ii). Name of the deceased : Sh. Naveen Jakhar
iii). Age of the deceased : 25 years (at the time of accident)
iv). Occupation of the deceased: Student, B. TECH (3rd Year)
v). Income of the deceased : NA
vi). Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name Age (at the time of Relation with deceased accident)
(i) Sh. Ranjeet Singh 54 years Father
(ii) Smt. Bimla Devi 43 years Mother Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
1. Income of the deceased (A) NA
2. Add-Future Prospects (B) NA
3. Less-Personal expenses of the deceased NA (C)
4. Monthly loss of dependency NA MACP No. 277/12 Ranjeet Singh & Anr. vs. Prashant & Anr. 14 of 19 [ (A+B)-C=D]
5. Annual Loss of dependency ( D x12) NA
6. Multiplier (E) NA
7. Total loss of dependency (D x 12x E=F) NA
8. Medical Expenses (G) NA
9. Compensation for loss of love and NA affection (H)
10. Compensation for loss of consortium (I) NA
11. Compensation for loss of estate (J) NA
12. Compensation towards funeral expenses NA (K)
13. TOTAL COMPENSATION ₹1,00,000/-
(F+G+H+I+J+K=L) (Personal Accident Cover)
14. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED
15. Interest amount up to the date of award @ 9% per annum from the (M) date of filing of petition i.e. 12.12.2014 till realization.
16. Total amount including interest ( L+M) ₹ 1,00,000/- + @9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e.12.12.2012 till realization.
17. Award amount released As per table given below
18. Award amount kept in FDRs As per table given below
19. Mode of disbursement of the award By credit in the SB Account amount to the claimant (s) (Clause 29) of the petitioners
20. Next Date for compliance of the award. 30.09.2020 (Clause 31)
17. In the instant case, the award amount shall be deposited /transferred by respondent no. 2/National Insurance Company Ltd. within 30 days in the Account No. 37665510911 of 'MACT (South-West), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi' at State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector- 10, Dwarka New Delhi, (IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and MICR Code 110002483) by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS under intimation, with proof of notice to the claimant/petitioners and their counsel, to the Nazir of this court .
MACP No. 277/12 Ranjeet Singh & Anr. vs. Prashant & Anr. 15 of 19 The above-said award amount shall be disbursed through Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme (MACAD Scheme) formulated vide Orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 (Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
18. Petitioner no.1 -Sh. Ranjeet Singh has stated that he is having a SB Account No.91022600001056 at Syndicate Bank, Chhawla, New Delhi (IFSC Code: SYNB0009102) and it is being requested on his behalf that the above-said cash amount may be transferred to the said SB Account.
Accordingly, the Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to transfer the above- said cash amount to the above-said SB Account No. 91022600001056 of petitioner no.1 - Sh. Ranjeet Singh at Syndicate Bank, Chhawla, New Delhi and to keep the remaining amount in the form of above mentioned FDRs in terms of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated vide orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 ( Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
Manager, Syndicate Bank, Chhawla, New Delhi is directed to release the above-said cash amount to petitioner no.1 -Ranjeet Singh, as per rules, as prayed.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner no.1.
All the original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioner no.1 -Sh. Ranjeet Singh.
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit MACP No. 277/12 Ranjeet Singh & Anr. vs. Prashant & Anr. 16 of 19 premature encashment or loan qua the above-said FDRs to the petitioner no.1 -Ranjeet Singh without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the petitioner no.1 -Ranjeet Singh.
The above-said Syndicate Bank, Chhawla, New Delhi is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner no.1 - Ranjeet Singh and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner no.1 - Ranjeet Singh .
Syndicate Bank, Chhawla, New Delhi, shall permit account holder i.e petitioner no.1 - Ranjeet Singh to withdraw money from his above-said saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form.
19. Petitioner no.2 -Smt. Bimla Devi has stated that she is having a SB Account No.91022600001060 at Syndicate Bank, Chhawla, New Delhi (IFSC Code: SYNB0009102) and it is being requested on her behalf that the above-said cash amount may be transferred to the said SB Account .
Accordingly, the Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to transfer the above- said cash amount to the above-said SB Account No. 91022600001060 of petitioner no.2 -Smt. Bimla Devi at Syndicate Bank, Chhawla, New Delhi and to keep the remaining amount in the form of above mentioned FDRs in terms of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated vide orders dated 01.5.2018 and 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2013 ( Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors.).
Manager, Syndicate Bank, Chhawla, New Delhi is directed to MACP No. 277/12 Ranjeet Singh & Anr. vs. Prashant & Anr. 17 of 19 release the above-said cash amount to petitioner no.2 -Smt. Bimla Devi, as per rules, as prayed.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner no.2.
All the original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank, however, the statement containing FDR number, amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioner no.2 - Bimla Devi.
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the above-said FDRs to the petitioner no. no.2 - Bimla Devi without the prior permission of this court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid monthly by automatic credit /transfer of interest amount in the aforesaid SB Account of the petitioner no.2 -Bimla Devi.
The above-said Syndicate Bank, Chhawla, New Delhi is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner no. no.2 - Bimla Devi and if the same have already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner no.2 - Bimla Devi.
Syndicate Bank, Chhawla, New Delhi shall permit account holder i.e petitioner no.2 - Bimla Devi to withdraw money from her above- said saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form.
20. The insurance company shall inform the petitioners as well as their counsel through registered post and through electronic modes that the award amount is being transferred/ deposited so as to facilitate the petitioners to know about the deposit in the account.
Certified copy of this award be sent (also through electronic modes) to the concerned Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Sector-
MACP No. 277/12 Ranjeet Singh & Anr. vs. Prashant & Anr. 18 of 19 10, Dwarka, New Delhi, Manager, Syndicate Bank, Chhawla, Delhi for information / compliance.
Certified copy of this award be also given ''Dasti' to the petitioner/ his counsel and Ld. Counsel for the respondent/insurance company and also through electronic modes.
Certified copy of this award be also sent (through electronic modes as well) to the concerned Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
Ahlmad is directed to prepare a separate misc. file and put up the same for filing of the compliance report on 30.10.2020 File be consigned to the record room.
SUMEDH Digitally
by SUMEDH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SETHI
Date: 2020.09.30
SETHI 20:40:21 +05'30'
(Announced through Video Conferencing (Dr. Sumedh Kumar Sethi)
on 30.09.2020) PO, MACT (South-West District)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
30.09.2020
MACP No. 277/12 Ranjeet Singh & Anr. vs. Prashant & Anr. 19 of 19