Delhi District Court
Mact : Delhi vs 2 on 7 September, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DILBAG SINGH : PRESIDING OFFICER :
MACT : DELHI
Petition No. : 183/07 (Old No. 242/05)
Date of filing of Petitions : 09.07.2007 (12.12.2005)
Date of conclusion of final arguments/ 07.09.2007
Date of reservation of judgment :
Date of Award : 07.09.2007
1 Smt. Rekha Devi W/o Late Sh. Paras Ram Kamat,
2 Bibha D/o Late Sh. Paras Ram Kamat, aged 15 years,
3 Sarita D/o Late Sh. Paras Ram Kamat, aged 12 years,
4 Subhash S/o Late Sh. Paras Ram Kamat, aged 10 years,
5 Ranjila Kumari D/o Late Sh. Paras Ram Kamat, aged 8 years,
6 Om Parkash, S/o Late Sh. Paras Ram Kamat, aged 6 years,
7 Sudhir S/o Late Sh. Paras Ram Kamat, aged 4 years,
8 Rahul S/o Late Sh. Paras Ram Kamat, aged 2 years,
9 Harnandan Kamat S/o Kokai Kamat,
10 Smt. Phooljhaari Devi W/o Sh. Harnandan Kamat,
(Petitioner no. 2 to 8 are minor children through
mother and natural guardian petitioner no.1)
R/o Village and Post Harlakhi,
District Madhubani, Bihar.
.........Petitioners.
Versus
2
1 Sh. Lakha Singh S/o Shri Bhawan Singh,
R/o Vill. Kuharka PS Sirhali,
District Amritsar (Punjab)
IInd Address : H. No. 52-C, Block C-II,
Sardarjung Dev. Area, New Delhi.
2 Sh. Harpal Singh S/o Sh. Sukhbir,
R/o H. no. 526, Sector -17, Gurgaon (Haryana)
IInd Address : H. no. 52-C, Block C-II,
Sardarjung Dev. Area, New Delhi.
3 Ms. Parminder Kaur W/o Kour Singh,
R/o H. no. 665, Sector-13, Sunder Nagar,
Abohar, The Abohar, Distt. Firojabad (UP)
IInd Address : W No. 29, Ravi Chowk,
Near School No.9, Sri Ganga Nagar (Raj).
4 Ritco Transport Company,
C/o Sh. Man Mohan Pal Singh Chadha
S/o Shri Rajinder Singh Chadha,
31, Tpt. Centre, Rohtak (Haryana),
IInd Address : WZ-15-C, Krishanpuri,
Gali No. 10, Tilak Nagar, Delhi - 18
IIIrd Address : D-1/5, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi-27.
5 Sh. Joga Ram S/o Sh. Bagsa Ram,
R/o Vill. & Post Biramsar, Tehsil Noha,
District Bikaner, Rajasthan
6 United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
8th Floor, Kanchanjunga Building,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.
..........Respondents.
3
JUDGEMENT
1 By this award I shall dispose of a petition U/s 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 as amended upto date (hereinafter referred to as the Act) wherein compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- has been demanded on account of death of Paras Ram Kamat in a vehicular accident which took place on 04.11.2003.
2 Brief facts as cullable from the records of the case are being stated first. On 04.11.2003 at about 4.00 AM, deceased was crossing the road near Khushdil Transport Company, Naya Bazar. There were two trucks bearing registration no. RJ -21-G-0486 and DL-1- GA 6892 parked near Khushdil Transport Company. When the deceased was crossing in between both trucks to go to other side of the road, a truck bearing registration no. HR-26-G/A-1264 came at a fast speed driven most rashly and negligently. It hit truck no. RJ -21-G- 0486 as a result of which deceased was sandwiched between truck no. RJ -21-G-0486 and DL-1G-A-6892 (parked truck). Accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent no.1. 4 Deceased was 36 years of age and was earning Rs. 4,500/- per month. Case FIR No. 390/03 U/s 279/304A IPC was registered at Police Station Lahori Gate. Respondent no.1 is the driver, respondent no.2 is the owner and respondent no.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Deceased was working as a helper of canter no. DL-1L-E-1407 under the ownership of Mr. Raj Kumar R/o BS-69-A, Shalimar Bagh. 3 Notice of the petition was given to respondents. R-1 & R-2 were proceeded exparte on 21.09.2004. On 21.03.2005 an application was moved for impleading of two more respondents and for deletion of respondent no.3. Respondent no.3 was deleted from array of respondents vide orders dated 21.03.2005. From orders dated 08.05.2006, it is revealed that Sh. Ashok Sabharwal appeared for respondent no.4 and Sh. R.P. Mathur appeared for respondent no.6. Respondent no.5 was proceeded exparte vide orders dated 21.07.2006 and on 21.07.2006 issues were framed. Order for interim relief were not passed in view of the request of the counsel for petitioner on 21.07.2006 in this regard. At this stage itself I deem it appropriate to mention that an application for conversion of the petition from 166 to 163-A was 5 moved which was dismissed as withdrawn.
4 Respondent no.3 as per amended memo of parties filed on 21.03.2005 namely Ms. Parminder Kaur filed the written statement. In para no.10, case of respondent no.3, is in consonance with the case put forth by the petitioner. In para no.17, it has been submitted that RJ-21- G-0486 was insured with United India Insurance Company vide cover note no. 945494 with validity period from 15.11.2002 to 14.11.2003. In para no.23, it has been mentioned that driver of vehicle no. RJ-21-G- 0486 was Dilbag Singh who had parked/stationed his vehicle in front of Khushdil Transport Company and had also lodged the report in the criminal case. It it is also mentioned that driver of truck no. HR-26-G/A- 1264 fled away from the spot after leaving the truck at the spot. It is pertinent to mention that Smt. Parminder Kaur filed the written statement through her attorney Sh. Darshan Singh. 5 Respondent no. 4 M/s Ritco Transport Company has filed its written statement through its Attorney Sh. Kuldeep Singh. In para no.4, it was stated that the vehicle was insured with National Insurance 6 Company Ltd. In para-wise reply on merits it was submitted that respondent was falsely involved. Para no.14 was admitted with the rider that truck no. HR-26-G/A-1264 was not the offending vehicle and drivership and ownership of the truck no. HR-26-G/A-1264 was admitted in para no.15 and 16. With respect to para no.17 it was stated that it was a matter of record. Other assertions of the petitioner were denied. Parking of the trucks bearing no. RJ-21-G-0486 and DL-1-GA- 6892 was denied. It was denied that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent no.1. 6 Respondent no.5 Sh. Joga Singh in his written statement has asserted that he sold the vehicle no. RJ-21-G-0468 to respondent no.3 on 27.08.2003 and date of accident being 04.11.2003, he was not liable. He has controverted the submissions of the petitioner. In para no. 10 the version of the petitioner put forth in the petition about the manner in which the accident took place, is admitted. 7 Respondent no.6 is the insurer of truck No. RJ-21-G-0486. It has taken its usual statutory objections in the written statement 7 concerning valid driving licence, permit and breach of other terms and conditions of the policy. Factum of truck no. 0486 being insured has been admitted. Other assertions have been controverted.
No orders for interim compensation were passed as is evident from orders dated 21.07.2006. Vide orders of that very date, following issues were framed :
1. Whether the death of Paras Ram Kamat was caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle No. HR-26-G-1264 being driven by respondent no.1?
2. To what amount the petitioners are entitled for compensation and from whom?
3. Relief.
8 Petitioners in support of their case have examined PW-1 Smt. Rekha Devi and PW-2 Sh. Raj Kumar. PW-1 Smt. Rekha Devi has proved her affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. PW-2 Sh. Raj Kumar has stated 8 about the manner in which the accident had taken place and has proved his affidavit Ex. PW2/A. 9 Per contra respondents have examined R3W1 Smt. Parvinder Kaur and R5W1 Sh. Joga Ram.
10 Arguments were heard at the bar. Counsel for petitioners Sh. Anshuman Bal, counsel for respondent no.3 & 5 Sh. Avtar Singh Virmani and counsel Sh. R.P. Mathur for respondent no.6 were heard at length. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have proved their case. Counsel Sh. Avtar Singh Virmani for respondent no.3 argued that vehicles are owned by respondent no.3 who had purchased it from respondent no.5. He has also submitted that the same was insured with respondent no.6.
Written arguments were also filed by the petitioner, counsel for respondent no.3 & 5 and counsel for respondent no.6. In written arguments counsel for the petitioners took the plea that drivers and owners of all the three three trucks are the joint tortfeasors in this case 9 and respondent no.6 is also liable on account of respondent no.6 being the insurer of vehicle no. 0486.
Respondent no.6 in its written arguments has taken the plea that as per own showing of the petitioner it was the driver of the truck no. HR-26-G/A-1264 who was responsible for the accident. Respondent no.6 on the basis of the same has argued that there is no liability of respondent no.6 as no liability was there that of insured on account of the case put forth by the petitioner. Another plea which has been taken is that plea of wrong parking was beyond pleadings. Ld. counsel has also argued that attempt of petitioners to convert the petition U/s 163-A goes to show that no case of rashness and negligence was made out against the driver of vehicle no. RJ-21-G- 0486.
11 I have carefully perused the records of the case and considered the submissions. My issue-wise findings are as follows : 10 Issue No. 1 12 Petitioners in context of this issue have proved the records of criminal case vide Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/4. Ex. PW1/1 is the FIR lodged by Sh. Dilbag Singh, driver of truck no. RJ-21-G-0486. Ex. PW1/2 is the report U/s 173 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW1/3 is the postmortem report of deceased Paras Ram, wherein death has been opined to have been taken place on account of antimortem accidental injuries. Ex. PW1/4 is the superdaginama executed by Harpal Singh with respect to release of truck bearing no. HR-26-G/A-1264. Certified copy of site plan has also been placed on record by the petitioner on 30.07.2007. 13 A bare perusal of the records of the criminal case mentioned above reveal that truck bearing no. RJ-21-G-0486 and DL- 1-GA-6892 were standing on the wrong side of the road. In this connection para no.2 of the report U/s 173Cr. P.C. is relevant, wherein driver of truck no. RJ-21-G-0486 has stated that when he went to his Company in Naya Bazar for loading of the truck he found that there was a traffic jam. It also stands mentioned that he took the truck on the 11 wrong side (ulti side) and found traffic jam towards the other side also. It stands further mentioned that another truck was standing bearing no. DL-1-GA-6892 and driver Dilbag Singh parked his truck behind truck no. RJ-21-G-0486 on the wrong side. Perusal of site plan also reveals that trucks were parked on a wrong place. It is common knowledge that area of Naya Bazar is a crowded area, so drivers of truck no. RJ-21-G- 0486 and DL-1-GA-6892 cannot be absolved from their negligence of wrong parking and have to be held liable for the same. 14 PW-2 Sh. Raj Kumar has testified in his affidavit Ex. PW2/A that the trucks were parked on the wrong side near Khushdil Transport. He has also testified that accident took place due to negligence of all the trucks. During cross-examination this witness has testified that driver of truck no. HR-26-G/A-1264 fled away from the spot before the arrival of the police. He also stated that police recorded his statement at the spot. He has also testified that truck was seized. He admitted the suggestion that accident took place due to negligence of driver of vehicle no. HR-26-G/A 1264. He also admitted the suggestion that information to the police was given to the effect that driver of vehicle no. 12 HR-26-G/A-1264 was negligent. He denied the suggestion that trucks were parked on their correct side. He also denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot and was deposing falsely in order to help the petitioners. Thus PW-2 has not been shaken in cross-examination by Ld. counsel for Insurance Company about wrong parking by the drivers of truck no. RJ-21-G-0486 and DL-1-GA-6892. Similarly in cross-examination carried out by Ld. counsel for respondent no.3 & 5, PW-2 could not be shaken as far as wrong parking of truck no. RJ-21- G-0486 and DL-1-GA-6892, is concerned. So there is no hitch in observing that act of wrong parking contributed to the accident. 15 Coming to the question of rashness and negligence of the driver of truck no. HR-26-G/A-1264. In view of the fact that in the FIR, rashness and negligence has been imputed on the driver of the truck no. HR-26-G/A 1264 coupled with testimony of PW-2 an eye witness of the accident, there is no hitch in observing that driver of truck no. HR- 26-G/A-1264 was also rash and negligent. It is the conclusion of the prosecution in the criminal case in the report U/s 173 Cr. P.C. that respondent no.1 was rash and negligent while driving. Even otherwise, 13 act of hitting the truck from behind is per se an act of negligence. Non- control of the truck by respondent no.1 is evident from the fact that in the crowded area of Naya Bazar, respondent no.1 hit the truck from behind. The act amounts to an act of rashness and negligence and no other nomenclature can be given to the same. Non-stepping in of respondent no.1 in the witness box clinches the issue as an adverse inference has to be drawn against respondent no.1 in this regard in view of the mandate of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dhanesh Kumar and ors. reported in I (1994) ACC 561. Therefore, it is hereby observed that respondent no.1 was rash and negligent while driving. 16 Counsel for the respondents Sh. R.P. Mathur and Sh. Avtar Singh Virmani, requested for complete exoneration of respondent no.3, 5 and 6. Counsel for the petitioner on the other hand argued that this being a case of composite negligence, the liability of the respondents (i.e. drivers, owners and insurers of all the trucks) has to be held as joint and several.
17 As far as the claimants are concerned, I am of the 14 considered view that this being a case of composite negligence, the liability of the respondents qua the claimants is joint and several and no apportionment is possible. Reliance in this regard is placed on a recent judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur reported in 2005 ACJ 942 titled as Balwanti Devi and others Vs. Surjit Singh and others. In this judgment it has been categorically observed that in case of a composite negligence the liability of the drivers and the owners of the vehicles involved in the accident is joint and several. Accordingly argument of Ld. counsel for the claimants have to prevail. Reliance of Sh. R.P. Mathur, Ld. counsel for the Insurance Company on a judgment of Gohati High Court titled as Drupad Kumar Barua Vs. Asam State Transport Corporation reported in 1990 ACJ 46, is of no help to him as our Hon'ble High Court has taken a different view which is binding on me and is a view which is in consonance with legislative mandate. Many other High Courts have also taken the view which has been taken by our Hon'ble High Court. One of the handy and important precedent which I deem it expedient to refer in this regard is a full bench decision of Karnataka High Court titled as Ganesh Vs. Sayyed Muneed Ahmad and others reported in 2002 15 ACJ 1463. In this judgment the question of composite negligence has been considered at length and ultimately it has been observed that in case of composite negligence the liability of the tortfeasors is joint and several. 'Drupad Kumar Barua' has been referred in this case and reasons of not following the same have also been given based upon the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
18 It is not disputed in the present case that death of Paras Ram Kamath took place on account of no fault of his as he was merely crossing the road. So there is no hitch whatsoever with me to observe that it was a case of composite negligence.
19 However, in order to save the parties from another bout of litigation, I deem it expedient to apportion the liability of the joint tortfeasors interse making it categorically clear that it will not effect the interest of the claimants in any manner whatsoever. Irrespective of my finding with respect to interse liability, petitioners shall remain entitles to recover the amount of compensation from which ever respondent, which they feel like.
1620 In view of mandate of 2002 ACJ 1463, I am proceeding a step ahead than the issue involved in 2005 ACJ 942 and anticipated in 2002 ACJ 1453. In most of the judgments, interse decision of liability of joint tortfeasors has not taken place on account of the fact that petitioners had not arrayed the drivers and owners of the other vehicles. However, in the present case the situation is different and owners and drivers of the other vehicles are also parties and it will be more appropriate to apportion their liability interse and it is for this reason that I am taking a two faceted approach towards liability. One for the purpose of claimants and the other for the purpose of interse liability of the respondents.
21 Therefore I proceed to apportion the negligence/liability interse. I am of the considered view that driver of truck no. HR-26-G/A- 1264 is liable to the extent of 70% and drivers of truck nos. RJ-21-G- 0486 and DL-1-GA-6892 are liable to the extent of 15% each on account of their act of wrong parking. Respondent no.1 is mainly liable for the reason that conclusion of the police has gone against him, PW-2 has categorically imputed rashness and negligence on him and he was 17 not in a position to apply brakes at the required occasion and that too in a crowded area. Another reason due to which major portion of negligence has been attributed to him is that fast speed of the truck is exhibited from the fact that it caused a heavy vehicle to move on account of strong jerk received by it. So in view of the facts and circumstances of the case attribution of 70% negligence is justified in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. Remaining 30% has to be attributed to the drivers of parked trucks as they should not have parked their trucks on the wrong side. So interse liability is 70%, 15 and 15% which will come into play after full payment to the claimants b any one or all the respondents.
Issue No. 2.
22 Next question which requires determination is as to what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to. In 1983 ACJ 640, by placing reliance upon full bench decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court titled as Laxman Singh Vs. Gurmeet Kaur reported in 1979 ACJ 170 it was observed as follows :
18
"26 It is now well settled, as was laid down in Lachman Sihngh Vs. Gurmit Kaur, that the compensation to be assessed is the pecuniary loss caused to the dependents by the death of the person concerned and for the purpose of calculating the just compensation, annual dependency of the dependents should be determined in terms of the annual loss accruing to them due to the abrupt termination of life. For this purpose, annual earning of the deceased at the time of the accident and the amount out of the same which he was spending for the maintenance of the dependents will be the determining factor. This basic figure will then have to be multiplied by a suitable multiplier. The suitable multiplier shall be determined by taking into consideration the number of years of the dependency of the various dependents, the number of years by which the life of the deceased was cut short and the various imponderable factors, 19 such as early natural death of the deceased, his becoming incapable of supporting the dependents due to illness or any other natural handicap or calamity, the prospects of remarriage of the widow, the coming up of age of the dependents and their developing independent sources of income as well as the pecuniary benefits which might accrue to the dependents on account of the death of the person concerned."
23 Keeping in view the above mentioned principles of assessment, I proceed to assess the compensation in the present case. Petitioners have proved the ration card, wherein age of Smt. Rekha Devi, petitioner and wife of deceased has been given as 44 years. However date of issue of ration card is not legible. A minute perusal reveals that this was issued in the month of April, 2006. Smt. Rekha Devi being the wife of the deceased must have been a little bit younger than the deceased. From perusal of ration card, appears that this was got issued after the death of the deceased. So can it be said from Ex. 20 PW1/6 that age of deceased was more than 44 years at the time of accident?
24 Another document placed on record is the voter I-card of Smt. Rekha Devi which has been proved as Ex. PW1/5. As per Ex. PW1/5, Smt. Rekha Devi was 28 years of age as on 01.01.1995 meaning thereby that she was 36 years of age at the time of accident and her husband must be older than her.
25 In the postmortem report age of Paras Ram has been given as 40 years. I could not locate any other document by virtue of which the age of the deceased could be determined properly and therefore, estimation on the basis of the documents on record is the only option. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that petitioners and deceased are/was from an uneducated family and they might not have maintained proper records about the age of the deceased, it will be comparatively appropriate to consider him as aged 40 years as so given in postmortem report by taking a benign view. The self serving assertion in Ex.PW1/A wherein age of deceased has 21 been shown as 37 years cannot be considered as correct as in the ration card Ex. PW1/6 age of Smt. Rekha Devi has been shown as 44 years.
26 Next component which requires ascertainment is the income of the deceased at the time of his death. In Ex. PW1/A Smt. Rekha Devi has given income of deceased as Rs. 3,300/- per month. She was cross-examined and she admitted that she had not filed any proof of qualification, employment and income or age of the deceased. In view of this admission, version given by Smt. Rekha Devi is not of much help and it is more appropriate to have resort to minimum wages. The deceased falls in the category of uneducated and unskilled worker, as also so admitted by Ld. counsel for the claimants during the course of final arguments. On 04.11.2003 minimum wages of an uneducated and unskilled worker were Rs. 2,783.90 ps. (say Rs. 2,800/-). So the amount of Rs. 2,800/- can be taken as the income of the deceased at the time of death. Counsel for the petitioners has argued that deceased was having bright future prospects. He has also argued that even minimum wagers have future prospects. He has placed his reliance on 22 FAO No. 396/01 decided on 15.01.2007 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog. My Lord has held in this judgment that minimum wager is also to be awarded future prospects. Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Bijoy Kumar Dugar Vs. Bidyadhar Dutt & Ors. reported in II (2006) SLT 651 was referred in this judgment. In view of the mandate given by my Lord Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nangrajog, I am awarding future prospects and applying the well settled formula. Double the income and arrive at the mean of original income plus double of income by dividing the resultant by two i.e. 2800 + 5600 divided by 2 = 4200.
27 Thus annual assumed income of the deceased comes to Rs. 4,200 x 12 = 50,400/-. Deceased was supporting as many as 10 members and in view of the same it will not be appropriate to deduct 1/3rd and I deem it expedient to deduct 1/6th towards personal expenses of the deceased for the reason that he must be spending very less amount on him in view of very-very large family. 1/6th of Rs. 50,400/- comes to Rs. 8,400/-. Thus annual dependency of the petitioners comes to 50,400 - 8,400 = 42,000/-.
2328 Coming to the question of multiplier. It is no more res integra that in the cases U/s 166 where future prospects are awarded, multiplier has to be applied on the basis of precedents. Therefore, I am referring to some of the precedents for the purpose. In Tamilnadu State Corporation Ltd. Vs. S. Rajpriya and others reported in AIR 2005 SC 2965, multiplier of 12 was applied in case of deceased being 38 years of age. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Laxman Ayyar, the multiplier of 10 was applied by Hon'ble Supreme Court when the age of the father and mother was 47 and 43 years respectively. In Sarla Dixit Vs. Balwant Yadav, deceased was of 27 years of age and multiplier of 16 was applied. In New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kalpana reported in 2007 ACJ 825 (SC), multiplier of 13 was applied in case of deceased being 33 years of age. In Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. K.L. Bindu and others reported in IV (2005) ACC 350 (SC), multiplier of 13 was applied in case of deceased being 34 years of age. In U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation Vs. Krishna Bala and others reported in III (2006) ACC 361, multiplier of 13 was applied in the case of deceased 24 being 36 years of age. In National Insurance Company Vs. Pooja reported in 2007 ACJ 1051, multiplier of 16 was applied in case of deceased being 30 years of age.
29 Taking a clue from the above mentioned judgments, I am of the view that multiplier of 12 can be applied keeping into view age of the deceased being 40 years and other facts and circumstances of the case. Multiplier on the higher side is being applied for the reason that petitioner was in a lower income group and a very-very large family stands effected. Thus loss of dependency comes to Rs. 42,000 x 12 = 5,04,000/-. To this amount are added a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral charges, Rs. 15,000/- towards consortium and Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Thus the total compensation comes to Rs. 5,04,000 + 55,000 = 5,59,000/-.
Relief 30 Therefore, an award for a sum of Rs. 5,59,000/- is being passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. 25 Petitioner shall also be entitled to interest on the awarded amount @ 7% p.a. in view of the mandate of Section 171 of the Act. 31 Apportionment of the amount awarded is as follows:
1 Smt. Rekha Devi Rs. 2,44,000/-
2 Bibha Rs. 35,000/-
3 Sarita Rs. 35,000/-
4 Subhash Rs. 35,000/-
5 Ranjitla Kumari Rs. 35,000/-
6 Om Parkash Rs. 35,000/-
7 Sudhir Rs. 35,000/-
8 Rahul Rs. 35,000/-
9 Harnandan Kamat Rs. 35,000/-
10 Smt. Phooljharia Devi Rs. 35,000/-
32 Petitioner no. 1 is directed to keep a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- out of the above mentioned amount in a fixed deposit for a period of seven years with some Nationalized Bank without any facility of premature withdrawal, encashment loan/advance, mortgage etc. 26 Petitioner no.1, however, shall be entitled to withdraw interest. It is directed that the share of compensation awarded to the claimants no.2 to 8 Bibha, Sarita, Subhash, Ranjila Kumari, Om Parkash, Sudhir and Rahul be invested in Fixed Deposits with any Nationalized Bank till the time of their attaining the age of majority or in the alternative in Monthly Income Scheme of Post and Telegraphs till the time of their attaining the age of majority without any facility of loan, advance or withdrawal etc. Liability to pay 33 Liability to pay the compensation to the claimants is joint and several of the respondents qua the claimants and after payment in the ration of 70, 15 x 15% at the time of disposal of issue no.1. The amount shall be paid within a period of one month from today, failing which this Tribunal shall be constrained to take harsh steps. In view of the fact that truck no. RJ-21-G-0468 was insured and no breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy having been proved by insurance company, the recovery proceedings shall not initiated against 27 the owner and driver of truck no. RJ-21-G-0486.
34 A copy of the award be supplied to all the sides free of cost for necessary compliance.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court Dated : 07.09.2007 (DILBAGH SINGH) Judge/MACT:Delhi