Delhi District Court
Smt. Neetu W/O Late Sh. Sunil Kumar @ Sonu vs Sh.Lakhvir Singh S/O Sh. Mula Singh on 21 August, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SHRI GURVINDER PAL SINGH
JUDGE,MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL(WEST)
TIS HAZARI COURTS,DELHI
Suit No. 704/09
Unique ID No. 02401C0437402009
1. Smt. Neetu w/o Late Sh. Sunil Kumar @ Sonu
2. Chaudhary Tikam Singh s/o Late Sh. Sunil Kumar @ Sonu
3. Smt.Virmati Devi w/o Sh. Hoshiyar Singh
4. Sh. Hoshiyar Singh s/o Sh. Nanu
(The petitioner no.2, being minor through his mother & natural
guardian Smt. Neetu, petitioner No.1)
All r/o I759, Mangol Puri, Delhi83
......Petitioners/Claimants
Versus
1. Sh.Lakhvir Singh s/o Sh. Mula Singh
R/o C/o M/s Jindal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
33, Mile Stone, G.T.K. Road, Vill. Nathu Pur,
P.O.Rai, P.S. Kundli, Distt. Sonipat, Haryana.(Driver)
2. M/s Jindal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
33, Mile Stone, G.T.K. Road, Vill. Nathu Pur,
P.O.Rai, P.S. Kundli, Distt. Sonipat, Haryana.(owner)
3. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
8th Floor, Kanchanjunga Building, Barakhamba Road,
Connaught Place, New Delhi (insurer)
.....Respondents
Date of filing of the petition : 17/09/09
When reserved for judgment : 12/08/10
Date of final judgment/award : 21/08/10
Appearances :
For claimants/ petitioners : Sh. R. K. Jain Advocate
Ch.No.401,Western Wing,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
For respondents No.1 & 2 : Sh Nagender Singh Advocate.
Seat No.51, P.S. Rathee Block
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
For respondent no.3 : Sh. V.P. Malhotra Advocate
H.No. 365, Sec.15A, Noida
(U.P.)
Consolidated cases bearing Suit no. 704/09 & 705/09 Page1/17
Suit No. 705/09
Unique ID No. 02401C0437382009
1. Smt. Meena Devi w/o Sh. Om Parkash Gupta
2. Sh. Om Parkash Gupta s/o Late Sh. Shiv Narain Gupta Both r/o Y757, Mangol Puri, New Delhi83 ......Petitioners/Claimants Versus
1. Sh.Lakhvir Singh s/o Sh. Mula Singh R/o C/o M/s Jindal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
33, Mile Stone, G.T.K. Road, Vill. Nathu Pur, P.O.Rai, P.S. Kundli, Distt. Sonipat, Haryana.(Driver)
2. M/s Jindal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
33, Mile Stone, G.T.K. Road, Vill. Nathu Pur, P.O.Rai, P.S. Kundli, Distt. Sonipat, Haryana.(owner)
3. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
8th Floor, Kanchanjunga Building, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi (insurer) .....Respondents Date of filing of the petition : 17/09/09 When reserved for judgment : 12/08/10 Date of final judgment/award : 21/08/10 Appearances : For claimants/ petitioners : Sh. R. K. Jain Advocate Ch.No.401,Western Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
For respondents No.1 & 2 : Sh Nagender Singh Advocate.
Seat No.51, P.S. Rathee Block Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi For respondent No.3 : Sh. V.P. Malhotra Advocate H.No. 365, Sec.15A, Noida (U.P.) CONSOLIDATED JUDGMENT/ AWARD Vide this consolidated judgment, I shall dispose off two claim petitions bearing (1) Suit No.704/09 titled as Smt. Neetu & Ors. Vs. Sh. Lakhvir Singh & Ors. and Suit No.705/09 titled as Smt. Meena Devi Vs. Sh. Lakhvir Singh & Ors, since these two claim petitions have been consolidated in terms of order Consolidated cases bearing Suit no. 704/09 & 705/09 Page2/17 dated 21/07/10 of this Tribunal as they had arisen out of the same accident which had taken place on 03/08/09, while the claim petition Suit No. 704/09 has been treated as main case and the evidence recorded in petition Suit No. 704/09 is to be read as evidence in the leading case as well.
2. In the claim petition bearing Suit No. 704/09, the petitioners have claimed Rs. 20,00,000/(Rupees Twemty Lakhs Only) vide claim petition u/s 160/140 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, as compensation for the fatal injuries received by Sh. Sunil Kumar @ Sonu.
3. In the claim petition bearing Suit no. 705/09, the petitioners have claimed Rs.15,00,000/(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only)vide claim petition u/s 160/140 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988,as compensation for the fatal injuries received by Sh. Vikram Kumar.
4. Brief resume of the facts of the claim petitions is as follows. On 03/08/09 at about 09.50 a.m. on Outer Ring Road, near Gali No. 19, Sant Garh, National Testing Laboratory, Tilak Nagar, Delhi, Sh. Sunil Kumar @ Sonu was driving his motor cycle no. DL8S/AU0171 having on pillion seat Sh. Vikram Kumar. Then a Mixer Truck bearing no. HR635978, driven by respondent no.1 at high speed rashly and negligently came from behind and hit the motor cycle of deceased with great force. Consequently, Sh. Sunil Kumar @ Sonu and Sh. Vikram Kumar with the motor cycle fell down on the road and sustained serious injuries. Sh. Sunil Kumar @ Sonu died at the spot and Sh. Vikram Kumar was removed to DDU Hospital where he was admitted for treatment but he succumbed to his injuries on the same day.
5. Respondents no.1,2 & 3 are the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle respectively.
6. All respondents were summoned and served.
7. All the respondents filed the written statements and denied the claim of the petitioner.
Consolidated cases bearing Suit no. 704/09 & 705/09 Page3/17
8. Respondent No.3, insurer has however, admitted the fact that vehicle No. HR635978 was insured with it vide policy no. 041703/31/08/02/0000849 valid from 24/02/09 to 23/02/10.
9. Vide order dated 21/01/10 of this Tribunal in Suit No. 704//09,the petitioners were awarded interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/ with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization and following issues were also framed:
1.Whether the deceased, Sh. Sunil Kumar @ Sonu had sustained fatal injuries on 03/08/09 at about 09.50 a.m at Outer Ring Road, near Gali No.19, Sant Garh, National Testing Laboratory, Tilak Nagar, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 Sh. Lakhvir Singh while driving vehicle Truck bearing registration no. HR63/5978?
2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3.Relief.
10. Vide order dated 21/01/10 of this Tribunal in Suit No. 705/09,the petitioner No.1, mother of the deceased was awarded interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/ with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization and following issues were also framed:
1.Whether the deceased, Sh. Vikram Kumar had sustained fatal injuries on 03/08/09 at about 09.50 a.m at outer Ring Road, Near Gali no.19, Sant Garh, National Testing Laboratory, Tilak Nagar, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, Sh. Lakhvir Singh while driving vehicle Truck bearing registration no. HR63/5978?
2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3.Relief.
11. Smt. Neetu Devi as PW1; Smt. Meena Devi as PW2; Constable Trilok Chand as PW3 are the examined petitioner's witnesses. Consolidated cases bearing Suit no. 704/09 & 705/09 Page4/17
12. No respondent evidence was led despite opportunity.
13. I have heard submissions of Ld. Counsels for the parties, perused the record and given my thoughts to the contentions put forth. My issuewise findings are as under: COMMON ISSUE NO.1 in Suit no. 704/09 and in Suit no 705/09
14. PW3 Constable Trilok Chand testified that on the fateful date, time and place he was on patrolling duty and had seen the Mixer Truck bearing its registration no. HR63/5978, driven by respondent no.1 rashly and negligently, overtaking other vehicles in a wrong way and had had hit the motor cycle No. DL8S/AU0171 from behind with great force. As a consequence Sh. Sunil Kumar @ Sonu and Sh. Vikram Kumar, the riders of the motor cycle fell down on the road with the motor cycle. Sh. Sunil Kumar @ Sonu expired at the spot. Sh. Vikram sustained serious injuries, was taken to DDU Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries.
15. Neither respondent No.1 has entered in the witness box to testify in contrary to the version of PW3. There is nothing on record to discard or disbelieve the testimony of PW3 either in toto or in particular.
16. A driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle is under bounden duty to observe necessary caution for not striking other vehicles, persons on road. Having failed to observe such necessary care and caution, being oblivious of said duty, respondent No.1 was berserk locomotion since he caused fatal injuries to the deceased after striking their motor cycle from back side. Respondent No.1 was thus negligent.
17. The version of PW3 is lent corroboration by the version emanating from the certified copy of the chargesheet,against respondent no.1 of case FIR No. 221/09 , P.S. Vikas Puri, u/s 279/304A IPC, in terms of which the investigating agency opined that the respondent No.3 has committed the said offences and was responsible for the death of the deceased Sh. Sunil Kumar Consolidated cases bearing Suit no. 704/09 & 705/09 Page5/17 @ Sonu and Sh. Vikram Kumar caused by his rash and negligent driving of said vehicle in question.
18. In terms of the certified copy of the post mortem on the body of Sh. Sunil Kumar , the cause of death opined is ' craniocerebral injury followed by Road Traffic accident'
19. In terms of the certified copy of the post mortem on the body of Sh. Vikram Kumar, the cause of death opined is ' Hemorrhagic shock subsequent to crush injuries to lower limb caused by Road Traffic Accident '.
20. Aforesaid discussions lead me to the conclusion that the petitioners have been able to prove that deceased sustained fatal injuries due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3. Issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents in both claim petitions. ISSUE NO. 2 IN SUIT NO. 704/09
21. 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, (4)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 and (5) Smt. Sarla Verma & ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr, reported in III (2009) ACC 708 (SC), decided by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15/04/09, the payment of compensation in lumpsum Consolidated cases bearing Suit no. 704/09 & 705/09 Page6/17 to legal representatives of deceased by multiplier method has been approved.
22. 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
23. As per, Ex. PW1/5, the copy of School Leaving Certificate of deceased, the date of birth of the deceased was 05/07/1986 and he left the th school in class 9 . Accordingly, the deceased was of age 23 years plus, as on the date of accident.
24. PW1 testified that her deceased husband Sh. Sunil Kumar @ Sonu in private service as Field Executive with BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. at Janak Puri, Delhi , earning Rs. 7000/ per month. Petitioners have not placed on record any documents regarding monthly earnings or employment of deceased nor have proved the same.
25. In absence of any cogent evidence, documentary or otherwise, to 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 nonmatriculate person, which was Rs. 4146/ on the day of accident.
26. Noting that to neutralize increase in cost of living and price index, minimum wages are increased from time totime. Minimum wages tend to increase by 100% every 10 years.
27. 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 Consolidated cases bearing Suit no. 704/09 & 705/09 Page7/17 (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].
28. Thus, Tribunal has to consider future increase in minimum wage while awarding compensation to the dependents of deceased.
29. 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. 6219/ per month [{minimum wage+ double the minimum wage} divided by 2] for purpose of computation of compensation in this case.
30. Petitioner no.1, the widow of the deceased;petitioner no.2, the minor son of deceased; petitioners no.3 & 4, the parents of the deceased were four dependents on the earnings of the deceased.
31. In terms of law laid by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors (Supra), since there were four dependents abovesaid on the earnings of the deceased as on the date of accident the deduction towards th personal and living expenses of the deceased, would be onefourth (1/4 ), 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. 1554/75 p.(Rs..6219/ divided by 4). The loss of monthly dependency to the dependents of the deceased accordingly would be Rs. 4464/25 p. (Rs. 6219/ less Rs. 1554/75 p.).
MULTIPLIER
32. As per Ex. PW1/2, copy of identity card of Election Commission of India, petitioner No.1, the wife of the deceased was of age 21 years, as on the date of accident.
33. As per the copy of birth certificate of petitioner no.2, his date of birth was 04/08/08, the petitioner was of age 1 year, as on the date of accident. Consolidated cases bearing Suit no. 704/09 & 705/09 Page8/17
34. As per Ex. PW1/4, copy of identity card of Election Commission of India, the petitioner no.3, the mother of the deceased was of age 58 years, as on the date of accident.
35. As per, Ex.PW1/3, copy of identity card of Election Commission of India, petitioner no.4, father of the deceased was of age 59 years, as on the date of accident.
36. In terms of the law laid by the Apex Court in case of ' Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors (Supra), the multiplier of 18( for age group of 15 to 25 years) as per the age of 23 years of deceased is to be adopted in this case. Accordingly the total loss of dependency would be Rs. 10,07,478/( Rs. 4664/25 p. x 12x18).
COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
37. In terms of law laid by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors (Supra), the claimant/ petitioner no.1 is entitled to sum of Rs. 10,000/ under the head of loss of consortium.
COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF ESTATE
38. 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 TOWARDS FUNERAL EXPENSES
39. 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 LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION.
40. 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, as there are four claimants, so the petitioners/claimants are entitled to Rs. 10,000/ each i.e., total sum of Rs. Consolidated cases bearing Suit no. 704/09 & 705/09 Page9/17 40,000/ as loss of love and affection.
41. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation to which the petitioners are entitled to comes as under:
1.Compensation for Loss of dependency Rs. 10,07,478/
2.Compensation for loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/
3.Compensation for loss of estate Rs. 10,000/
4.Compensation for funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/
5.Compensation for loss of love and affection Rs. 40,000/ ______________ Rs. 10,72,478/ Less Interim Compensation Rs. 50,000/ Balance payable sum ______________ Rs. 10,22,478/ _____________
42. 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. 10,22,478/as compensation alongwith interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of notice of deposit to the claimants with a copy to their counsel against receipt from the respondents. ISSUE NO. 2 IN SUIT NO. 705/09
43. PW2, the mother of the deceased testified that Sh. Vikram, her son was bachelor , was a Field Executive with BSES, Rajdhani Power Ltd, Janak Puri and also doing tailor work at home and earning Rs. 10,000/ per month. Petitioners have not placed on record any document of employment or monthly earnings of the deceased nor have proved the same. As per, Ex. PW2/4, the copy of matriculation certificate of National Institute of Open Schooling, the deceased had passed secondary examination in April/ May 2003 having date of birth 21/04/1986. The deceased was accordingly a matriculate and of age 23 years as on the date of accident.
44. In absence of any cogent evidence, documentary or otherwise, to 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 Consolidated cases bearing Suit no. 704/09 & 705/09 Page10/17 Wages Act by the Delhi Government in the category of a matriculate person, which was Rs. 4401/ on the day of accident.
45. Noting that to neutralize increase in cost of living and price index, minimum wages are increased from time totime. Minimum wages tend to increase by 100% every 10 years.
46. 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].
47. Thus, Tribunal has to consider future increase in minimum wage while awarding compensation to the dependents of deceased.
48. 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. 6601/50 p. per month [{minimum wage+ double the minimum wage} divided by 2] for purpose of computation of compensation in this case.
49. Since the deceased was a bachelor,in terms of law laid by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors (Supra), the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, would be 50%. Such deduction would be Rs. 3300/75 p. (50% of Rs. 6601/50 p.).
MULTIPLIER
50. As per, Ex. PW2/3, copy of identity card of Election Commission of India, petitioner no.1, the mother of the deceased was of age 40 years, as on the date of accident.
51. As per Ex. PW2/2, copy of identity card of Election Commission of India, petitioner No.2, the father of the deceased was of age 45 years, as on the date of accident. As per PW2, in her affidavit, Ex. PW2/A, both the parents of the deceased were dependents on the earnings of the deceased. Consolidated cases bearing Suit no. 704/09 & 705/09 Page11/17
52. In 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, it was held that the multiplier adopted as per the age of younger of the parents for calculation of the compensation was correct.
53. In terms of the law laid by the Apex Court in case of ' Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors (Supra), the multiplier of 15( for age group of 36 to 40 years), as per the age of 40 years of petitioner no.1, the mother of the deceased is to be adopted in this case. Accordingly the total loss of dependency would be Rs. 5,94,135/( Rs. 3300/75 p. x 12x15).
COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF ESTATE
54. 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 TOWARDS FUNERAL EXPENSES
55. 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 LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION.
56. 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, as there are two claimants, so the petitioners/claimants are entitled to Rs. 10,000/ each i.e., total sum of Rs. 20,000/ as loss of love and affection.
57. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation to which the petitioners are entitled to comes as under: Consolidated cases bearing Suit no. 704/09 & 705/09 Page12/17
1.Compensation for Loss of dependency Rs. 5,94,135/
2.Compensation for loss of estate Rs. 10,000/
3.Compensation for funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/
4.Compensation for loss of love and affection Rs. 20,000/ _____________ Rs. 6,29,135/ Less Interim Compensation Rs. 50,000/ Balance payable sum ______________ Rs. 5,79,135/ _____________
58. 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. 5,79,135/as compensation alongwith interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of notice of deposit to the claimants with a copy to their counsel against receipt from the respondents. LIABILITY
59. Ld. counsel for insurer argued that since the insured was not having valid permit of vehicle insured for Delhi and he permitted respondent no.1 to drive vehicle without valid permit, there was breach of terms and condition of the policy and insurer was not liable to pay compensation.
60. In terms of law laid in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd Vs Swaran Singh & Ors reported in 2004 A CJ 1, it is trite that where the insurers relying upon the violations of the provisions of law by the assured takes an exception to pay the assured or third party , they must prove a willful violation of the law by the assured.
61. Written statement of insurer is finding no mention of insured having permitted respondent no.1 for driving vehicle without permit.
62. No notice was served upon respondents No.1 & 2 by insurer for production of any valid permit of offending vehicle in question. No witness of insurer was examined to prove any breach of any term or condition of policy in question. Insurer has failed to prove on record that insured/ respondent no.2 Consolidated cases bearing Suit no. 704/09 & 705/09 Page13/17 had committed any breach of insurance policy. So, insurer is liable to pay the compensation.
RELIEF IN SUIT NO. 704/09
63. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are thus, entitled to Rs. 10,22,478/as compensation alongwith interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of notice of deposit to the claimants with a copy to their counsel against receipt from the respondents, payable by insurer, respondent no.3. RELIEF IN SUIT NO. 705/09
64. In view of the above discussion I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,79,135/, to be equally shared between them as compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of notice of deposit to the claimants with a copy to their counsel against receipt, from the respondents,payable by the respondent No.3,insurer.
65. 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 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 Consolidated cases bearing Suit no. 704/09 & 705/09 Page14/17 than one fixed deposit. In case of any exigency, claimants are at liberty to apply to Tribunal for withdrawal of such investment.
66. APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION IN SUIT NO.704/09
1. Smt. Neetu(wife) Rs. 3,72,478/
2. Chaudhary Tikam Singh (minor son) Rs. 2,50,000/
3. Smt. Virmati Devi (mother) Rs. 2,00,000/
4. Sh. Hoshiyar Singh (father) Rs. 2,00,000/
67. In terms thereof, out of the award amount, 50% amount of petitioner no. 1 be invested in shape of two FDRs of equal (almost) in the name of the said claimant/ petitioner for a period of 7 years in State Bank of India. The award amount of petitioner No.2 (minor son of deceased) be invested in shape of FDRs in the name of the said claimant/ petitioner in State Bank of India,till he attains the age of majority. 50% amount of petitioners No. 3 & 4 ( mother and father of deceased) be invested in shape of two FDRs of equal (almost) in the name of the said claimants/ petitioners for a period of 5 years in State Bank of India. Petitioners can withdraw the interest monthly. Minor petitioners can so withdraw interest through his guardian mother, petitioner No.1. However, petitioners/claimants are at liberty to take steps for premature encashment in case of exigency, as per law laid before this Tribunal. INVESTMENT OF COMPENSATION IN FIXED DEPOSITS IN SUIT NO. 705/09
68. In terms thereof, out of the award amount, 50% payable to petitioners be invested in shape of two FDRs of equal (almost) sum in the name of the said claimants / petitioners for a period of seven years in State Bank of India.
69. State Bank of India,Tis Hazari, has agreed to open Special Fixed Deposit Account for the victims of road accidents.
70. Aforesaid fixed deposits are to be made by State Bank of India, Tis Hazari in the following manner: Consolidated cases bearing Suit no. 704/09 & 705/09 Page15/17 (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. The fixed deposits shall be automatically renewed till the period prescribed by the court. (2) The interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits shall be paid monthly by automatic credit of interest in the Saving 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 claimant 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.
(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 Saving Account to any other branch of State Bank of India according to the convenience of the claimants.
71. In terms of directions contained in case of UOI Vs. Nanisiri, in MAC Appeal No. 682/2005, order dated 13/01/2010, of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. R. Midha, Respondents No.3, Insurance Company is directed to directly deposit Consolidated cases bearing Suit no. 704/09 & 705/09 Page16/17 the award sum with ,State Bank of India (SBI), Tis Hazari within 30 days through its nodal officer Mr. H.S. Rawat, Relationship Manager, Tis Hazari Branch (Mb: 09717044322) and the Manager concerned of SBI, Tis Hazari Court to release the said amount by transferring the same to the Saving Bank Account of the victims /claimants. Insurance Company to also file proof of deposit of award sum, also within said period. Manager SBI, Tis Hazari to also furnish compliance report within 15 days of deposit of award sum. Claimants to do the necessary formalities in respect of the bank account(s). Ahlmad to keep the copy of Award in a miscellaneous file for awaiting compliance report from all concerned, which be put up on 04/10/10.
Inquiry file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court (Gurvinder Pal Singh)
today i.e.21/08/10 Judge, MACT(West)
Delhi.
Consolidated cases bearing Suit no. 704/09 & 705/09 Page17/17