Delhi District Court
Inderjeet Yadav vs . Kuldeep Singh & Ors. on 1 October, 2019
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, PO : MACT (SOUTHWEST
DISTRICT), DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
MACP No. : 414/16
Inderjeet Yadav Vs. Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
CNR No.DLSW010008072015
Inderjeet Yadav
S/o Sh. Charan Singh
R/o VPO Paprawat,
PS : Chhawla,
Najafgarh, New Delhi ... Petitioner
Vs
1. Kuldeep Singh (Driver)
S/o Sh. Bijender Singh
R/o VPO Daultabad,
Gurgaon, Haryana
Also at :
H. No. 800, Rangili Gali
Near Radha Krishan Mandir,
Daultabad, Gurgaon, Haryana
2. Mohit (Owner)
S/o Sh. Bijender Singh
R/o VPO Daultabad,
Gurgaon, Haryana
3. L & T General Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurer)
6th Floor, DCM Building,
16, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place,
New Delhi ... Respondents
Date of institution of the case 23.12.2015
Date on which, judgment have been reserved 12.09.2019
Date of pronouncement of judgment 01.10.2019
MACP No. : 414/16 Inderjeet Yadav Vs. Kuldeep Singh & Ors. 1/18
2
JUDGMENT:
The present claim petition u/s166 and 140 of M.V. Act for grant of compensation qua injuries sustained in road traffic accident dated 13.11.2015, has been filed on behalf of petitioner/ injuredInderjeet Yadav.
2. Brief facts as made out from the petition are that on 13.11.2015 at about 12:05 PM, petitioner Inderjeet Yadav was going to village Sheehi from his house at village Paprawat by motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 9SW 6530 (Splendor NXG) and when he reached near village Daulatabad, Sector Road, Rajindra Park, Gurgaon, a tractor bearing registration no. HR 55V 7877, which was being driven by its driver/respondent no. 1 in rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle as a result of which, the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. It is further stated that after the accident, injured was taken to Ortho Care hospital, Najafgarh, New Delhi, where he remained admitted from 13.11.2015 to 14.11.2015. It is stated that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of R1/ driver of the offending vehicle and a case in this regard was registered vide FIR No. 500/15 u/s 279/338 IPC at PS : Rajendra Park Gurgaon. It is further stated that at the time of accident, petitioner / injured was about 22 years of age and was a student of Engineering (First Year) and was also working as a Tutor and was earning Rs.1520,000/pm. It is also stated that respondent nos. 1 to 3 being the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, were jointly or severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner and it has been prayed that an award in the sum of Rs.20 lacs alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization may be passed in favour of the petitioner/ injured and against the respondents.
MACP No. : 414/16 Inderjeet Yadav Vs. Kuldeep Singh & Ors. 2/18 3
3. Written statement has been filed on behalf of R1 Kuldeep Singh (driver) and R2 Mohit (owner of offending vehicle), wherein it has been stated that the present petition was not maintainable in the eyes of law as the alleged accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 and the petitioner/ injured himself was responsible for the accident. It is further stated that petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands and even otherwise, the amount of compensation, as claimed by the petitioner, was highly misconceived.
Further, in reply on merits, it has been stated that the contents of para1 to 8 and 10 to 22 of the petition are matter of record and contents of para 24 to 26 have been denied for want of knowledge. Contents of remaining paras of the petition have also been denied and it has been prayed that the present petition filed on behalf of the petitioner may be dismissed with exemplary cost.
4. Written statement has also been filed on behalf of R3/ L & T General Insurance Company Ltd., wherein it has been stated that the present petition was not maintainable as the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands and has concealed the material facts. It is further stated that the amount of compensation, as claimed in the present petition, was highly vague, excessive, imaginary, unjustified exaggerated and untenable in the eyes of law.
Further, in reply on merits, the contents of para1 to 17, 19 to 22 and 24 to 26 of the petition have been denied for want of knowledge. In reply to para 18, it is stated that vehicle bearing registration no. HR 55V 7877 was insured with the respondent/ insurance company. Contents of remaining paras of the petition have also been denied and it has been prayed that the present petition filed on behalf of the petitioner may be dismissed with heavy cost.
MACP No. : 414/16 Inderjeet Yadav Vs. Kuldeep Singh & Ors. 3/18 4
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 20.02.2017 by the Ld. Predecessor of this court.
ISSUES :
1. Whether Inderjeet Yadav s/o Sh. Charan Singh sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 13.11.2015 caused due to rash or negligent driving of vehicle (Tractor) No. HR 55V 7877, being driven by respondent no. 1/Kuldeep Singh, owned by respondent No. 2/ Mohit and insured by respondent No.3/ L & T General Insurance Company Ltd. ? ...OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ? ...OPP
3. Relief.
6. In support of his case, petitioner/ injured Inderjeet Yadav has examined himself as PW1 and thereafter PE on behalf of the petitioner was closed.
7. In the instant case, no RE have been led on behalf of the respondents and on 13.12.2018, Ld counsel for the respondents stated that no RE was to be led and accordingly, RE was closed vide order dated 13.12.2018.
8. I have heard arguments put forward by Ld. counsel for the petitioner/ injured and R3/ insurance company and have carefully gone through record of the case. I have carefully considered the evidence led by the petitioner/ injured in support of his case. I have also carefully perused written submissions filed on behalf of the petitioner/ injured and R3/ insurance company.
It is pertinent to mention here that arguments have not been addressed in this case on behalf of R1 Kuldeep Singh (driver) and R2 Mohit (owner of offending MACP No. : 414/16 Inderjeet Yadav Vs. Kuldeep Singh & Ors. 4/18 5 vehicle), despite opportunity being given.
9. The issuewise findings are as under :
10. ISSUE No. 1Whether Inderjeet Yadav s/o Sh. Charan Singh sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 13.11.2015 caused due to rash or negligent driving of vehicle (Tractor) No. HR 55V 7877, being driven by respondent no. 1/Kuldeep Singh, owned by respondent No. 2/ Mohit and insured by respondent No.3/ L & T General Insurance Company Ltd. ? ...OPP The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner and in order to discharge the said onus, the petitioner/ injuredInderjeet Yadav has examined himself as PW1 and has filed his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A), wherein it has been stated that on 13.11.2015 at about 12:05 PM, he was going to village Sheehi from his house at village Paprawat by motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 9SW 6530 (Splendor NXG) and when he reached near village Daulatabad, Sector Road, Rajindra Park, Gurgaon, a tractor bearing registration no. HR 55V 7877, which was being driven by its driver/respondent no. 1 in rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle as a result of which, he fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. PW1 further deposed that after the accident, he was taken to Ortho Care hospital, Najafgarh, New Delhi, where he remained admitted from 13.11.2015 to 14.11.2015. PW1 also deposed that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of tractor no. HR 55V 7877 and a case in this regard was registered vide FIR No. 500/15 u/s 279/338 IPC at PS : Rajendra Park Gurgaon.
The important fact is that this witness i.e. PW1 ( petitioner/ injured) was cross examined on behalf of the respondents, but nothing material has come on MACP No. : 414/16 Inderjeet Yadav Vs. Kuldeep Singh & Ors. 5/18 6 record which could assail the credibility on trustworthiness of this witness.
In his cross examination by the Ld. counsel for R3/ insurance company, PW1 stated that the offending vehicle was coming from opposite side and it took a sudden turn without giving any indicator. PW1 further denied the suggestion that accident took place as he was driving his bike at a fast speed. PW1 also denied the suggestion that accident took place due to his own negligence or that he was deposing falsely. In these circumstances, nothing material has come on record which could shake the credibility of this witness qua his 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 petitioner/ injuredInderjeet Yadav sustained injuries in motor vehicle accident dated 13.11.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle no. HR 55V 7877, which was being driven by R1 Kuldeep Singh, owned by R2 Mohit and insured with R3/L & T General Insurance Company Ltd at the time of accident.
Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner/ injured and against the respondents.
11. ISSUE No.2 Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ? ...OPP The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner/injured and in order to discharge the said onus, petitioner/ injured Inderjeet Yadav has examined himself as PW1 and has filed his affidavit (Ex. PW1/A), wherein it has been stated that he met with an accident on 13.11.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of driver of MACP No. : 414/16 Inderjeet Yadav Vs. Kuldeep Singh & Ors. 6/18 7 offending vehicle bearing registration no. HR 55V 7877. PW1 further deposed that after the accident, he was taken to Ortho Care hospital, Najafgarh, New Delhi, where he remained admitted from 13.11.2015 to 14.11.2015. PW1 deposed that at the time of accident, he was about 22 years of age and was a student of Engineering (First Year) and was also working as a Tutor and was earning Rs.1520,000/pm. PW1 further deposed that he had incurred expenses of Rs.1 lac on his medical treatment and Rs.25,000/each on special diet, conveyance and attendant. PW1 has also relied upon the documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/5.
In the present case, from the material and evidence on record, it is clear that petitioner/injured Inderjeet Yadav has sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing no. HR 55V 7877, which was being driven by R1 Kuldeep Singh, owned by R2 Mohit and insured with R3/L & T General Insurance Company Ltd. at the time of accident and as such, petitioner/ injured Inderjeet Yadav has become entitled to claim compensation for the injuries caused to him in the abovesaid accident.
Quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner/injuredInderjeet Yadav is ascertained under the following heads :
12. NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURIES As per the medical treatment record/discharge summary pertaining to Ortho Care Hospital, Najafgarh, New Delhi, petitioner/injured Inderjeet Yadav is a case of fracture oleoran Lt. Elbow with fracture Lt. Foot.
Further, the perusal of the record reveals that petitioner/injured has not filed on record any document to show that he has suffered any permanent disability due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident in this case.
MACP No. : 414/16 Inderjeet Yadav Vs. Kuldeep Singh & Ors. 7/18 8
13. MEDICINES & TREATMENT In the present case, as per record, the petitioner/injured Inderjeet Yadav has undergone treatment at Ortho Care Hospital, Najafgarh, New Delhi, where he remained admitted from 13.11.2015 to 14.11.2015.
Further, in regard to the abovesaid treatment undergone by him, petitioner/injured Inderjeet Yadav has placed on record the medical bills/ receipts, amounting to Rs. 54,670/. There is no reason to doubt the said bills/receipts. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner/injured shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 54,670/ and accordingly , the petitioner/ injured Inderjeet Yadav is awarded the said amount i.e Rs. 54,670 /(Rupees Fifty Four Thousand, Six Hundred Seventy Only ) towards medicines and medical treatment.
14. CONVEYANCE & SPECIAL DIET In the present case, as per the medical treatment record, petitioner/ injured Inderjeet Yadav is a case of fracture oleoran Lt. Elbow with fracture Lt. Foot. In these circumstances, the petitioner/injured must have visited the hospital/doctors for his treatment and would also have required special diet for certain period to recover from the injuries sustained in the accident.
It is being submitted on behalf of the petitioner/injured that he has spent Rs. 25,000/ each on conveyance and special diet, however no evidence, documentary or otherwise, in this regard has been brought on record on behalf of the petitioner. Further, it is pertinent to note that from the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner/injured has not suffered any permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident in this case.
Hence, in view of the above and in view of the material on record, petitioner/injured shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand MACP No. : 414/16 Inderjeet Yadav Vs. Kuldeep Singh & Ors. 8/18 9 only) towards conveyance. Further, in view of the injuries suffered by him, the petitioner/ injured must have needed special diet for a certain period to have a fast and proper recovery. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner/injured is also awarded Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) towards expenses for special diet.
15. LOSS OF INCOME In the present case, the petitioner / injured Inderjeet Yadav stated that at the time of accident, he was a student of Engineering (First Year) and was also working as a Tutor and was earning Rs.1520,000/pm, however, no documentary evidence in this regard has been placed on record and in the absence thereof, the minimum wages for matriculates during the relevant period (13..11.2015) i.e Rs. 11,154/ p.m is taken as criteria for calculating the loss of income to the petitioner/injured.
In the instant case, petitioner/injured has suffered fracture oleoran Lt. Elbow with fracture Lt. Foot and has remained hospitalized for about one day . Further, in view of the material on record, it appears that it might have taken about three months for the petitioner/injured to recover from the said injuries sustained by him in the accident. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 11,154/ x 3= Rs. 33,462/ (Rupees Thirty Three Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Two only) under the head ' Loss of Income'.
16. ATTENDANT CHARGES In the present case, the petitioner/injured has deposed that he has spent a sum of Rs. 25,000/ on attendant , however neither the said attendant has been MACP No. : 414/16 Inderjeet Yadav Vs. Kuldeep Singh & Ors. 9/18 10 examined nor any documentary proof regarding the payment being made to the abovesaid attendant has been brought on record by the petitioner/ injured in this case.
In the instant case, the perusal of the record reveals that petitioner / injured Inderjeet Yadav is a case of fracture oleoran Lt. Elbow with fracture Lt. Foot and he remained hospitalized for about one day due to the said injuries sustained by him in the accident. In these circumstances, the petitioner/ injured must have required the services of attendant for about three months. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner/injured would have also needed an attendant to look after him, even if the gratuitous services were rendered by the some or the other of his family members. In the case titled as "Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. V. Lalita"
(reported as AIR 1981 Delhi 558), it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that a victim cannot be deprived of compensation towards gratuitous services rendered by some of the family members.
In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner/injured shall be entitled to an amount of Rs. 4,000 X 3 = Rs. 12,000/ (Rupees Twelve Thousand Only) towards 'Attendant Charges'.
17. PAIN & SUFFERINGS As per the settled law, for assessing the pain & sufferings, the following factors have to be taken into account :
(a) Nature of injury
(b) Parts of body where injuries occurred
(c) Surgeries, if any
(d) Confinement in hospital
(e) Duration of the treatment.
In the instant case, in view of the material/evidence on record, there is MACP No. : 414/16 Inderjeet Yadav Vs. Kuldeep Singh & Ors. 10/18 11 no element of doubt that the petitioner/injured has suffered fracture oleoran Lt. Elbow with fracture Lt. Foot and has remained hospitalized for about one day due to the said injuries sustained by him. In these circumstances and in view of the law laid down in the case titled as "Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd." (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 564951 of 2012), the petitioner/injured is entitled to compensation on account of pain & suffering due to the accident. The pain and sufferings of petitioner/injured can not be adequately compensated in terms of money however, in view of the facts & circumstances of the present case and in view of the material on record, a sum of Rs.70,000/ ( Rupees Seventy Thousand only) is awarded to the petitioner towards the head " pain & sufferings".
18. LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE AND AMENITIES The petitioner/injured has claimed that he has suffered the loss of enjoyment of life and other amenities on account of the accident. The petitioner/ injured was about 22 years of age at the time of accident and has suffered fracture oleoran Lt. Elbow with fracture Lt. Foot and was hospitalized for about one day due to the said injuries sustained in the accident. In these circumstances and in view of the law laid down vide judgment of Rekha Jain (Supra), the petitioner/injured shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/ (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as compensation towards loss of enjoyment of life and amenities. In addition to this, the petitioner/ injured shall also be entitled to a sum of Rs. 20,000/ (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) as compensation for mental and physical shock suffered by him due to the accident in this case.
19. The breakup of compensation that has been awarded to the petitioner / MACP No. : 414/16 Inderjeet Yadav Vs. Kuldeep Singh & Ors. 11/18 12 injured Inderjeet Yadav is tabulated as below : S.No. HEADS AMOUNT (in Rupees) 1 Medicines & Treatment Rs. 54,670/
2. Conveyance Rs. 10,000/
3. Special Diet Rs. 15,000/
4. Attendant Charges Rs. 12,000/
5. Loss of Income Rs. 33,462/
6. Pain & Sufferings Rs. 70,000/
7. Loss of Enjoyment of Life and Amenities Rs. 50,000/
8. Compensation for mental and physical shock Rs. 20,000/ Total Rs. 2,65,132/ rounded of as Rs. 2,65,500/
20. 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 fact and circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to award interest @ 9% per annum on the award amount in this case. Hence, the petitioner/injured is awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the abovesaid compensation/ award amount i.e Rs. 2,65,500/ from the date of filing of petition i.e. 23.12.2015 till realization.
21. LIABILITY The offending vehicle bearing no. HR55V7877 was being driven by respondent no.1 Kuldeep Singh, owned by respondent no.2 Mohit and was insured with respondent no.3/ L & T General Insurance Company Ltd at the time of accident and as such, respondent no. 3/ L & T General Insurance Company Ltd being the MACP No. : 414/16 Inderjeet Yadav Vs. Kuldeep Singh & Ors. 12/18 13 'principal tort feasor', shall be liable to pay the awarded amount to the petitioner/ injured .
Hence, issue no.2 is decided accordingly.
22. 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 Rs.2,65,500/ (Rupees Two Lacs, Sixty Five Thousand Five Hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the petition i.e 23.12.2015 till realization is passed in favour of the petitioner/injured-Inderjeet Yadav and against the respondents .
The abovesaid compensation amount shall be payable by the respondent no. 3/ L & T General Insurance Company Ltd to the petitioner/ injured.
23. FORMIVB SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
i) Date of accident : 13.11.2015
ii). Name of the injured : Sh. Inderjeet Yadav
iii). Age of the injured : 22 years ( at the time of accident)
iv). Occupation of the injured : Private Work (at the time of accident)
v). Income of the injured : Rs. 11,154/ p.m
vi). Nature of injury : Grievous
vii). Medical treatment taken : Orthocare Hospital, Najafgarh, New Delhi by the injured
viii). Period of hospitalization : About one day MACP No. : 414/16 Inderjeet Yadav Vs. Kuldeep Singh & Ors. 13/18 14
ix). Whether any permanent : No disability?If yes, give details
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 54,670/
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 10,000/
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 15,000/
(iv) Attendant Charges Rs. 12,000/
(v) Loss of earning capacity
(vi) Loss of income Rs. 33,462/
(vii) Any other loss which may require any
special treatment or aid to the injured for
the rest of his life
12. Non Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and physical Rs. 20,000/
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 70,000/
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 50,000/
(iv) Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, hardships,
disappointment, frustration, mental stress
dejectment and unhappiness in future life
etc.,
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature N.A of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to disability MACP No. : 414/16 Inderjeet Yadav Vs. Kuldeep Singh & Ors. 14/18 15
(iv) Loss of future income(Income x % Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. Total Compensation Rs. 2,65,132/ rounded of as Rs. 2,65,500/
15. INTEREST AWARDED
16. Interest amount up to the date of award @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 23.12.2015 till realization.
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 2,65,500/ + interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 23.12.2015 till realization.
18. Award amount released As per table given below
19. Award amount kept in FDRs As per table given below
20. Mode of disbursement of the award By credit in the SB Account of amount to the claimant(s) (Clause29) the petitioner/injured. 21 Next Date for compliance of the award. 04.11.2019 ( Clause 31)
24. In the instant case, the award amount shall be deposited /transferred by respondent no.3/ L & T General Insurance Company Ltd in the Account No. 37665510911 of 'MACT (SouthWest), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi ' at State Bank of India, District Court Complex,Sector10, Dwarka New Delhi, (IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and MICR Code 110002483) by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS under intimation, with proof of notice to the claimant/petitioner and his counsel, to the Nazir of this court .
Further,the statement of petitioner/injuredInderjeet Yadav regarding his financial status, needs and liabilities have also been recorded in this case . In view of the said statement of the petitioner/injured and having regard to facts and circumstances of the present case, the award amount shall be distributed as MACP No. : 414/16 Inderjeet Yadav Vs. Kuldeep Singh & Ors. 15/18 16 follows: S.No. Name Status Amount of Award Release Amount Amount /Period of FDR
1. Inderjeet Injured Rs. 2,65,500/ Rs. 25,500/ Rs.2.4 lacs be kept in 48 Yadav FDRs of Rs. 5,000/ each for the period from one month to 48 months in the name of petitioner/ injured with cumulative interest.
The abovesaid 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.).
25. Petitioner/injuredInderjeet Yadav has stated that he is having a SB Account No. 3081000100966806 at Punjab National Bank, Branch Village Paprawat, Delhi (IFSC Code : PUNB0308100 and it is being requested on his behalf that the abovesaid cash amount may be transferred to the said SB Account .
Accordingly, the Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts Complex, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to transfer the abovesaid cash amount to the abovesaid SB Account No. 3081000100966806 of petitioner/injured Inderjeet Yadav at Punjab National Bank, Branch Village Paprawat and to keep the remaining amount in the form of above mentioned FDRs.
Manager, Punjab National Bank, Branch Village Paprawat is directed to release the abovesaid cash amount to petitioner/injured Inderjeet Yadav as per rules, as prayed.
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the MACP No. : 414/16 Inderjeet Yadav Vs. Kuldeep Singh & Ors. 16/18 17 aforesaid savings bank account of petitioner/injured Inderjeet Yadav .
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/injured Inderjeet Yadav .
Manager of the concerned bank is directed not to permit premature encashment or loan qua the abovesaid FDRs to the petitioner/injured Inderjeet Yadav without the prior permission of this court.
The said Punjab National Bank, Branch Village Paprawat is also directed not to issue any cheque book and/or debit card to the petitioner/ injured Inderjeet Yadav 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/injured Inderjeet Yadav.
Punjab National Bank, Branch Village Paprawat shall permit account holder i.e petitioner/injured Inderjeet Yadav to withdraw money from his above said saving bank account by means of a withdrawal form .
26. The insurance company shall inform the petitioner/injured as well as his counsel through registered post that the award amount is being transferred/ deposited so as to facilitate the petitioner/injured to know about the deposit in the account.
Copy of this award be sent to the concerned Manager, SBI, District Courts Complex, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi and Manager, Punjab National Bank, Branch Village Paprawat for information / compliance.
Copy of this award be also sent through e.mail to Sh.Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager ( Nodal Officer), State Bank of India at his email ID :
[email protected] in terms of Order dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 842/2003.
MACP No. : 414/16 Inderjeet Yadav Vs. Kuldeep Singh & Ors. 17/18 18 Certified copy of this award be also given ''Dasti' to the petitioner injured/ his counsel and Ld. Counsel for the respondent/insurance company.
Certified copy of this award be also sent 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 04.11.2019.
File be consigned to the record room.
(Announced in the open (Paramjit Singh)
Court on 01.10.2019) PO, MACT (SouthWest District)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
01.10.2019
PARAMJIT
SINGH
Digitally signed by
PARAMJIT SINGH
Date: 2019.10.01
15:24:31 +0530
MACP No. : 414/16 Inderjeet Yadav Vs. Kuldeep Singh & Ors. 18/18