Delhi District Court
Smt. Madhu Bhardwaj vs Sh. Maninder Singh on 27 April, 2022
MACP No. 351/17; FIR No. 1161/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 25.04.2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD YADAV,
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 351/17
1. Smt. Madhu Bhardwaj,
W/o Late Sh. Kapil Bhardwaj,
(Widow of deceased)
2. Sh. Satpal Bhardwaj
S/o Late Sh. Tara Chand,
(Father of deceased)
3. Smt. Santosh
W/o Sh.Satpal Bhardwaj,
(Mother of deceased)
4. Master Sanju Bhardwaj
S/o Late Sh. Kapil Bhardwaj,
(Minor son of deceased)
All R/o 1358, Near Chhota Shiv Mandir,
Village Alipur,
Delhi.
(Petitioner no. 4 being minor is being represented through his
natural guardian/mother Smt. Madhu Bhardwaj)
.......Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Maninder Singh,
S/o Sh. Hari Singh,
R/o Village Gobind Pura,
PS. Badsu, Tehsil Nabha,
District Patiala, Punjab.
(Driver)
Smt. Madhu Bhardwaj & Ors Vs. Maninder Singh & Ors. Page 1 of 20
MACP No. 351/17; FIR No. 1161/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 25.04.2022
2. Sh. Pradeep Gautam,
S/o Late Sh. Sita Ram Sharma,
R/o H.No. 107B, New Officer Colony,
Patiala, Punjab.
(Registered owner)
3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
E85, Himalaya House,
K.G.Marg,
Connaught Place,
New Delhi.
(Insurer)
.......Respondents
Date of Institution : 12.04.2017
Date of Arguments : 25.04.2022
Date of Decision : 27.04.2022
APPEARANCES:
Sh.V.D. Mishra, adv for petitioners/Lrs of deceased. None for driver and registered owner.
Ms. Neeru Garg, Ld. Counsel for insurance co.
Petition under Section 166 & 140 of M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation AWARD
1. Sh. Kapil Bhardwaj had suffered fatal injuries in Motor Vehicular Accident which occurred on 19.11.2016 at 10.45 pm at Upper GTK Road, in front of Gurudwara Siraspur, Delhi, involving Bus bearing registration no. PB11BU3311 (offending vehicle) allegedly being driven in Smt. Madhu Bhardwaj & Ors Vs. Maninder Singh & Ors. Page 2 of 20 MACP No. 351/17; FIR No. 1161/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 25.04.2022 rash and negligent manner and without following traffic rules by respondent no. 1. The petitioners are seeking compensation for the fatal injury sustained by Sh. Kapil Bhardwaj, in the wake of Detailed Accident Report (DAR) filed by police corresponding to the investigation carried out in FIR No. 1161/16 U/s 279/304A IPC registered at PS. S.P. Badli with regard to the said accident.
2. It is averred in the DAR that on 19.11.2016 at 10:45 pm, Sh. Kapil Bhardwaj (since expired) was going on his motorcycle bearing no. DL8SBW4737 and when he reached at Upper GTK Road, in front of Gurudwara Siraspur, Delhi, one Bus bearing registration no. PB11BU3311 which was being driven by respondent no. 1 at very high speed and in rash and negligent manner, came and hit against the aforesaid motorcycle. As a result thereof, he fell down on the road and the head of Sh. Kapil Bhardwaj came under the wheel of aforesaid bus. Due to the aforesaid impact, Sh. Kapil Bhardwaj died at the spot. He was removed to BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. It is further averred that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of driver i.e. respondent no. 1 of aforesaid bus, who was driving his vehicle at high speed, in rash, reckless and negligent manner. It is claimed that said offending bus was owned by respondent no. 2 and it was insured with respondent no. 3 during the period in question.
Smt. Madhu Bhardwaj & Ors Vs. Maninder Singh & Ors. Page 3 of 20MACP No. 351/17; FIR No. 1161/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 25.04.2022
3. In their joint WS, the respondent no. 1 & 2 i.e. driver and registered owner have claimed that their vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3 at the time of accident and thus, they are not liable to pay compensation, if any to the petitioners. They further claimed that respondent no. 1/driver was having valid driving licence at the time of accident. They have simply denied the averments made in the DAR and have prayed for its dismissal.
4. In its Written Statement, the respondent no. 3/insurance company has admitted that the vehicle bearing registration no. PB11BU 3311 was insured with it during the period in question. It has denied the averments made in the DAR and has prayed for its dismissal.
5. From pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 27.02.2018:
1) Whether the deceased Kapil Bhardwaj suffered fatal injuries in road traffic accident on 19.11.16 at about 10:45 pm, upper GTK Road, in front of Gurudwara, Siraspur, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS. S.P. Badli due to rashness and negligence on the part of driver Maninder Singh who was driving vehicle bearing registration no. PB11BU3311, owned by Pradeep Gautam and insured with United India Insurance Company Limited?OPP.
Smt. Madhu Bhardwaj & Ors Vs. Maninder Singh & Ors. Page 4 of 20MACP No. 351/17; FIR No. 1161/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 25.04.2022
2) Whether the Lrs of deceased are entitled to any compensation if so to what amount and from whom?OPP
3) Relief.
6. In support of their claim, the petitioners have examined two witnesses i.e. PW1 Sh. Satpal Bhardwaj(father of deceased) and PW2 Sh. Neeraj Bhardwaj (eye witness). They closed their evidence on 08.01.2019 through their counsel. Respondent no. 2 i.e. registered owner has examined himself as R2W1. On the other hand, no evidence has been adduced by remaining respondents.
7. I have heard the arguments addressed by ld counsels for the parties. I have also gone through the record. My findings on the issues are as under: ISSUE NO. 1.
8. For the purpose of this issue, the testimony of PW2 (eyewitness) is relevant. PW2 Sh. Neeraj Bhardwaj has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A) that on 19.11.2016 at about 8:45 pm, he alongwith his deceased brother namely Kapil Bhardwaj had left for their home after closing their respective shops. He further deposed that he was travelling in his car at that time and his deceased brother was on his motorcycle. At about 9:00 pm when his brother reached at Siraspur Smt. Madhu Bhardwaj & Ors Vs. Maninder Singh & Ors. Page 5 of 20 MACP No. 351/17; FIR No. 1161/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 25.04.2022 Gurudwara, Delhi, one Punjab Roadways Bus bearing no. PB11BU3311 which was being driven by his driver at very high speed, rashly and negligently, came and hit against the motorcycle of his deceased brother as a result of which his deceased brother fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot. During his crossexamination on behalf of respondents, he deposed that his shop used to be open at 6:30 am in the morning and used to be closed at 8:30 pm in the evening during the relevant period. He further deposed that deceased Kapil did not use to travel with him on same vehicle during the relevant period. He volunteered that his deceased brother had his own bike. He deposed that at the time of accident, the bike of deceased Kapil was about 10 steps ahead from his Car. He further deposed that he himself had not made the PCR Call at 100 number as there were 45 traffic police officials already present near the place of accident. He further deposed that PCR Van had removed Kapil to BJRM Hospital and he had also accompanied him at that time. He denied the suggestion that he was not an eyewitness of accident in question or that he was not following deceased Kapil in his Santro Car or that no such accident was caused by driver of Punjab Roadways Bus No. PB11BU 3311. He further denied the suggestion that driver of said bus was driving the said vehicle at normal speed or that he was not rash or negligent in driving the said bus. He deposed that he was driving his Santro Car at approximate speed of 40 50 kmph, however, he could not tell the exact speed of the aforesaid bus. He denied the suggestion that he had not seen properly as to which vehicle had caused the accident. He deposed that the accident had occurred on the second lane i.e. somewhere in the middle of the road. He denied the suggestion that some other vehicle had hit the motorcycle of Kapil or that the accident had Smt. Madhu Bhardwaj & Ors Vs. Maninder Singh & Ors. Page 6 of 20 MACP No. 351/17; FIR No. 1161/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 25.04.2022 occurred due to the negligence on the part of Kapil or that Kapil himself was driving his motorcycle in zigzag manner or in rash and negligent manner.
9. The careful perusal of testimony of PW2 would go to show that respondents were not able to impeach his testimony through litmus test of crossexamination. The said witness is found to have successfully withstood the test of crossexamination and nothing could be elicited during his crossexamination from him so as to discredit his testimony made on Oath.
10. As noted above, the respondent no. 2/registered owner of bus bearing registration no. PB11BU3311 has examined himself as R2W1 during the course of inquiry. In his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex R2W1/A), he deposed that he was the registered owner of the vehicle i.e. Bus bearing no. PB11BU3311 and exhibited the copy of RC of the said vehicle as Ex. R2W1/1 which was permitted by the government of Punjab to drive from Delhi to Punjab under the scheme of KM in PRTC Patiala Dept. He also exhibited the copy of permission/road permit as Ex. R2W1/2. He further deposed that the vehicle bearing no. PB11BU3311 was duly insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd during the period in question and exhibited the copy of insurance policy as Ex. R2W1/3. He further deposed that the aforesaid bus was duly permitted to be driven by GM PRTC Patiala Dept and exhibited the copy of the said letter as Ex. R2W1/4.
Smt. Madhu Bhardwaj & Ors Vs. Maninder Singh & Ors. Page 7 of 20MACP No. 351/17; FIR No. 1161/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 25.04.2022 He also deposed that driver/R1 of the vehicle was having valid and effective DL at the time of accident. During his crossexamination on behalf of petitioners, he deposed that he was not present in the vehicle at the time of accident. He further deposed that Sh. Maninder/driver was driving the vehicle. He deposed that he had checked the licence of the driver and it was correct at the time of accident.
11. It is quite apparent from the perusal of testimony of R2W1 that vehicle in question was duly insured at the time of accident and the vehicle was also having valid permit at the time of accident.
12. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no. 1 i.e. driver of aforesaid Bus, was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident had taken place. However, he preferred not to enter into the witness box in the present case during the course of inquiry. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him also to the effect that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of aforesaid vehicle Bus by him.
13. As noted above, FIR No. 1161/16 (supra) was registered at PS. S.P. Badli with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR alongwith copy of chargesheet (which are part of DAR) would show that FIR was registered on 19.11.2016 i.e. on the date of accident itself. Thus, FIR was Smt. Madhu Bhardwaj & Ors Vs. Maninder Singh & Ors. Page 8 of 20 MACP No. 351/17; FIR No. 1161/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 25.04.2022 registered promptly and without any delay. Hence, there is no possibility of false implication of respondents and / or false involvement of Bus No. PB11BU3311 at the instance of petitioners. The very fact that R1 was chargesheeted(which is part of DAR) by the police for offences punishable u/s. 279/304A IPC would further show that Investigating Agency concluded after completion of the investigation that the said accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of aforesaid bus no. PB11BU3311 by its driver namely Sh. Maninder Singh i.e. R1 herein.
14. Not only this, copy of PM Report (which is also part of DAR) of deceased namely Kapil Bhardwaj, would also show that his cause of death is opined due to craniocerebral injuries, sustained as a result of blunt foce trauma to the head. The injuries as noted in the relevant column with regard to external injuries, are consistent with the injuries which are sustained in motor vehicular accident. Again, there is no challenge to the aforesaid documents from the side of respondents.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove on the basis of pre ponderence of probabilities that Sh. Kapil Bhardwaj had sustained fatal injuries in road accident which took place on 19.11.2016 at 10.45 pm at Upper GTK Road, in front of Gurudwara Siraspur, Delhi, due to rashness and negligence on the part of respondent no. 1 who was driving Smt. Madhu Bhardwaj & Ors Vs. Maninder Singh & Ors. Page 9 of 20 MACP No. 351/17; FIR No. 1161/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 25.04.2022 Bus bearing registration no. PB11BU3311. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 216. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
17. As already stated above, the claimants/petitioners are the widow, minor son and parents of deceased. PW1 Sh. Satpal Bhardwaj (father of deceased) has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that Kapil Bhardwaj was aged about 28 years; he was running a stationery shop at Shakti Nagar and was earning approximately Rs. 30,000/to Rs. 40,000/ per month at the time of accident. He further deposed that all the petitioners were totally dependent upon the earnings of deceased at the time of accident. He has relied upon the following documents: Sr. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of his Aadhaar Card Ex PW1/1
2. Copy of Aadhaar Card of Ex. PW1/2 Smt. Madhu Bhardwaj & Ors Vs. Maninder Singh & Ors. Page 10 of 20 petitioner no. 1
3. Copy of Aadhaar Card of Ex. PW1/3 petitioner no. 2
4. DAR Ex. PW1/4(colly) MACP No. 351/17; FIR No. 1161/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 25.04.2022
18. During his cross examination on behalf of respondents, he deposed that prior to 14 years to the accident, he was working as Conductor in DTC. He further deposed that he was not the pensioner as he had left the job from DTC only after doing his duty for two months only. He admitted that he used to help his deceased son at his shop situated at Shakti Nagar near Telephone Exchange, Delhi. He denied the suggestion that the said shop was still running and he used to get the income from the same. He further admitted that he had no documentary proof with respect to the income of Rs. 30,000/ to Rs. 40,000/ per month as earned by his deceased son. He deposed that the shop in question was taken on rent from Sh. Gian Chand at the monthly rent of Rs. 12,000/. He admitted that he had not executed any Rent Agreement with respect to the said shop. He denied the suggestion that his deceased son was not running any such stationery shop and was not earning Rs. 30,000/ to Rs. 40,000/ per month. He further denied the suggestion that he himself, widow of deceased and mother of deceased, were not financially dependent upon the income of deceased. He denied the suggestion that he had not suffered any financial loss due to the accident. He denied the suggestion that he had filed the false and fabricated documents in order to claim compensation.
19. During the course of arguments, counsel for petitioners fairly conceded that for want of any cogent and definite evidence being led by petitioners regarding monthly income of deceased, his income should be Smt. Madhu Bhardwaj & Ors Vs. Maninder Singh & Ors. Page 11 of 20 MACP No. 351/17; FIR No. 1161/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 25.04.2022 considered as per Minimum Wages Act in order to calculate the loss of dependency. He however argued that future prospects should also be awarded to the petitioners as per law.
20. As already noted above, PW1 Sh. Satpal Bhardwaj, who is father of deceased admitted during his cross examination that he had no documentary proof with respect to the income of Rs. 30,000/ to Rs. 40,000/of deceased. Petitioners have also failed to file any educational qualification documents of deceased. Hence, it is held that the petitioners have failed to prove that deceased was employed or earning any amount at the time of accident. For want of cogent and definite evidence being led by petitioners with regard to actual monthly income of deceased, his notional monthly income is being taken as equivalent to that of an unskilled worker under Minimum Wages Act applicable during the relevant period. The minimum wages of an unskilled worker were Rs. 9,724/ per month as on the date of accident which is 19.11.2016.
21. As per the case of petitioners, deceased Kapil Bhardwaj was aged about 28 years at the time of accident. In the copy of 10 th class Marks Statement of deceased, the date of birth of deceased is mentioned as 01.04.1988. The date of accident is 19.11.16. In view of the aforesaid document filed by the petitioners, the age of deceased was about 28 years at the time of accident. Hence, the age of deceased comes out to be more Smt. Madhu Bhardwaj & Ors Vs. Maninder Singh & Ors. Page 12 of 20 MACP No. 351/17; FIR No. 1161/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 25.04.2022 than 28 years at the time of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 17 would be applicable in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs.DTC." 2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
22. Considering the fact that deceased was aged about 28 years at the time of accident and was not having permanent job at that time, future prospects @ 40% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, as well as in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.17.
23. Considering the fact that there were four dependents upon the deceased at the time of accident, there has to be deduction of one fourth as held in the case of Sarla Verma mentioned supra. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 20,82,880.80 paise (Rs. 9,724/ X 3/4 X 140/100 X 12 X 17). Hence, a sum of Rs. 20,83,000/ (rounded off) is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
Smt. Madhu Bhardwaj & Ors Vs. Maninder Singh & Ors. Page 13 of 20MACP No. 351/17; FIR No. 1161/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 25.04.2022 LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
24. After the celebrated judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. mentioned supra and recent judgment titled New India Assurance Company Limited versus Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 dated 07.09.2020 the petitioners are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", mentioned supra has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the constitution bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other nonpecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
25. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020, dated 07.09.2020 I am of the considered opinion that the widow, minor son and parents of deceased are entitled for payment of Rs. 40,000/ each towards loss of consortium. Consequently, a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/ is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
26. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "National Smt. Madhu Bhardwaj & Ors Vs. Maninder Singh & Ors. Page 14 of 20 MACP No. 351/17; FIR No. 1161/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 25.04.2022 Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 15,000/ each is awarded in favour of petitioners on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses.
The total compensation is assessed as under:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 20,83,000/
2. Loss of consortium Rs. 1,60,000/
3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 30,000/ Expenses Total Rs. 22,73,000/
27. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Respondent no. 3/insurance company did not adduce any evidence as it had no statutory defence. It is nowhere the case of insurance company that any term or condition of insurance policy was breached/violated by insured. Keeping in view the existence of valid insurance policy, respondent no. 3/insurance company becomes liable to pay the compensation amount, as insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I award compensation of Rs. 22,73,000/ alongwith interest @ 9% per annum in favour of petitioners and against the respondents jointly and severally w.e.f. date of filing of the Smt. Madhu Bhardwaj & Ors Vs. Maninder Singh & Ors. Page 15 of 20 MACP No. 351/17; FIR No. 1161/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 25.04.2022 petition i.e. 12.04.17 till the date of its realization (Reliance placed on judgment "Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Devi & Ors bearing MAC. APP. 165/2011 decided on 22.02.2016).
APPORTIONMENT
29. Statements of petitioners in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP were recorded on 07.12.2021. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of their statements, it is hereby ordered that out of total compensation amount, the petitioner no. 1 Smt. Madhu Bhardwaj(wife of deceased) shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 14,00,000/(Rupees Fourteen Lacs Only) alongwith proportionate interest, the petitioner no. 2 Sh. Satpal Bhardwaj(father of deceased) and the petitioner no. 3 Smt. Santosh(mother of deceased) shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 2,00,000/ each(Rupees Four Lacs Only) alongwith proportionate interest and the petitioner no. 4 Master Sanuj Bhardwaj(minor son of deceased) shall be entitled to remaining share amount of Rs.4,73,000/ (Rupees Four Lacs and Seventy Three Thousand Only) alongwith proportionate interest.
30. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 1, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/ (Rupees Two Lacs and Fifty Thousand Only) shall be immediately released to her through her saving bank account no. 38769362580 with State Bank of India, 240, Nehru Enclave, Alipur, Delhi, having IFSC Code. SBIN0017884 and remaining amount alongwith interest amount is directed Smt. Madhu Bhardwaj & Ors Vs. Maninder Singh & Ors. Page 16 of 20 MACP No. 351/17; FIR No. 1161/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 25.04.2022 to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 25,000/ each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
31. The entire share amounts of Rs. 2,00,000/ each of petitioner no. 2 & 3 shall be immediately released to them through their saving bank account no. 38769361609(of Sh. Satpal) and no. 38769362228 (of Smt. Santosh) with State Bank of India, 240, Nehru Enclave, Alipur, Delhi, having IFSC Code. SBIN0017884, as per rules.
32. The entire share amount alongwith interest of petitioner no. 4 be kept in FDR for the period till he attains the age of majority and thereafter a sum of Rs. 50,000/ shall be released to him and remaining amount alongwith interest be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 10,000/ each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest. The petitioner no. 4 is at liberty to withdraw his monthly interest in order to meet his educational expenses through his mother/natural guardian.
33. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to 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(s) i.e. the Smt. Madhu Bhardwaj & Ors Vs. Maninder Singh & Ors. Page 17 of 20 MACP No. 351/17; FIR No. 1161/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 25.04.2022 savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) 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(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or premature 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(s). 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.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) 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(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank alongwith the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause(g) above.
Smt. Madhu Bhardwaj & Ors Vs. Maninder Singh & Ors. Page 18 of 20MACP No. 351/17; FIR No. 1161/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 25.04.2022
(i) The petitioner is directed to open a Motor Accident Claims Annuity (Term) Deposit Account (MACAD) in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Hon'ble Justice J.R. Midha in case titled as Rajesh Tyagi and Others Vs. Jaibir Singh and Others F.A.O No. 842/03 as per clause 31 of MCTAP and form VIII titled as Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme as directed in the said order.
(j) Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court branch is further directed to disburse the FD amount in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme account as directed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.18, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
34. Respondent no. 3/United India Insurance Co. Ltd., being insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with SBI, Rohini Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the respective share amounts immediately to aforesaid petitioners in their aforesaid saving bank accounts, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He be further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioners and also to counsel for the insurance company for compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbooks and copy of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for Smt. Madhu Bhardwaj & Ors Vs. Maninder Singh & Ors. Page 19 of 20 MACP No. 351/17; FIR No. 1161/16; PS. S.P. Badli DOD: 25.04.2022 information and necessary compliance. Form XV & XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as AnnexureA. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP.
Announced in the open Court on 27.04.2022 (VINOD YADAV) Judge MACT2 (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi Certified that above award contains 20 pages and each page is signed by me.
(VINOD YADAV) Judge MACT2 (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi Smt. Madhu Bhardwaj & Ors Vs. Maninder Singh & Ors. Page 20 of 20