Delhi District Court
Shankar vs Balraj on 25 October, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH.SHAILENDER MALIK, PRESIDING
OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-02,
SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
MACT No.832/2016
Shankar (Deceased)
Through
(1)Jugo Devi (mother of deceased)
(2)Sony Devi (wife of deceased)
(3)Shibbu (son of deceased)
(4)Rahul (son of deceased)
(5)Ganesh (son of deceased)
All r/o 008, Sanaiya, Saneya,
Ward No.4, Sanaia, Sanaiya,
Sheikhpura, Bihar-811105. ...Petitioners
Versus
(1)Balraj
s/o Sh.Inder Singh
R/o 1/6231, Gali No.4,
East Rohtash Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi-32.
(2)United India Insurance
At: E-85, Himalya House,
K.G. Marg, Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001.
(3)Delhi Transport Corporation
At Central Workshop-1,
BB Marg, North West Delhi-110009. ... Respondents
Date of Institution : 04.11.2015
Date of Arguments : 25.10.2023
Date of pronouncement : 25.10.2023
MACT No.832/2016 Page 1
AWAR D
1. Proceedings in the present case initiated by filing of DAR in FIR No.528/2015 of PS Jagat Puri. As per the facts husband of petitioner Soni Devi namely Shankar expired in an accident took place on 01.09.2015. As per the police documents on 01.09.2015 deceased Shankar who was working as a vegetable vendor on a cycle cart (rehri) was going for selling vegetables. When he reached near Karkari More, Vikas Marg, a DTC Bus bearing registration no.DL-1PC-7208, allegedly being driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased, due to which deceased fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. After the accident he was taken to GTB Hospital where he was given treatment. In respect of accident in question FIR No.528/2015 was registered u/s 279, 338 IPC. DAR was filed by making injured Shankar as a petitioner and against driver of the offending vehicle Balraj, owner of the offending vehicle was Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC).
2. Offending vehicle was found to be insured with United India Insurance Company vide policy no.0411003114P106542721 from 06.11.2014 to 05.11.2015. Upon filing the DAR, respondents appeared and copy of DAR was supplied. DAR was filed mentioning that injured Shankar was still taking the treatment on account of injuries sustained in the accident.
3. WS was filed on behalf of respondent no.1 and 3 wherein an objection was taken that respondent no.1 and 3 (DTC) are not liable to pay compensation was vehicle in question was already insured with Untied India Insurance Company. Moreover it is pleaded that injured/deceased was negligent and accident occurred due to his fault and not due to negligence of driver/respondent no.1 of DTC as the factum of rash and MACT No.832/2016 Page 2 negligent driving has been denied.
4. WS was not filed on behalf of insurance company/respondent no.2. Record however reveals that a legal offer was filed on behalf of the insurance company on 02.03.2016. However it is matter of record that matter could not be settled and therefore proceedings went ahead.
5. On the basis of pleading of parties, ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal framed following issues on 02.03.2016 :
(1)Whether respondent No.1 was driving vehicle bearing no.
DL-1PC-7208 on 01.09.2015 at 7.15 Am near Karkari Main Red Light, Jagat Puri, Delhi in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and hit against rehri rickshaw being pulled by petitioner Shanker, who fell down and sustained injuries? OPP (2)Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so and for what amount? OPP (3)Relief.
6. Since in the meantime injured Shankar stated to have expired on 03.10.2016, an application under Order 22 Rule 3 and 9 r/w Order 32 Rule 4 CPC was moved for bringing on record legal heirs of deceased Shankar who stated to have left behind his wife and three children as per the details given in para 2 of the application. Ld. Predecessor of this Court by order dated 02.03.2017 allowed the application and impleaded the LRs of the deceased as parties. Amended memo of parties was taken on record.
7. In order to substantiate their case petitioners have examined two witnesses PW1 Soni Devi (wife of deceased Shankar), PW2 Dr.Raghav Singla from AIIMS Hospital. No evidence was led on behalf of respondent no.1 and 2 or on behalf of respondent no.3/insurance company. During the course of proceedings on an application moved under Order 18 Rule 1 & 2 CPC petitioners were permitted by order dated 22.03.2019 to reopen the MACT No.832/2016 Page 3 evidence and to examine one witness who is stated to be eye witness to the incidence. However said witness could not be examined despite repeated opportunities.
8. I have heard Sh.Sudhir Gupta, ld. counsel for petitioner, Sh. Shiv Kumar, ld. counsel for respondent no.1 and 2 and Sh.S. Ghosh, ld. counsel for respondent no.3/ insurance company. I have also gone through written arguments filed on behalf of petitioner. Issue No.1
9. It is the settled proposition of law that an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. Reference may be made to the judgments titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani & Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012, Bimla Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari v. Amirchand & Others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 & Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Others 2018, Law Suit (SC) 303.
10. PW1 Soni Devi in her deposition has testified that she is widow of deceased Shankar. PW1 deposed that on 01.09.2015 at about 7.00 a.m. her deceased husband was going to Gazipur Sabzi Mandi to take vegetables on his cycle rehdi, when at Karkari Mod, Vikas Marg, a DTC bus no. DL 1PC 7208 had hit him and caused accident for which FIR No.528/2015 was registered at PS Jagatpuri. She deposed that the said MACT No.832/2016 Page 4 DTC bus was being driven by driver Balraj rashly and negligent and because of his such driving accident had taken place. PW1 deposed that her husband was taken to GTB Hospital where his MLC was prepared. Thereafter on 02.09.2015 her husband was shifted to Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS, Delhi where his treatment was undertaken. Due to accident her husband did not regain consciousness and remained under coma when he was discharged from AIIMS on 08.10.2015.
11. PW1 was cross examined at length by ld. Counsel for insurance company/respondent no.2. However PW1 has not been suggested at all that accident has not been caused by rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending bus of DTC. Even otherwise the documents of DAR filed on the judicial record of which judicial cognizance can be taken, it is matter of record that it is the case of the police that offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1/driver of DTC namely Balraj who has been charge sheeted in FIR No.228/2015 registered in respect of accident in question at PS Jagat Puri. Beside this there is site plan, mechanical inspection report of offending bus no. DL 1PC 7208 showing that it is the bus which caused the accident with cycle cart/rehri of deceased. Plea of the respondent no.1 and 2 that it was deceased who was negligent due to which accident caused, has not been substantiated by any evidence. Therefore this Tribunal concludes that the accident has been caused by rash and negligent driving of offending bus bearing registration no. DL 1PC 7208.
Issue No.2
12. In view of the finding on issue no.1, this Tribunal though has decided that accident has been caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1, who was driving the offending bus no. DL 1PC 7208 of MACT No.832/2016 Page 5 DTC/respondent no.3 at the time of accident. However since the case of the petitioner is that after the accident deceased was taken to GTB Hospital, where his MLC was prepared. Later on 02.09.2015 deceased was taken to Jai Prakash Narayan Trauma Centre of AIIMS, where also he was given treatment. However all through the period of his treatment petitioner could not get consciousness and remained under come till he was discharged from AIIMS on 08.10.2015. As noted above later an application was moved for bringing on record LRs of deceased when deceased died subsequent to filing of DAR on 31.10.2016. As per PW1 deceased died due to the accidental head and spinal injuries suffered by him as he had suffered fracture on his skull, due to which he succumbed to his injuries.
13. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is sufficient material on record beside oral testimony of PW1 and evidence of PW2 Dr.Raghav Singla from AIIMS that deceased died due to accidental injuries including fracture on his skull. ld. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Meenakshi Gupta (MAC App. NO.1122/2017 decided on 19.07.2019) as well as in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sushila Rathi and ors. (MAC Appeal No.927/2012 decided on 04.12.2012) and submitted that even if there may not be a post mortem report on the record of Tribunal, that fact cannot be a reason to conclude that death was not because of injuries suffered in an accident.
14. Ld. Counsel for the insurance company/respondent no.2 on the other hand submitted that it is not only simple case where there was no post mortem report for proving that death was caused due to the injuries of the accident. It is further contended that PW1 was duly cross examined and suggested that there is no material including post mortem report or any MACT No.832/2016 Page 6 other document to show that deceased died due to accidental injuries. Ld. counsel submitted that judgments relied upon by counsel for petitioner, therefore are distinguishable in facts and legal proposition.
15. In view of the submissions and the evidence on the record, in the facts of the present case the first question to be decided that whether there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that deceased died due to accidental injuries. As per evidence of PW1 accident took place on 01.09.2015, the deceased was taken to GTB Hospital where his MLC was prepared, which is part of DAR. As per MLC deceased was unconscious and had injuries on parietal and occipital area of his head. Later considering the serious medical condition of the deceased he was taken to AIIMS Hospital. As per PW1 deceased remained under treatment at AIIMS hospital from 02.09.2015 to 08.10.2015 and during entire period of treatment deceased remained unconscious and under coma. Later it came on the record that after the discharge from AIIMS on 08.10.2015, he was again admitted in JPN Apex Trauma Centre on 08.04.2016 and discharged from AIIMS on 10.04.2016.
16. Above fact as deposed by PW1 gets corroboration from PW2 Dr.Raghav Singla from AIIMS who proved the treatment record of deceased as Ex.PW2/1 and further deposed patient suffered severe head injury in road side accident on 01.09.2015. PW2 further says that patient remained under coma and was even in coma when he was discharged from AIIMS hospital. Discharge summary dated 08.10.2015 is on the record which is Mark B. Perusal of the same also establish that deceased suffered severe head injury and cervical spine injury. Discharge summary also mentions that patient was operated upon on 02.09.2015 but patient remained under coma. It also mentions that patient need long term MACT No.832/2016 Page 7 physiotherapy and good nursing at home. Similarly discharge summary dated 10.04.2016 Ex.PW2/1 also corroborates the facts stated by PW1 and PW2.
17. No doubt after his discharge on 10.04.2016 deceased died on 31.10.2016. There may not be medical evidence or post mortem report showing that death has been caused by accidental injuries. However this Tribunal finds that non-availability of any post mortem report, ipso facto cannot be a ground for concluding otherwise when the nature of the injuries as is reflected from discharge summaries dated 08.10.2015 and 10.04.2016, MLC dated 01.09.2015, clearly establish that the deceased had severe head injuries in the accident and remained in coma all through during the treatment period. There cannot be any other reason for the death of the deceased in the peculiar circumstances of this case when the deceased was in coma and was unconscious because of accidental injuries. If death is directly traceable to injury in accident, in that case non availability of post mortem report may not be a reason to discard the claim of the petitioner for compensation on account of death. Reference can be given to judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Klaus Mittelbachert vs. East India Hotels Ltd. AIR 1997 Delhi 201. Similarly reference can also be given of Madras High Court judgment in Abdul Rahim and ors. vs. Sundaresan and ors. (CMA (MP) No.898/2008 decided on 30.07.2009). These judgments relied upon by Delhi High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Meenakshi Gupta (supra), when it was held that non-filing of post mortem report would not defeat the claimants case for compensation for fatal injuries. Reliance can also be placed on judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Reliance General Insurance vs. Sushila Rathi (supra).
18. In the present case no doubt PW1 was suggested that deceased MACT No.832/2016 Page 8 did not die due to accidental injuries. But this fact by itself may not be sufficient in the peculiar circumstances of the case as noted above that since the accident, deceased suffered head injuries, he remained under coma and got treatment at AIIMS hospital on two occasions. Nature of injuries and condition of deceased was such that this Tribunal can form a conclusive opinion that deceased must have succumbed to accidental injuries as he remained under coma all through the period since the date of accident. Therefore this Tribunal concludes that petitioners are entitled for compensation for fatal injuries to deceased Shankar.
19. Now question arises for the amount of compensation. Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enjoins upon the claim Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation, which appears to be just and reasonable. As per settled law, compensation is not expected to be windfall or a bonanza nor it should be pittance. A man is not compensated for the physical injury, he is compensated for the loss which he suffers as a result of that injury (Baker v. Willoughby (1970) Ac 467 at page 492 per Lord Reid). COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
20. The present case pertains to the death of deceased Shankar. In death cases, the guidelines for computation of compensation have been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases
121. Further, the guidelines have been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. Decided on 31.10.2017, laying down the general principles for computation of compensation in death cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced here as under:
MACT No.832/2016 Page 9 "18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:
(a) age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependents.
These issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/ deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and
iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.
If these determinations are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle accident claims without delay.
19. To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well-settled steps:
Step-1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balanc expired e which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step-2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the MACT No.832/2016 Page 10 accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step-3 (Actual Calculation) The annual contribution to the family(multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the 'loss of dependency' to the family.
Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of estates. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000 to Rs.10,000 should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and the cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also be added."
21. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment, it is essential to take into consideration the following parameters:-
PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
Medical Expenses
22. Petitioner (PW1) in her affidavit deposed that her deceased husband met with an accident on 01.09.2015 and thereafter he was taken to GTB Hospital and then to Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre AIIMS where he remained admitted. PW1 also deposed that a sum of Rs.75,000/-
has been incurred on the treatment of her deceased husband. PW1 also deposed that a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been incurred on transportation from MACT No.832/2016 Page 11 Bihar to Delhi and vice versa, a sum of Rs.45,000/- has been incurred on special diet.
23. The onus to prove the expenses towards medical expenditure etc. was on the petitioner but apart from making oral submissions no documentary evidence in the shape of medical/chemist bills have been produced on record. Even no prescription slip of doctor has been placed on record by petitioner to substantiate the claim that any medicine, special diet was prescribed by the doctors or the same have been purchased by petitioners from market with regard to treatment of deceased. In the absence of any such bills/prescription bill, this Tribunal is of the view that petitioners are not entitled for any compensation under this head. Age of deceased :
24. The petitioner (PW1) in her affidavit has deposed that her deceased husband was aged 43 years at the time of accident. Death certificate Ex.PW1/4, Aadhar card of deceased Ex.PW1/7 establish that deceased date of birth was 18.07.1975. As such his age at the time of accident was more than 40 years. There is no cross-examination of PW1 on this aspect. As such this fact stands concluded that age of the deceased was around 40 years at the time of accident.
Assessment of Income of deceased :
25. Petitioner (PW1) in her deposition stated that her deceased husband was sole bread earner in the family and was a vegetable vendor by selling vegetables on cycle rehri and earning around Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/-. In order to substantiate this fact, PW1 has proved one passbook Ex.PW1/1. PW1 further deposes that deceased used to send money to PW1 by way of bank transfer and used to give Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month to PW1 for his family as is reflected from bank MACT No.832/2016 Page 12 passbook Ex.PW1/1.
26. PW1 admits in her cross-examination that her husband was not having any bank account in Delhi and there is no documentary evidence of the fact that deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month by way of vegetable selling. No doubt perusal of the passbook entries Ex.PW1/1 of joint account of deceased and PW1 of Bihar village Sanaiya, show credit entries of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.6,000/-. However the oral testimony in the absence of any documentary evidence does not establish the income of the deceased from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/-. As such income of deceased is to be assessed at parity with minimum wages of an unskilled labour.
27. In this regard argument of ld. Counsel for insurance company is that since deceased had died in Bihar, therefore minimum wages of Bihar would be drawn for calculating the income of deceased. This Tribunal however finds that since deceased was in Delhi at the time when accident took place and was working as a vegetable vendor, therefore the minimum wages of an unskilled labour as prevalent in Delhi at the time of accident would be fixed as monthly income of the deceased which is Rs.9,048/- per month.
Application of Multiplier:
28. As held above, deceased was 40 years of age at the time of accident. An appropriate multiplier has to be determined for computation of compensation. The judgment titled as Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 is relevant to consider the multiplier. In Para 21 of the judgment, the guidelines for the multiplier were laid down in accordance with age are as under:
MACT No.832/2016 Page 13
MULTIPLIER AGE GROUP OF DECEASED
M-18 Age group between 15 to 20 & 21
to 25 years)
M-17 Age group between 26 to 30 yrs
M-16 Age group between 31 to 35 yrs
M-15 Age group between 36 to 40 yrs
M-14 Age group between 41 to 45 yrs
M-13 Age group between 46 to 50 yrs
M-11 Age group between 51 to 55 yrs
M-9 Age group between 56 to 60 yrs
M-7 Age group between 61 to 65 yrs
M-5 Age group between 66 and above
29. In view of the above, multiplier of 15 has to be applied against 40 years of age of the deceased to determine the compensation. Future Prospects:
30. This issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi & Others (Supra). Relevant parts of the judgment are reproduced here as under:
"(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case, the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years MACT No.832/2016 Page 14 and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component."
31. The deceased can be considered a temporary employee. In view of the above said judgment, an addition of 30% of the income of deceased (aged 40 years) has to be considered towards future prospects. Deduction towards Personal Living Expenses:
32. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the deceased, necessary deductions have to be made out of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Reshma Kumari & Ors. v. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, in para 30, laid down the necessary deductions towards personal living and expenses of deceased as under :
Deductions out of earning of the Number of deceased dependents Where dependent is 1 Half Where the number of dependent family 1/3rd members is 2 to 3 Where the number of dependent family 1/4th members is 4 to 6 Where the number of dependent family 1/5th members exceeds 6 (six)
33. As per amended memo of parties filed on record, deceased is survived by five LRs being mother, wife and children of deceased. Since, the deceased was survived by five dependents, one-fourth of the income of MACT No.832/2016 Page 15 the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal living expenses. NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
34. In case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), a compensation of Rs.40,000/-, 15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively has been fixed on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses and further, it is required to be enhanced @ 10% in every three years. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.48,000/-, 18,000/- and Rs.18,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted. Further, in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020, decided on 30.06.2020, loss of consortium has to be fixed for each of the LRs. Since, the deceased was survived by five legal heirs, therefore, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,76,000/- (48,000 X 5 + 18,000 + 18,000) under this head.
35. Considering the aforementioned factors, the total compensation is calculated as under:
S. No. Head Amount Awarded 1. Monthly income of deceased (A) Rs.9,048/- 2. Add future prospect (B) @ 30% Rs.2,714/-
3. Less 1/4th towards personal and living Rs.2,941/-
expenses of the deceased (C)
4. Monthly loss of dependency (A+B)- Rs.8,821/-
C=D
5. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs.1,05,852/-
6. Multiplier (E) 157. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE=F) Rs.15,87,780/-
MACT No.832/2016 Page 16
8. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs.2,40,000/-
(G) (48,000 X 5)
9. Compensation for loss of estate (H) Rs.18,000/-
10. Compensation for funeral expenses (I) Rs.18,000/-
11. Total compensation (F + G + H + I ) Rs.18,63,780/-
36. Thus, petitioners in this case shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.18,63,780/- only.
INTEREST ON AWARD
37. Petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @ 8% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of the petition till realization. LIABILITY
38. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondent is liable to pay the compensation amount. Since it is admitted case of the respondent no.3/insurance company that the offending bus no. DL-1PC- 7208 was duly insured with it, therefore respondent/insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. Relief
39. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.18,63,780/- (Eighteen Lakh Sixty Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Only) to the petitioners/claimants along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization to be paid by respondent/insurance company. Amount of interim award, if any, be deducted from the compensation amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by the Tribunal during the pendency of this case. Insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, MACT No.832/2016 Page 17 Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today. Respondent/Insurance company is also directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioners.
Disbursement and Apportionment of Award Amount
40. Out of awarded amount, a sum of 1,86,378/- is directed to be released into the saving accounts of petitioner no.2 Sony Devi (wife of deceased) and a sum of Rs.3,72,756/- in her name along with the interest is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form of fixed deposit receipt (FDR) for a period of 05 years.
41. Further Manager UCO Bank is directed to keep a sum of Rs.3,72,756/- each in the name of petitioner no.3 Shibbu, petitioner no.4 Rahul and petitioner no.5 Ganesh with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form of fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) for a period of 05 years. Further Manager UCO Bank is directed to keep a sum of Rs.1,86,378/- in the name of petitioner no.1 Jugo Devi with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form of fixed deposit receipt (FDR) for a period of 05 years. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in petitioners' Saving/ MACT Claims SB Account.
Direction to the petitioners
42. The petitioners/claimants shall open a saving bank account near the place of their residence. Further, the bank of petitioners is directed to comply with the following conditions:
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant i.e., MACT No.832/2016 Page 18 the savings bank account of the claimant shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant. However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimant so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant from any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
43. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court ( Shailender Malik ) on 25.10.2023 PO MACT-02/SHD/KKD MACT No.832/2016 Page 19