Delhi District Court
Sh. Sabajeet Singh S/O. Late Sh. Ram ... vs Sh. Jagtar Singh S/O. Sh. Kulvinder on 29 July, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHUNALI GUPTA, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE, DISTRICT - NE, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
MACT No.: 14393/15
CNR No. DLNE010000612014
IN THE MATTER OF:-
1. Sh. Sabajeet Singh S/o. Late Sh. Ram Murat (Expired on 24.12.2014)
Through his LRs:
2. Ms. Monika D/o. Late Sh. Sabajeet Singh (Daughter)
3. Ms. Yogita D/o. Late Sh. Sabajeet Singh (Daughter)
4. Mr. Himanshu S/o. Late Sh. Sabajeet Singh (Minor Son)
5. Ms. Yashika D/o. Late Sh. Sabajeet Singh (Minor Daughter)
(Petitioner no. 4 & 5 being minor are represented through their elder sister
and natural guardian Ms. Monika / petitioner no.2)
All R/o:- H. No. E-10/A-21/B, CPJ-II Block, New Seelampur, Delhi.
...Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Jagtar Singh S/o. Sh. Kulvinder
R/o H-2, New Seelampur, Delhi-53
.... Driver
2. Sh. Kamal Singh
R/o CPJ/119, Block-J,
New Seelampur, East Delhi-110053
... Owner
3. The United India Insurance Company Limited
At: 202, Vardhman Complex, C-2,
Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053 ..... Insurer
..... Respondents
Date of Institution of petition : 12.12.2014
Date of Award : 22.11.2018
Date of remand back from
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi : 15.11.2019
Date of Arguments : 26.07.2022
Date of Judgment / Order : 29.07.2022
MACT No. 14393/15 Sabajeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Jagtar & Ors. Page 1 of 15
Advocates appearing in the case:
For petitioner : Mr. Dheeraj Kulshrestha
For respondent no. 1 & 2 : None
For Insurance company : Mr. S. Ghosh
AWARD
1. By this judgment / Award I shall decide the MACT claim petition u/s 166
& 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M V Act) filed by the petitioners for grant of
compensation.
2. Important to note herein that the present claim petition was decided by the
ld. Predecessor of this court and Award dated 22.11.2018 was passed. Against the
said Award the petitioner preferred an Appeal. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide
order dated 15.11.2019 remanded back the matter to award compensation on merit
under Section 166 of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court in the said order had also
settled the issue with regard to the rashness in driving and held that the rashness and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its Driver stands established. The
paragraphs of the order dated 15.11.2019 containing these observations are
reproduced herein-under:
"7. In the circumstances, there is no manner of doubt apropos the
rashness and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its
driver and the same is clearly established. The learned Tribunal
has erred in holding otherwise.
8. ....
9. In the present case, simply because the policy had been
cancelled and so intimated to the owner of the vehicle, the third
party liability of the insurer was discharged. This discharge of the
insurer is set aside because the issue has not been adequately dealt
with. It will be open to the parties to agitate this issue before the
learned Tribunal.
10. In view of the above, impugned order is set aside. The case is
remanded to the learned Tribunal to award compensation on merit
under section 166 of the Act. The parties are at liberty to lead
their evidence in this regard...".
MACT No. 14393/15 Sabajeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Jagtar & Ors. Page 2 of 15
FACTS STATED IN THE CLAIM PETITION
3. Brief facts of the present case are that on 09.11.2014 at about 4:20 AM, the seven passengers were going in car bearing No. DL-2CAB-1232 from Delhi to Mathura. The car was being driven by its driver at a very high speed, rashly and negligently. The occupants of the car requested the driver to drive the car at slow speed but he did not listen to them. When the car reached KM 90 + 750 Noida, UP, due to high speed of the car, the driver lost control over the car and car hit against the divider. As a result of which, four occupants of the car namely Ms. Monika, Ms. Yogita, Ms. Yashika and Master Himanshu were grievously injured and three occupants namely Sh. Sabajeet Singh, Sh. Jalalluddin and Ms. Shiv Kumari died. Except occupant Sh. Jalalluddin, all the other 6 occupants belonged to the same family - Mother, Father and 4 children. Case No.300/14 was registered at PS Surir, Mathura, UP for offence U/s. 279/338/304-A IPC regarding the accident.
WS / REPLY OF RESPONDENT NO.1 & 24. No WS has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1 & 2 despite numerous / sufficient opportunities granted to them. Vide order dated 17.07.2015, the right to file WS on behalf of R-1 and R-2 was closed.
WS / REPLY OF RESPONDENT NO.3
5. Respondent no. 3 i.e. The United India Insurance Company Limited filed its WS to the claim petition contending that no liability whatsoever can be fastened as against the insurance company for the reason that the insurance policy No. 041781/31/13/01/00032624 as relied upon by the petitioner pertaining to the offending vehicle No. DL-2CAB-1232 for the period from 22.03.2014 to 21.03.2015 was cancelled Ab Inito under intimation to the owner as well as to RTO, owing to the dishonour of the cheque No. 852599 dated 20.03.2014 for Rs.9,129/- drawn on Punjab National Bank on account of 'insufficient funds' which was furnished by the owner towards the premium for the insurance cover for the abovesaid vehicle No. DL-2CAB-1232.
MACT No. 14393/15 Sabajeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Jagtar & Ors. Page 3 of 15ISSUES
6. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor, vide order dated 17.07.2015:-
(i) Whether petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL-2CAB-1232 by respondent no.1 on 09.11.2014 at about 4.20 am at Noida to Agra Expressway, Noida, UP within the jurisdiction of PS Surir, Mathura, UP? OPP
(ii) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
(iii) Relief EVIDENCE
7. In petitioner's evidence, PW-1 Ms. Yogita - (Daughter of Deceased) has filed her affidavit by way of evidence as Ex. PW-1/A and exhibited the documents on record i.e. Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/9.
8. PW-2 - Dr. Rohit Goel, Sr. Resident, Department of Forensic, Maulana Azad Medical College, Delhi. He has proved the postmortem report of the deceased.
9. I need not in detail note down the evidence led by the petitioners as the issue of rashness has already been decided in affirmative by the Hon'ble High Court and evidence led by insurance company shall be discussed in detail while deciding the issue with regard to payment of compensation.
ISSUEWISE FINDINGS ISSUE NO.1 Whether petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL-2CAB-1232 by respondent no.1 on 09.11.2014 at about 4.20 am at Noida to Agra Expressway, Noida, UP within the jurisdiction of PS Surir, Mathura, UP? OPP
10. Detailed discussion of the evidence led by the petitioners is not required as the issue of rashness has already been decided in affirmative by the Hon'ble High Court. The driver of the offending has been held to be rash and negligent in driving the vehicle.
MACT No. 14393/15 Sabajeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Jagtar & Ors. Page 4 of 15 ISSUE No. 2Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
11. On the basis of findings upon issue no.1 that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no.1wherein the husband of petitioner no.1 has expired, petitioners are thus, entitled to compensation.
12. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondent is liable to make payment of compensation to the petitioners. The prime contention of the insurance company is that the cheque which the owner of the offending vehicle had given to them towards insurance premium of the offending vehicle had got dishonoured and notice of the same was sent to the owner of the offending vehicle as well as to the RTO. In this regard, the insurance company has examined 5 witnesses - two witnesses were examined initially and three more witnesses were examined after the matter remanded to this Court by the Hon'ble High Court.
. R3W1 - Sh. Kanti Prasad - MO Incharge United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - He has deposed that in his routine job he received a cheque no. 852599 dated 20.03.2014 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi for a sum of Rs.9129/- from Sh. Kamal Singh (R-2) for the insurance cover of his car no. DL-2CAB-1232. In response he issued a policy no. 041781/31/13/01/00032624 for a period 22.03.2014 to midnight on 21.03.2015 in his name for the said vehicle subject to realization of the cheque and handed over the original policy copy to the owner Sh. Kamal Singh. The original cheque is Ex. R3W1/A and office copy of this insurance policy is Ex. R3W1/B (Colly. Sheets). The reason for the original policy being in our possession is that the same got bounced from the bank owing to in sufficient funds in the account of Sh. Kamal Singh. The intimation letter and memo of return of cheque dated 25.03.2014 issued by their banker is Ex. R3W1/C and Ex. R3W1/D reflecting the reasons in the said document. Subsequently on receiving the abovesaid letters from the HDFC Bank they issued a letter dated 27.03.2014 in respect of cancellation of the abovesaid insurance policy Ex. R3W1/B ab-initio to Sh.
MACT No. 14393/15 Sabajeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Jagtar & Ors. Page 5 of 15Kamal Singh, owner of the vehicle under discussion with an intimation to RTO under postal receipts. The copies of the letters and original postal receipt are Ex. R3W1/E to Ex. R3W1/G. Accordingly insurance company has not liable to indemnify any amount of claim arising against Kamal Singh in respect of the use of the vehicle in connection with the abovesaid cancelled insurance policy. . R3W2 - Ms. Sunita Behl - Assistant Manager, Legal Department, United India Insurance Company Ltd. She has deposed that notice under order 12 Rule 8 was issued to Sh. Jagtar Singh (Driver of the alleged offending vehicle no. DL-2C-AB-1232) for producing is original driving licence effective and valid as on 09.11.2014. Besides this the owner of the vehicle / private car (Chevrolet - Tavera) no. DL-2C-AB-1232 Kamal Singh was asked to produce the original insurance policy / document no. 041781/31/13/01/00032624 (period 22.03.2014 to 21.03.2015) for this vehicle: which was cancelled ab-initio / from inception owing to dishonour of the premium cheque no. 852599 dated 20.03.2014 for Rs.9129/- drawn on PNB, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. In addition to this the owner Sh. Kamal Singh was also asked vide the above said notice to produce original registration certificate, fitness certificate and permit (if any) in respect of the (Chevrolet Tavera) no. DL-2CAB- 1232 effective and valid as on 09.11.2014. The notices were prepared and sent by our counsel at our instructions vide registered post AD. The office copy of the notice is Ex.R3W2/A and the original postal receipts are Ex.R3W2/B (Colly. 2 receipts). There has been no response from the driver Sh. Jagtar Singh and the owner Sh. Kamal Singh to these notices.
. R3W3 - Sh. Girish Chandra Pandey - Postal Assistant, Seelampur, Delhi. He deposed that he has deputed by Sub Post Master, Seelampur Post Office Delhi. Earlier, Seelampur Post Office was looking after the legal matters pertaining to 3 - 4 post offices including Seelampur sub post office. Around one week back, a circular has been issued by Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Krishna Nagar, Delhi whereby the respective Sub Post Offices have been directed to attend their own matters. He has brought a letter dated 09.04.2022 issued by the Sub Post Master, MACT No. 14393/15 Sabajeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Jagtar & Ors. Page 6 of 15 Seelampur post office, Delhi intimating that as per postal manual vol. V, Speed post delivery record preservation period was for 6 months and registered and parcel letter booking and delivery preservation period was for 18 months. It has also been mentioned that SPA and RL record pertaining to the period sought for had been weeded out and the attested copy of register containing the particulars of periods for which records have been weeded out and sent to Jhilmil, Head Post Office, Delhi - 110095 on 08.07.2017 was enclosed. Copy of letter dated 09.04.2022 Ex.R3W3/1 (Colly. 6 sheets).
. R3W4-Sh. Yogesh Kumar Singhal, Junior Assistant, District Transport Office, South Zone, Sarai Kale Khan, New Delhi - 110013. He has deputed by the District Transport Officer. The DTO had been directed to produce the record of communication received by its office way of registered letters during the period from 16.01.2015 to 31.01.2015. The DTO has sent a compliance report dated 26.04.2022 stating that the office of Regional Transport Office, 3, Tilak Marg, New Delhi - 110001 was shifted to Indraprastha Depot in the year 2004-2005. Thereafter, the office of MLO, I P Estate has been closed w.e.f. 11.08.2021 and the office is being shifted to Sukhdev Vihar, DTC Bus Depot, New Delhi. It has been concluded that record of communication received by way of registered letter pertaining to the period from 16.01.2015 to 31.01.2015 is not traceable at present. The copy of the report is Ex.R3W4/1 (Colly. 5 pages).
. R3W5 - Sh. Sudhir Sharma, Sub - Post Master, Yamuna Vihar, C- Block, Delhi - 110053. He has brought the attested copies pertaining to the disposal of summoned record, being an old record alongwith the auction proceedings, constitution and minutes of meeting of the committee for disposal of old record, weight of Shivam Dharam Kanta Raddi (Waste) paper, deposit slip of auction Raddi (Waste) Paper. The same alongwith covering letter is Ex.R3W5/1 (Colly. 27 pages). In his cross-examination court asked question to witness:
Q. The Postal Department has online tracking system for all the letters which have been booked by it for onward delivery. What is the system for online record for MACT No. 14393/15 Sabajeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Jagtar & Ors. Page 7 of 15 registered letters booked by the department?
A. The witness replied that the present system for online tracking of registered letters was not in vogue for the entire year 2015, including the period when the registered letter had been booked under postal receipt no. A RD 381545088IN dt. 16.01.2015. The software at present is different and it is being administered by TCS (Tata Consultancy Services Ltd) whereas the earlier software was being administered by the department itself. There was no online tracking system under the earlier software.
Q. You have not brought the Circular / Notification issued by your department regarding the weeding out of the records?
A. The witness replied that he has brought the attested copy of the compendium on preservation and disposal of records provided to him by Suptd. of Post Offices, Delhi East Division, Delhi-51 and the same has been exhibited at page no. 18 to 27 of Ex.R3W5/1.
The witness further deposed that he was not posted at Yamuna Vihar Post Office on 16.01.2015 when the registered letter under postal receipt no. A RD 381545088IN was booked.
13. RE was closed. Statement of petitioner under clause 29 of MCTAP was recorded. Final arguments addressed by counsel Sh. Dheeraj Kulshreshta on behalf of petitioner and counsel Mr. S. Ghosh, on behalf of insurance company have been heard. Record perused.
14. Now, though the insurance company has claimed that they had issued notices to the Owner of offending vehicle as well as to the RTO. However, the same have not been proved. No postal receipts regarding sending such notices has been placed and proved on record. In absence thereof, it cannot be proved that notices were sent to either of them. Now, the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Dr. Sarjeet Singh Thakur & Ors. in MACA No. 418/2012 decided on 20.04.2012"
directly deals with such a situation. The question involved in the said judgment was MACT No. 14393/15 Sabajeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Jagtar & Ors. Page 8 of 15 also that the cheque of insurance premium got dishonoured and the insurance company claimed that the insured was informed about the same.
15. The Hon'ble High Court in the said judgment also referred to the judgment passed by their own court in the case of "National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Reshmi & Ors." MACA No. 460/2011 decided on 17.01.2012". It was held that if the insured is not informed about the dishonour of the cheque, the Insurance Company cannot escape its liability to the third party as well as to the insured. If the insured is informed about the dishonour of the cheque and an intimation in this regard is also given to the RTO as provided under Section 147(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act (the M. V. Act), the Insurance Company would not be liable to the third party. At the same time, if the insured is informed but no intimation is given to the RTO, the Insurance Company would be liable to the third party with the right of recovery against the insured.
16. In view of settled law on this aspect, since in the present case insurance company has not been able to prove that they had informed about the dishonour of the cheque to the insured / owner and to the RTO, they can not escape their liability to pay the compensation amount which shall be awarded by the court. However, they are granted recovery rights to recover the amount paid from the Driver (R-1) and Owner (R-2) of the offending vehicle.
ISSUE No. 3: Relief COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION MEDICAL EXPENSES
17. The patient was initially undergoing treatment at District Hospital, Mathura, UP where he was given first-aid and thereafter, shifted to LNJP Hospital, New Delhi. As per the medical treatment record pertaining to petitioner / injured Sh. Sabajeet Singh has sustained grievous injuries due to the accident in this case. The entire treatment of petitioner was conducted at LNJP Hospital, New Delhi. However, he has not filed any medical bills on judicial record. Therefore, petitioners are not entitled to any compensation under this head.MACT No. 14393/15 Sabajeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Jagtar & Ors. Page 9 of 15
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
18. As per record, in the claim petition it has mentioned that Sh. Sabajeet Singh earning Rs.20,000/- per month. He has left behind family comprising of his 4 Children namely Ms. Monika (Daughter); Ms. Yogita (Daughter); Master Himanshu (Son) and Ms. Yashika (Daughter). They all were dependent upon the income of the deceased. His wife namely Ms. Shiv Kumari also died in the same accident.
19. No income or education proof of the deceased has been filed by the petitioners. However, as per the copy of aadhar card of deceased (Ex.PW-1/1) filed on record, the address of the deceased is of New Seelampur, Delhi.
20. It is pertinent to mention herein that on the date of accident i.e. 09.11.2014, the Minimum Wages of an 'Unskilled Worker' were Rs.8632/- per month applicable in Delhi. The same shall be applied in the present case as the deceased was a Non-Matriculate as well as Un-skilled.
21. The date of accident is 09.11.2014. In the aadhar card of Sh. Sabajeet Singh his year of birth is mentioned as 1972 as per which his age comes out to be about 42 years at the time of accident. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680", 25% addition shall be given to the deceased towards future prospects as he was in age group of 41 to 50 years at the time of accident and he was engaged in private job. The income of deceased with 25% future prospects comes out to Rs.8632/- + 2158/- (8632/- X 25/100) = Rs.10,790/- per month. Hence, his annual income comes out to Rs.10,790/- X 12 = Rs.1,29,480/-.
22. The deceased was married and was having his 4 children as dependents.
Since the deceased was having 04 dependents, deduction of 1/4th of total income is required to be made in this case for personal living expenses of deceased. Therefore, in the entire given facts and circumstances, deduction of 1/4th of total income is made for personal living expenses of deceased. Therefore, amount of Rs.32,370/- (Rs.1,29,480.00 / 4) is required to be deducted from annual income of deceased.
MACT No. 14393/15 Sabajeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Jagtar & Ors. Page 10 of 15Hence, annual dependency of dependents is calculated as under (annual income) - (annual expenses of deceased) i.e. (Rs.1,29,480/- - 32,370/-) = Rs.97,110/- per annum.
23. The multiplier of 14 is applicable in this case as per judgment titled as Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 since deceased was within age group of 41 to 45 years. Therefore, the Total Loss of Dependency comes out as under: Rs.97,110/- X 14 = Rs.13,59,540/-.
Income of the deceased (per month) Rs.8,632/-
Add Future Prospects (25%) (Rs.8,632 + Rs.2158/-) Rs. 10,790/-
Annual income (Rs.10,790/- X 12) Rs.1,29,480/-
Deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses of Rs. 32,370/-
deceased (Rs.1,29,480/- / 4)
Annual Loss of dependency to the family due to death of Rs.97,110/-
deceased (Rs.1,29,480/- - 32,370/-)
Total Loss of dependency to the family due to death of deceased Rs.13,59,540/-
(Rs.97,110/- X 14)
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM / LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION
24. In Magma Vs. General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Nanu Ram & Ors.
2018 ACJ 2782, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that 'consortium' is a compendious term, which encompasses 'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium' and 'filial consortium'. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his entire family. [Spousal Consortium allows compensation to surviving spouse for loss of 'company, society, co-operation, affection and aid of the other in every conjugal relation'.] The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed in said judgment that parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of 'parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi" (2018 3 SCC) (CIV) 248 has fixed the amount on conventional heads i.e. Loss of Estate; Loss of Consortium and Funeral Expenses to MACT No. 14393/15 Sabajeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Jagtar & Ors. Page 11 of 15 be Rs.15,000/-; Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively with an enhancement @ 10% in every three years.
25. Accordingly, sum of Rs.44,000/- each is awarded to all the petitioners no. 2 to 5 towards loss of consortium / loss of love and affection i.e. total amounting to Rs.1,76,000/- (44,000 X 4).
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
26. Sum of Rs.33,000/- is awarded in favour of petitioner no.2 being elder Daughter of deceased under both the heads i.e. Rs.16,500/- on account of 'loss of estate' and Rs.16,500/- for 'funeral expenses' of the deceased, as per the law laid down in " National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." (Supra).
APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION
27. Petitioner no. 2 to 5 being dependent children of deceased, are entitled to 25% each of the amount. Therefore, the amount Awarded under this head be apportioned in ratio of 25:25:25:25 amongst petitioners no. 2 to 5 respectively.
TABLE OF APPORTIONMENT OF LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
1. Petitioner no.2 Ms. Monika (25%) ₹ 3,39,885/-
2. Petitioner no.3 Ms. Yogita (25%) ₹ 3,39,885/-
3. Petitioner no.4 Master Himanshu (25%) ₹ 3,39,885/-
4. Petitioner no.5 Ms. Yashika (25%) ₹ 3,39,885/-
TOTAL ₹ 13,59,540/-
Remaining compensation awarded in favour of petitioners is assessed as under:
Sl. No. Particulars Amount
01 Loss of consortium / Loss of Love and Affection ₹ 1,76,000/-
(Rs. 44,000/- each to petitioner no. 2 to 5)
02 Loss of Estate & Funeral Expenses ₹ 33,000/-
(to Petitioner no.2)
(B) TOTAL ₹ 2,09,000/-
MACT No. 14393/15 Sabajeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Jagtar & Ors. Page 12 of 15
TOTAL (A) + (B) ₹ 15,68,540/-
Rounded to ₹ 15,69,000/-
Total compensation awarded in favour of petitioners as under:-
Sr. Name of petitioner Loss of Compensation Total
No. dependency u/other heads (Rs.)
(Rs.) (Rs.)
1. Petitioner no.2 Ms. Monika 3,39,885/- 77,000.00 4,16,885/-
2. Petitioner no.3 Ms. Yogita 3,39,885/- 44,000.00 3,83,885/-
3. Petitioner no.4 Master Himanshu 3,39,885/- 44,000.00 3,83,885/-
4. Petitioner no.5 Ms. Yashika 3,39,885/- 44,000.00 3,83,885/-
28. On the basis of above-stated reasoning and calculations, Award is passed in favour of petitioners and against respondents, payable by respondent no. 3, for sum of Rs.15,69,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand only) (including interim award amount, if any) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. date of filing of petition till realization. Respondent no.3 is granted recovery rights to recover compensation from Respondent no.1 and 2 jointly and severally.
29. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby directed that out of the amount awarded in favour of petitioners no.2 to 4, sum of Rs.3,00,000/- each be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs.10,000/- each, having maturity date every month i.e. First FDR of Rs.10,000/- having maturity date after one month of date of deposit, second FDR of Rs.10,000/- having maturity date two months after date of deposit, third FDR of Rs.10,000/- having maturity date after three months of date of deposit, so on, so forth, having cumulative interest, and the remaining amount with corresponding interest accrued till date be released into their savings bank account after verification of their identity and relevant / bank account details i.e. Petitioner no.3 Ms. Yogita, Bank of Baroda, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, A/c. 34948100001531; IFSC: BARB0GANDEL, PAN: AUCPY1778P; Petitioner MACT No. 14393/15 Sabajeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Jagtar & Ors. Page 13 of 15 no.4 Himanshu, Bank of Baroda, Shahdara, Delhi, A/c. 35730100018429; IFSC:
BARB0SHAHDA, PAN: AYWPH2615J and Petitioner no.5 Ms. Yashika, State Bank of India, Seelampur, Delhi, A/c. 35444126112; IFSC:SBIN0004741, PAN:
AVZPY2981L. Petitioner no.2 Monika is bed ridden and directions vide ordersheet dated 28.05.2022 have already been given to the Bank Manager to open the bank account of Ms. Monika.
30. The entire compensation amount awarded to petitioner no. 5 Ms. Yashika (minor daughter of deceased) with corresponding interest, is directed to be kept in FDRs payable on her attaining age of majority.
31. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody and copies of the same be provided to the petitioner with the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount.
(b) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant.
(c) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(d) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant / his guardian. 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.
(e) 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.
32. Respondent no. 3, being insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with interest till date with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court MACT No. 14393/15 Sabajeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Jagtar & Ors. Page 14 of 15 Branch, Delhi bearing account no. 20780110171929; IFSC: UCBA0002078 within 30 days as per above order, failing which respondent no. 3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch is directed to transfer the share amount of the petitioners in their bank account, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. The Branch Manager, is further directed to keep the said amounts in fixed deposits in name of this Court in auto renewal mode every 15 days, till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement, so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Soft copy of the award be uploaded on official website of Delhi District Courts i.e. https://delhidistrictcourts.nic.in.
33. Form IV-A and Form-V, in terms of MCTAP, shall be read as part of the Award. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioner and also to counsel for the Respondent no.3 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 UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
34. Intimation of deposit of Award amount be given as per the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in Divisional Manager vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913, dated 11.03.2021. Digitally signed by SHUNALI GUPTA SHUNALI Announced in open Court GUPTA Date:
2022.07.29 16:07:27 on this 29 th day of July, 2022 +0530 (SHUNALI GUPTA) PO MACT, NORTH EAST KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI MACT No. 14393/15 Sabajeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Jagtar & Ors. Page 15 of 15