Delhi District Court
Raj Kala & Ors. vs . Peter Uchanna & Ors. on 17 December, 2015
Raj Kala & Ors. Vs. Peter Uchanna & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAVEEN ARORA: PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT
SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
Petition No. : 220/13
Unique Case ID : 02406C0255552012
1. Smt. Rajkala W/o Sh. Badri Prasad,
2. Sh. Badri Prasad S/o Sh. Jagnnath,
3. Master Arjun S/o SH. Badri Prasad
4. Ms. Sarita D/o Sh. Badri Prasad,
All R/o : B986, Ambedkar Basti,
Sector 1 , R K Puram, New Delhi
Also At: H NO. 193, Barakhuradarpur,
(Ashinka) Barakhuradar, Tehsil Salon
Dist. Raebareli, (U.P)
(Petitioner no. 3 & 4 being minors, are represented
through their mother Smt. Rajkala/Natural Guardian/
Petitioner No. 1)
..... Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Peter Uchnna S/o Sh. Sunday ... (Driver)
R/o: H NO. 27, Janta Flats, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi.
Also At: H NO. 55, Ifesha Legas
Nigeria (M) 09910768392
2. Smt. Smitha Laxman W/o Sh. T P Laxman ...(Present Owner)
R/o 80, Ist Floor, Humayunpur,
Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi
3. IFFCOTokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. ... (Insurance Co.)
th
4 Floor, 416421, Narain Manjil,
Petition No. : 133/14 Page No. 1 of 20
Raj Kala & Ors. Vs. Peter Uchanna & Ors.
23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi,
Policy No. 30435879,
Valid From 27.02.2011 to 26.02.2012
4. Mr. Ashe Khehezu S/o Mr. Osadaye Joseph ...(Reg. Owner)
R/o 25, Ist Floor, Amrit Nagar,
Near South Extension, Part I, New Delhi 110062
..... Respondents
Date of Institution : 07.10.2013
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 30.11.2015
Date of pronouncement : 17.12.2015
J U D G M E N T :
1. The petitioners have filed the present petition u/s 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for claiming compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/ for untimely death of Sh. Ram Raj in a road accident on 25.10.2011 at about 02.00 PM at Way to Sec.1, Red Light, Opp. Sector5, CGHS Dispensary, New Mohan Singh Market, T Point, New Delhi.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.10.2011 at about 2:00 PM Sh. Ram Raj (Since deceased) was going to his house from his work place on his bicycle at a normal speed and on correct side of the road and when reached at Way to SectorI, Red Light, Opposite Sector5, CGHS Dispensary, Near Mohan Singh Market, New Delhi in the meanwhile a Car No. DL 6CJ 1252 (Icon Car S Mist) which was being driven by its driver/ respondent No.1 at a very Petition No. : 133/14 Page No. 2 of 20 Raj Kala & Ors. Vs. Peter Uchanna & Ors.
high speed, rashly, negligently, hit the bicycle with great force due to which bicycle fell down on the road, thus, he sustained grievous head injuries. He was taken to Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, (AIIMS), New Delhi, and was died during the course of his treatment on 19.06.2012 ( i.e. after 7 months of accident) at JPN Apex Trauma Centre (AIIMS), New Delhi. A case was registered at the police station R K Puram vide FIR no. 288/11. It was stated that the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1. It was further stated that the deceased was 19 years of age. He was a gardener in addition to washing of Car's in morning times in Sarojni Nagar area, Delhi and earning Rs. 15,000/ per month. It was stated that the vehicle was owned by respondent no.2 & 4 and insured with respondent no.3. Respondent No. 4 Mr. Ashe Khehezu who is allegedly the insured of the offending vehicle, was made party later on vide order dated 08.07.2013, on the application moved on behalf of Respondent No. 3.
3. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. All the respondents except respondent No. 4 were duly served and put their appearances and respondent No. 4 was thus, served by way of publication in the newspaper "The Statesman" dated 19.09.2013.. Respondent no.2 and 3 filed their written statement. Respondent no.2 has denied the averments of the petition and stating that she has purchased the car bearing No. DL 6CJ Petition No. : 133/14 Page No. 3 of 20 Raj Kala & Ors. Vs. Peter Uchanna & Ors.
1252, from a dealer and was in the name of Mr. Ashe Khehezu S/o Osadaye Joseph. She stated that the offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent no.3. Respondent no.3 filed the reasoned decision/reply in which it is stated that copy of the cover note with respect to vehicle bearing No.D L 6CJ 1252, furnished by the respondent No. 2 is absolutely illegible and that the same had not been issued by the respondent No. 3 , thus, respondent No. 3 has no legal contractual or statutory liability to pay any compensation to the petitioner.
4. Following issues were framed vide order dated 04.04.2013:
1. Whether victim suffered fatal injuries in an accident which took place on 25.10.2011, at about 2:00 Pm involving vehicle bearing NO.
DL 6CJ 1252 due to rash and negligent driving by the respondent NO.1, owned by respondent NO. 2 and insured with the respondent No. 3 ? OPP
2. Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents?
3. Relief.
5. To substantiate their case, petitioner examined Sh. Badri Prasad as PW1.
He tendered in evidence his affidavit as Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon the Death certificate of deceased Ram Raj as Ex. PW1/1, Medical record of deceased as Ex. PW1/2, Medical Bills of deceased as Ex. PW1/3, Coy of Aadhar Card of deceased as Ex. PW1/4, Copies of transfer certificates of Petition No. : 133/14 Page No. 4 of 20 Raj Kala & Ors. Vs. Peter Uchanna & Ors.
petitioners No. 3 & 4 as Ex. PW1/5 & 6, photocopy of his election ID card as Ex.PW1/7, Copy of Election ID Card of Smt. Rajkala as Ex.PW1/8 and Copy of Ration card as Ex.PW1/9. Petitioner also examined Sh Jitender Singh as PW2, who is stated to be the eye witness of the accident. He filed his affidavit in evidence Ex.PW2/A.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties. My findings on the issues are as under :
I S S U E No. 1
7. It is well settled law that where petition under Section 166 of the Act is instituted, it becomes the duty of the petitioner to establish rash and negligent driving. To prove rash and negligent driving in a petition under Motor Vehicles Act, Tribunal need not go into the technicality because strict rules of procedure and evidence are not followed. Basically, in road accident cases, Tribunal has simply to quantify the compensation which is just rational and reasonable on the basis of enquiry. The proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit. Further, roving enquiry is not required to prove the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver as has been held in Kaushumma Begum and others Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2001 ACJ 421 SC.
8. PW1 Sh. Badri Prasad is father of the deceased. He has stated that on Petition No. : 133/14 Page No. 5 of 20 Raj Kala & Ors. Vs. Peter Uchanna & Ors.
25.10.2011 at about 2:00Pm his son (i.e. deceased) on his bicycle, met with an accident at Ambedkar Basti, Sector I, R K Puram from his work place i.e. from PNT Quarter Sector 6, R K Puram. He sustained grievous head injuries in the accident due to which he died on 19.06.2012, during the course of treatment, at AIIMS Trauma Center. A case vide FIR no. 458/14 u/s 279/338/304A IPC was registered at the Police Station Dr. Ambedkar Nagar against the driver of the offending vehicle.
PW2 is the eyewitness of accident. He sated that he was going to his house at Ambedkar Basti, Sector I, R K Puram from his work place i.e. from PNT Quarter Sector 6, R K Puram at a normal speed and on correct side of road. He stated that when he reached on way to Sector 1 Red Light Opposite Sector 5 CGHS Dispensary, near Mohan Singh Market, New Delhi, a car bearing No. DL 6CJ 1252 (Icon) came from Nivedita Kunj Side, driven by its driver at very high speed, rashly, negligently violating the traffic rules in a zigzag manner, and hit the bicycle with the great force, due to which bicycle fell down on the road and the Cycle rider sustained grievous head injuries i.e. Several Head Injury with B/L Temporal Contusion With Diffuse Brain Deema. It is stated the injured was immediately taken to JPN Apex Trauma Centre (AIIMS), New Delhi, by the respondent No.1. He sated that he came to know that on 19.06.2012, he was died. A case vide FIR no. 288/11 was registered at the police station R K Puram u/s 279/337/338 IPC against the driver of the car bearing No. DL 6CJ 1252. He further stated Petition No. : 133/14 Page No. 6 of 20 Raj Kala & Ors. Vs. Peter Uchanna & Ors.
that the accident was caused by the driver of the offending motorcycle bearing no. DL 6CJ 1252 by driving it with a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. During crossexamination he admitted that the FIR was lodged on his statement. He denied that his statement was registered after two days of the incident. He stated that he was not known to the deceased. He also denied that the deceased was riding his bicycle wrongly on the wrong side which caused the accident. IO recorded his statement. He denied that he did not witness the accident. In the present case the investigation officer alongwith the Detailed Accident Report has filed the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the eyewitness Jitender Singh, charge sheet, FIR, site plan, seizure memo, mechanical inspection report, arrest memo, MLC. As per mechanical inspection report, there were fresh damages on the vehicles. Charge sheet was filed against the respondent no.1 after complete investigation which is not in question and is sufficient to hold and assume the rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle in view of the Judgment of Pushpa Rana's Case.
On considering the testimony of witnesses coupled with the documents on record, it is established that Ram Raj got injured in an accident due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing no. DL 6CJ 1252 by Peter Uchanna, respondent no.1. Hence, this issue stands decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents. Petition No. : 133/14 Page No. 7 of 20
Raj Kala & Ors. Vs. Peter Uchanna & Ors.
I S S U E No. 2
9. It is pertinent to mention here, that initially the charge sheet was filed u/s 279/338 IPC but later on the injured expired on 19.06.2012, his postmortem was not conducted, though, in the given facts and circumstances and the nature of injuries sustained by him and in the absence of any evidence that he was suffering from any terminal disease, it can be safely assumed that the deceased died because of the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The medical bills placed on record clearly shows that the injured was under
treatment and was under medication till 19.06.2012.
10. 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. The amount of compensation no doubt cannot bring back the dead but it certainly helps the LR's and dependents to live life with dignity and comfort as they were living during the lifetime of the deceased. The amount of compensation is awarded on the basis of age, the earning capacity and other liabilities of the deceased. The appropriate method of calculating compensation in fatal cases is multiplier method. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments has laid down Petition No. : 133/14 Page No. 8 of 20 Raj Kala & Ors. Vs. Peter Uchanna & Ors.
that in India, the multiplier method is proper for calculation of compensation.
11. In order to calculate the amount of compensation, the sum is required to be considered under the various heads :
MEDICAL EXPENSES:
12. In the instant case the injured remained under treatment till 19.06.2012. He has filed the medical bills Ex.PW1/7 for Rs. 34,132/. I therefore, award Rs. 34,200/ to the petitioners towards medical expenses. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY :
13. PW1 has stated that the deceased was his son. He was 19 years of age at the time of his death. He was doing private job and was getting Rs. 15,000/ p.m. He further stated that had he not died in the accident his earnings would have become more than double. He was the sole earning member of his family. The petitioners were dependent on him. During cross examination PW1 has stated that he did not have any documentary proof regarding employment and income of the deceased. Since, the petitioners have not filed on record any proof regarding the income of the deceased as well as the educational qualification of the deceased, thus, this Court has no option but to switch over to the minimum wages of a 'unskilled' which on the date of accident were Rs. 6,656/ p.m. Thus, the annual Petition No. : 133/14 Page No. 9 of 20 Raj Kala & Ors. Vs. Peter Uchanna & Ors.
income of the deceased for calculating loss of dependency comes to Rs. 79,872/ (6,656 x 12). In the case of Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. 2013 (6) Scale 563 it was held as under :
Since, the Court in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Manu/SC/0322/2012, actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) Scale 129 and to make it applicable also to the selfemployed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of selfemployed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Additional should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years.
14. In the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh & Ors. MAC App. No. 846/2011 the Hon'ble High Court in its judgment dated 30.09.2013 considered the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 (6) Scale 129, Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Manu/SC/0322/2012, Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Ors. 2013 (5) Scale and Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. 2013 (6) Scale 563, Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vohra Community & Anr. (2005) 2 SCC 673 and held as under :
In view of the above, this Court is guided by the legal principles as set out in Reshma Kumari and Rajesh in order Petition No. : 133/14 Page No. 10 of 20 Raj Kala & Ors. Vs. Peter Uchanna & Ors.
to assess the just compensation as it is envisaged in Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In Reshma Kumar, the Apex Court affirmed the findings of Sarla Verma; and in Rajesh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has agreed with the dictum of Santosh Devi. Specifically, for the assessment of future prospects in respect of the persons falling under the category of selfemployment/fixed wages this court is guided by the dictum laid down in Rajesh. In my considered opinion, there is no contradiction in the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Reshma Kumari and Rajesh.
15. The Hon'ble High Court has also referred the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Raja Ram decided by this Court on 25.08.09 in MAC App. 175/2006 and case of Sajha Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. 2010 ACJ 627 whereby it was held that schedule of minimum wages show wages slightly increases from time to time after every six months; and within next 10 years wages would have become double. Therefore, the increase in the wages has to be taken into consideration while assessing the compensation on account of future prospects.
16. Following the case law (supra), 50% are to be added to the income of the deceased for computing future prospects. Adding the future prospects, the annual income comes to Rs. 79,872+39,936 (50% of Rs. 79,872/) = Rs. 1,19,808/. In the present case the deceased was unmarried. The age of the deceased as on the date of his death was 19 years. It was held in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 (6) Scale 129 that with regard to the bachelor, Petition No. : 133/14 Page No. 11 of 20 Raj Kala & Ors. Vs. Peter Uchanna & Ors.
normally 50 per cent is to be deducted as personal and living expenses because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there was a possibility of him getting marriage in a short time, in which time the contribution to the parents would be cut drastically. It was also held that even if the deceased is survived by the parents, only the mother/father would be considered as dependent and 50 per cent would be treated as personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50 per cent as the contribution to the family. After deducting onehalf towards personal and living expenses, the net income for calculating the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 59,904/.
17. In a recent judgment while disposing of a bunch of appeals, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has dealt with the issue as to whether the multiplier to be ascertained on the basis of age of the deceased or on the basis of age of the claimants?
18. The Hon'ble High Court while referring to a number of judgments including the celebrated judgment titled 'Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) Scale 129' came to the conclusion that in all cases the multiplier as per the age of the deceased shall be applied, irrespective of marital status of the deceased.
19. It has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mohd. Hasnain & Ors. Vs. Jagram Meena & Ors. MAC App. 152/2014 decided on Petition No. : 133/14 Page No. 12 of 20 Raj Kala & Ors. Vs. Peter Uchanna & Ors.
24.03.2014 that :
The maximum value of the multiplier is fixed as '18', which is fairly representing the purchasing capacity of a victim in a stable economy. In the ascertainment of purchasing capacity of the victim, age of the claimant has no relevant because of the fact that it has no nexus with the assessment of the loss of dependency. Significantly, the Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Ors. 2013 (5) Scale has followed the age of the victim as a factor for selecting the multiplier. Specifically, in the selection of multiplier for the age upto '15' the Apex Court never considered the age of the claimants as a relevant factor. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to adopt a different formula for the victim who is above '15' of age, whereas the relevant factors have been adopted by the Apex Court such as (i) age of the deceased (ii) income of the deceased and (iii) number of dependents. The Apex Court, while formulating the relevant factors for the assessment of loss of dependency, the age of the claimants never considered as a factor. Finally, in the assessment of dependency, the Courts/Tribunals are computing the purchasing capacity of the deceased; not the claimants. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the age of the victim is proper factor for selecting the correct multiplier.
20. Following the case law (supra) for calculating the loss of dependency, the multiplier is to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. XXX As per the educational certificate Ex.PW1/2 the deceased was more than 19 years of age. Hence, a multiplier of '18' is taken for calculating the loss of dependency. Using the multiplier of '18', the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 59904 x 18 = 10,78,272/ which is rounded off to Rs. 10,78,300/. I therefore, award Rs. 10,78,300/ to the petitioners towards "Loss of Dependency".Petition No. : 133/14 Page No. 13 of 20
Raj Kala & Ors. Vs. Peter Uchanna & Ors.
LOVE AND AFFECTION :
21. Petitioners at this stage of their life have lost their son. The love and care which they could have got from him cannot be measured in terms of money.
In view of the law laid down in Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. 2013 (6) Scale 563, I award Rs. 1,00,000/ to the petitioners towards "Love and Affection".
FUNERAL EXPENSES :
22. It was held in the case of "Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. 2013 (6) Scale 563" that the funeral expenses does not mean the fee paid in the Crematorium or fee paid for the use of space in the Cemetery. There are many other expenses in connection with the funeral and if the deceased is follower of any particular religion, there are several religious practices and conventions pursuant to death in a family. All those are quite expense. It will be just, fair and equitable under the head of funeral expenses in the absence of evidence to the contrary for higher expenses, to award at least an amount of Rs. 25,000/. Following the case law (Supra), I award Rs. 25,000/ to the petitioners towards "Funeral Expenses".
LOSS OF ESTATE :
23. I award a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the petitioners towards "Loss of Estate".Petition No. : 133/14 Page No. 14 of 20
Raj Kala & Ors. Vs. Peter Uchanna & Ors.
24. The total compensation in favour of the petitioners is calculated as under :
1) MEDICAL EXPENSES = Rs. 34,200/
2) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY = Rs. 10,78,300/
3) LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION = Rs. 1,00,000/
4) FUNERAL EXPENSES = Rs. 25,000/
5) LOSS OF ESTATE = Rs. 10,000/ ============ TOTAL = Rs. 12,47,500/ ============ L I A B I L I T Y
25. As the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1 therefore, primary liability to compensate the petitioners remain with that of respondent no. 1. Since the offending vehicle was also owned by respondent no. 2 so, he is vicariously liable to compensate the petitioners. It is pertinent to mention here that in the present case the DAR was filed u/s 279/338 IPC/ 3/181, 5/180, and 146/196 M V Act meaning thereby that neither the driver had the driving license nor the vehicle was insured. No Respondent Evidence was lead to prove the insurance on record. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent company Sh. Abhishek Kujoor as R3W1 specifically alleging that the cover note supplied by the respondent/ owner is illegible and the said cover note, No. 30435879 was never issued by the Insurance Company. Needless to say that initial burden to prove the insurance policy is upon the owner who has failed to discharge its burden. Hence, the owner has failed to prove that he ever got the vehicle Petition No. : 133/14 Page No. 15 of 20 Raj Kala & Ors. Vs. Peter Uchanna & Ors.
insured.
26. The respondent/ Insurance company also examined Sh. Santoshi Lal, L D C from Sarai Kale Khan, Transport Authority, who in his testimony stated that the copy of the cover note filed by respondent No.4 at the time of transfer of ownership, was not verified. Sh. Kapil Binati, Chief Manager, of Insurance Company was also examined as R3W3 to prove on record that he has lodged one complaint dated 06.01.2015 to SHO PS R K Puram, for insurance company against unknown persons U/s 468/471 IPC with respect to issuance of forged cover note. The postal receipt was also proved on record as Ex. R3W3/1.
27. R3W4 SI Babu Lal PS R K Puram, proved on record the copy of the complaint, i.e. Ex. R3W3/1.
28. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the insurance company cannot be held liable to make any payment to the petitioners, and is exonerated.
29. It is an admitted position that it is respondent No.2 who had purchased the offending vehicle and was in possession and control of the same at the time of the accident. Therefore, respondent No.2 shall be liable to deposit Petition No. : 133/14 Page No. 16 of 20 Raj Kala & Ors. Vs. Peter Uchanna & Ors.
the award amount R E L I E F
30. In view of my findings on issues, I award a sum of Rs. Rs. 12,47,500/ (Rs.
Twelve Lacs Forty Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) to the petitioners as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realisation of the amount.
: RELEASE OF THE AWARDED AMOUNT : In the share of Petitioners : (parents of deceased Ram Raj)
31. A sum of Rs. 6,23,750/ each alongwith the proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to petitioners being parents of deceased Ram Raj.
Out of this awarded amount, a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ each be deposited in the form of Fixed Deposits in the name of petitioners in the following phased manner :
(a) A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ for a period of 1 years
(b) A sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ for a period of 2 years.
(c) A sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ for a period of 4 years.
Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
32. 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 Petition No. : 133/14 Page No. 17 of 20 Raj Kala & Ors. Vs. Peter Uchanna & Ors.
Special Fixed Deposit Account for the victims of road accidents.
33. 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.
34. 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 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 petitioners.
within a period of 30 days from today, failing which the respondent no.2 shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
35. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "fixed deposit / saving account'' in the following manner:
(i) 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. Petition No. : 133/14 Page No. 18 of 20
Raj Kala & Ors. Vs. Peter Uchanna & Ors.
(ii) 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.
(iii) No cheque book be issued to claimants / petitioners without the permission of this Court.
(iv) 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 .
(v) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to claimants / petitioners at the end of the fixed deposit period.
(vi) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court.
(vii)Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
(viii)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.
(ix) 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.
(x) The bank is also directed to get the nomination form filled by the claimants at the time of preparation of FDRs.
(xi)The bank is also directed to keep the money received from the insurance company in an FDR in the name of the bank till the FDRs are prepared in the name of the claimants, so that the benefit of better interest may be given to the claimants for the said period.
DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.2
36. The Respondent no.2 is directed to file the compliance report of its having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch Petition No. : 133/14 Page No. 19 of 20 Raj Kala & Ors. Vs. Peter Uchanna & Ors.
in this tribunal within a period of 30 days from today.
37. The respondent no.2 shall intimate to the claimants / petitioners about its 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.
38. Copy of this award / judgment be given to the parties for compliance.
39. The case is now fixed for compliance by the insurance company for 18.01.2016.
Announced in the open court
on 17th Day of December, 2015 (NAVEEN ARORA)
Presiding Officer : MACT
South Distt. : Saket Courts
New Delhi : 17.12.2015
Petition No. : 133/14 Page No. 20 of 20