Delhi District Court
Smt. Mona Mehdiratta vs Janta Ram Yadav on 17 February, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV JAIN
JUDGE: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MACT CASE No.14/10
I.D. No. 02401C 1458232008
1. Smt. Mona Mehdiratta
W/o Late Shri Deepak Mehdiratta
2. Ms. Nishtha Mehdiratta
D/o Late Shri Deepak Mehdiratta
3. Ms. Chhavi Mehdiratta
D/o Late Shri Deepak Mehdiratta
4. Smt. Veena rani
W/o Late Shri Ram Dass
5.Shri Ram Dass
S/o Late Shri Tej Ram
(Petitioner no.2 and 3 are minor children being represented by their mother
and natural guardian Smt. Mona Mehdiratta, petitioner no.1)
All R/o B596, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi.
...Petitioners
Versus
1. Janta Ram Yadav
S/o Shri Salig Ram Yadav
R/o Y192, Loha Mandi, Naraina, Delhi
MACT Case No.14/10 Page 1 of 21
Permanent Address:
Village & Post Hasipur, Distt. Faizabad (U.P.)
2. Shri Khadak Bahadur
S/o Shri Dewan Singh
R/o B185, J.J. Colony, Khyala, Delhi.
3. M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Division No.XI, IInd Floor, 6/90, Padam Singh Road,
Karol Bagh, Delhi.
...Respondents
Date of institution : 22.11.2008 Arguments heard on : 18.01.2011 Date of Judgment : 17.02.2011 Appearance: For claimants/petitioners : Shri S.K. Singh, Adv. For Respondent No.2 : Shri S.P. Singh, Adv. For respondent no.3 : Shri S.C. Sharma, Adv. Respondent no.1 was proceeded exparte JUDGMENT/AWARD
1. The petitioners have filed the claim for Rs.70 lacs alongwith interest @ 18% from the date of filing of the petition. The brief facts relevant for disposal of the case are that on 05.11.2008, Shri Deepak Mehdiratta was going on his MACT Case No.14/10 Page 2 of 21 motorcycle. At about 9.00 PM, when he reached Shadipur Flyover Katputli Side, Patel Nagar, New Delhi, a Tempo bearing registration no. DL1LA6167 being driven by Respondent no.1 in rash and negligent manner, hit the Motor Cycle from the backside. The offending vehicle ran over the body of the deceased and as a result he died at the spot. It is stated that deceased Shri Deepak Mehdiratta was aged about 34 years at the time of accident. He was working in Capital Public School, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi from 8.00 AM to 1.00 PM and was drawing salary of Rs.9,900/ per month. From 2.00 PM to 8 P.M., he was working in M/s. Dinesh Leather Store, Dev Nagar, Delhi and was drawing a salary of Rs.7000/ per month. Thus, his total monthly income was Rs.16,900/. It is further stated that offending vehicle was insured with Respondent no.3 and as such all the respondents are jointly and severely liable to pay the compensation.
2. Respondents no.1, 2 and 3 are the driver, owner and insurer respectively of the offending vehicle. All the respondents were served. Respondent no.1 was proceeded exparte. Respondents no. 2 and 3 contested the petition.
3. In the WS filed by Respondent no.2, it was alleged that the claim petition is liable to be dismissed for misjoinder of the parties. It was stated that answering respondent had already sold and delivered the offending vehicle to one Shri Avant Kumar on 03.10.08 and signed all the relevant documents for transfer of vehicle and said Shri Avant Kumar was supposed to appear before the authority concerned to get the vehicle transferred in his name. It is further alleged that petitioners have not come to the court with clean hands and have MACT Case No.14/10 Page 3 of 21 suppressed the material facts. It is alleged that amount of compensation is highly exaggerated and answering respondent is not liable to pay any amount of compensation as he had already sold the offending vehicle. Other material contents of the petition were denied.
4. In the WS filed on behalf of respondent no.3 National Insurance Co. Ltd., it is alleged that there was no compliance of section 134 (c) of the Motor Vehicle Act which mandates to furnish the particulars of the date, time and place of accident, particulars of insurance, name of the driver and particulars of the DL but this statutory duty has not been complied by the insured. It is further alleged that as per sec. 158 (6), it is a mandatory duty of the concerned PS to forward all the relevant documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from the date of information but the PS Vasant Kunj failed to forward the documents. It is stated that if it is proved that driver on wheel of the alleged offending vehicle was not holding the valid and effective DL, then the insurance company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. As per respondent no.3 the contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity and in case the insured wants indemnification under the contract of insurance, then he shall prove that vehicle was being driven with permit and its condition/provision as laid down in the MV Act. It is further stated that in case vehicle involved in the accident was not holding fitness certificate and valid permit to ply the vehicle, the answering respondent will not be liable to indemnify the loss to the insured. Other material contents of the petition were denied.
5. Following issues were framed vide order dated 23.04.2009: MACT Case No.14/10 Page 4 of 21
1.Whether the deceased Deepak Mehdiratta died because of the injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 05.11.2008 because of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. DL1LA 6167 by respondent no.1?
2.Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? if so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief
6. Evidence In support of her claim, Smt. Mona Mehdiratta (wife of deceased) appeared in the witness box as PW1 and proved the relevant documents which includes criminal case record Ex.PW1/1, salary certificate issued by M/s. Dinesh Leather Store Ex.PW1/2, computerized copies of salary slip issued by Capital Public School mark A, photocopy of passport Ex.PW1/3, photocopy of DL Ex.PW1/DX.
7. PW2 Shri Ashok Kumar, Manager from Capital Public School stated that deceased Shri Deepak was working their school as Assistant Manager and was drawing salary of Rs.8,000/ per month. He brought the original Teacher's Attendance Register and Vouchers qua salary of Capital Public School Ex.PW2/1 showing the name of Deepak at Sl. no.6.
8. PW3 Shri Ram Dass stated that deceased Deepak Mehdiratta was his son. He was working in his firm as Sales Incharge from 2.00 PM to 8.00 PM and was getting a salary of Rs.6000/. He proved the relevant documents which MACT Case No.14/10 Page 5 of 21 include his election card Ex.PW2/A and income tax return, balance sheet of the firm Ex.PW3/DA.
9. PW4 Shri Rakesh Kumar stated that he is the eyewitness of the accident. According to him, when he reached Shadipur Flyover, he saw a tempo bearing no.DL1LA6167 being driven at a very high speed, rashly and negligently hit a motorcycle no.DL6SAA5580 from the behind. The motorcycle fell down on the road and the rear wheel of the tempo ran over the deceased as a result of which he died at the spot.
10. Shri S.P. Singh, LDC from STA Branch was examined as R3W1. He produced the record of permit Ex.R3W1/A.
11. No witness was examined on behalf of Respondent no.1 & 2.
12. I have heard the ld. counsels for the parties, carefully gone through the pleadings, documents proved on record and written submissions filed by petitioners.
Issuewise discussion is as under:
13. Issue no.1 Whether the deceased Deepak Mehdiratta died because of the injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 05.11.2008 because of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. DL1LA 6167 by respondent no.1?
PW1 Smt. Mona Mehdiratta is the wife of the deceased. She stated MACT Case No.14/10 Page 6 of 21 that her husband Shri Deepak Mehdiratta was aged about 35 years old at the time of accident. She deposed that her husband met with an accident on 05.11.08 and died at the spot leaving behind five legal heirs which include his wife, two daughters aged about 11 years and 6 years respectively, mother and father. Her testimony is supported by other PWs. She also relied on certified copy of documents pertaining to the investigation of the case FIR no.467/2008 u/s 279/304A IPC registered in PS Patel Nagar, Delhi.
14. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pushpa Rana & ors. reported in I(2008) ACC 637, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kailash Gambhir held that the proceedings under Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Also was held that where on record are the copies of the criminal case documents viz., the chargesheet, FIR, seizure memo, mechanical inspection reports pertaining to the involvement of the offending vehicle, then these documents are sufficient proofs to reach conclusion that the driver was negligent.
15. On record, the certified copy of FIR and postmortem report have been filed. The authenticity of these documents has not been challenged during the crossexamination of the witnesses. On the basis of these documents pertaining to the investigation of case FIR no. FIR no.467/2008 u/s 279/304A IPC registered in PS Patel Nagar, Delhi, it can be safely accepted that due to the rash and negligent driving by Respondent no.1 while driving Tempo bearing no. DL1LA6167, the accident occurred with motor cycle of the deceased which resulted fatal injuries on the person of deceased Shri Deepak Mehdiratta which MACT Case No.14/10 Page 7 of 21 resulted in his death. The certified copy of postmortem reports and medical reports of the concerned hospital clearly established that several injuries and fractured were suffered by the deceased person which were mainly due to the accident caused by the offending vehicle. All the injuries are stated to be antemortem and therefore, it can be inferred that death of Deepak Mehdiratta was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of Respondent no.1.
16. In my opinion, Issue no.1 has been proved by petitioners. Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners.
17. Issue no.2 Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? if so, to what amount and from whom?
The appropriate method of calculating the compensation in fatal cases is multiplier method. In catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held that in India the multiplier method is appropriate for calculation of compensation. It was so enunciated by their Lordship Wright in "Davies Vs. Powell Duffregn Associated Collieries Ltd." reported in 1942 AC601, that the appropriate method to calculate compensation is the multiplier method. In the cases of 'General Manager, Kerela State Road Transport Corporation, Trivendram Vs. Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) & Ors', (1994) 2 SCC 176; (2) 'Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd. Vs K.I. Bindu & Ors'. (2005) 8SCC 473; (3) 'Gobald Motor Service Ltd. & Anr Vs RMK Veluswami & Ors', AIR 1962 SC 1, (4) Syed Basheer Ahamad & Ors. V Mohd. Jameel and Anr'. in Civil Appeal No.10 of 2009, decided by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on MACT Case No.14/10 Page 8 of 21 06/01/2009 and (5) Smt. Sarla Verma & ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr, reported in III (2009) ACC 708 (SC), decided by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15/04/09, the payment of compensation in lumpsum to legal representatives of deceased by multiplier method has been approved.
18. Starting point for calculating amount of compensation to be paid to dependents of deceased in a motor accident is the amount of monthly income which the deceased was earning; then there is an estimate of what was required for his personal and living expenses. The balance will generally be turned into lump sum by taking certain number of years of purchase. The choice of multiplier is ascertained by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant whichever is higher.
19. The Multiplicand According to PW1, her husband was aged about 34 years at the time of accident. As per DL Ex.PW1/DX his date of birth was 07.09.1972. PW1 also stated that she is aged about 34 years. As per PW1, deceased was working in Capital Public School, Raghubir Nasgar from 8.00 AM to 1.00 PM and was earning Rs.8,000/ per month and thereafter from 2.00 PM to 8.00 PM, he was working in the firm of his father and was getting salary of Rs.7,000/ per month. Her testimony is supported by PW2 Shri Ashok Kumar who proved the salary slip of deceased Deepak Mehandiratta issued by the Manager of Capital Public School.
20. PW3 Shri Ram Dass, the father of the deceased stated that his son MACT Case No.14/10 Page 9 of 21 was working in his firm alongwith him as Sales Incharge from 2.00 PM to 8.00 PM and was getting salary of Rs.6,000/. On the question of employment of the deceased in the firm of his father ld. counsel for respondent no.3 submitted that testimony of PW1 and PW3 is based on the income tax returns of PW3. As per PW3, deceased was getting salary of Rs.6000/ per month from his father. The inference of PW3 is that deceased was getting salary of Rs.72,000/ per annum from the firm of his father. Balancesheet of the firm filed by PW3 (for the year ending on 31.03.07) clearly mentions the expenditure towards the salary as Rs. 60,000/ and net profit as Rs.1,47,809.95. The balance sheet as on 31.03.08 shows the expenses towards the salary as Rs.50,000/ and net profit as Rs. 1,36,416.59. The total expenses towards the salary in one financial year ending on 31.03.07 were Rs.60,000/ and in the financial year ending on 31.03.08 were Rs.50,000/.
21. Ld. counsel for R3/Insurance Co. submitted that by any stretch of imagination, the testimony of PW1 & PW3 is not correct that deceased was getting salary of Rs.6,000/ per month as claimed by PW3 and salary of Rs. 7,000/ as claimed by PW1.
22. I have carefully considered the respective contention of the parties in the light of testimony of witnesses and income tax returns filed by the PW3. It has been established that deceased Shri Deepak Mehdiratta was working in the school till 1.00 PM. After 1.00 PM he was free for any other job. It has also been established that the father of the deceased was running his firm in the name and style of M/s. Dinesh Leather Store who has also filed his income tax returns. It MACT Case No.14/10 Page 10 of 21 appears probable and convincing that a young person like deceased Shri Deepak Mehdiratta would have been working in the firm of his father in order to help him and to generate more income for himself and his family. From the balance sheet filed by PW3, it is not clear that how much employees were being paid by the firm of PW3. During crossexamination of PW3, no question was asked by ld. counsel for R3 to establish that there was any other employee in the firm of the father of the deceased except the deceased Shri Deepak Mehdiratta. Keeping in view the nature of firm and his turn over, it appears probable that deceased would have been only paid employee in the said firm. Merely, because the monthly salary of deceased Deepak Mehdiratta has been shown slightly on higher side in comparison to the amounts shown in the balance sheet (under the head of salary), the testimony of PW1 and PW3 cannot be disbelieved in toto. It appears that salary paid to the deceased Deepak mehdiratta by the firm of his father was correctly shown the the balance sheet. Accordingly, even if the salary of Rs.50,000/ is taken as a salary of the deceased from the firm of his father as per the balance sheet on 31.03.08, he was getting a salary from the firm of his father at least @ Rs.4,000/ per month. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased Shri Deepak Mehdiratta from the salary of the school and the firm of his father comes to Rs.12,000/ per month (i.e. Rs,8,000/ from school + Rs. 4000/ from the company of his father). Keeping the nature of family business of the firm of the father of the plaintiff, it can be safely assumed that job of deceased was permanent in nature. Therefore, the monthly income of Rs. 12,000/ per month may be considered to calculate the compensation amount alongwith the formula of multiplier and future prospects. MACT Case No.14/10 Page 11 of 21
23. Noting that to neutralize increase in cost of living and price index, minimum wages are increased from time to time. Minimum wages also tend to increase by 100% every 10 years.
24. It is now well settled that while estimating future loss of income, the court has to take into account future prospects of the injured/deceased. [See (1) K. Narsimha Murthi V. The Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., reported in 2004 ACJ 1109; (2) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal, reported in III (2007) ACC 676]
25. Therefore, Tribunal has to consider future increase in minimum wages while awarding compensation to the dependents of deceased. Therefore, average income of deceased is determined in accordance with the following formula for the purpose of computation of compensation in the case: (Salary at the time of accident+double of the salary divided by 2) Therefore, the average income of deceased Shri Sripal is taken as Rs.12,000/ + Rs.24,000/ divided by 2 = Rs.18,000/ per month.
26. Compensation on account of loss of dependency Petitioner no.1 is the wife and petitioner no.2 and 3 are the children. Petitioners no.2 and 3 are represented by petitioner no.1 being their natural guardian/mother. Petitioner no.4 Smt. Veena Rani is the mother of the deceased who was also dependent on his income. As per evidence, petitioner no.5 Shri Ram Dass, the father of the deceased was running his own firm and was not MACT Case No.14/10 Page 12 of 21 dependent upon the deceased. Keeping in view the fact that income of the deceased Shri Deepak Mehdiratta was being spent by him on himself as well as on the dependents.
27. It is not in dispute that offending vehicle was insured with Respondent no.3. The insurance was valid even on the day of accident.
28. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Union of India and others Vs. M.K. Ghuman and others, 2010 ACJ 391, the personal expenses of deceased was deducted as 1/4th of his income. In the present case, the income of deceased was being spent on himself, his wife and four children, I take it his personal expenses as 1/5th of his total income. Out of average income of Rs.18,000, 1/5th income i.e. Rs.3,600/ would be deducted for the purpose of calculation of compensation. In view of the above findings, the age of deceased Shri Deepak Mehdiratta was 34 years at the time of accident whereas the age of his wife petitioner was 33 years.
29. In terms of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors (Supra), the multiplier of 16 (for the age group of 35 to 40 years) will be applicable as the age of the deceased was more than the petitioners at the time of accident. The multiplier has to be taken according to the age of the deceased Shri Deepak Mehdiratta. Accordingly, the total loss of dependency would be Rs.27,64,800/ (Rs.14,400/ x 12 x 16).
30. Compensation for the loss of Estate MACT Case No.14/10 Page 13 of 21 In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors (Supra), the claimants are entitled to Rs.10,000/ under this head.
31. Compensation for the loss of Love and Affection No amount would suffice to compensate the loss of love and affection to petitioners. Yet, relying upon the pronouncement of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of 'Rajesh Tyagi & Ors Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors as FAO no. 842/2003, orders dated 08/05/09, as there are four depended claimants, so the petitioners/claimants are entitled to Rs.10,000/ each i.e. totalling sum of Rs. 40,000/ as loss of love and affection.
32. Loss of Consortium The deceased was the husband of petitioner no.1 and on his sudden demise, she lost her life partner with whom she could share just everything. The loss of spouse to the wife cannot be assessed in monetary terms but nevertheless, I grant Rs.10,000/ as loss of consortium in the instant case.
33. Compensation towards funeral expenses In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors (Supra), the claimants are entitled to Rs.5,000/ under this head.
34. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation to which the petitioners are entitled comes as under: MACT Case No.14/10 Page 14 of 21
1. Compensation for loss of dependency Rs.27,64,800/
2. Compensation for the loss of estate Rs. 10,000/
3. Compensation for funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/
4.Compensation for loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/
5. Compensation for loss of love and affection Rs. 40,000/ Total Rs.28,29,800/
35. From whom petitioners are entitled to claim compensation?
Ld. counsel for R3/Ins. Co. submitted that offending vehicle was a commercial vehicle which was being driven in violation of permit conditions and provision of section 66, 84 and 79 & 79 (2) (VIII) of MV Act. Ld. counsel submitted that in view of the judgment of Hon. Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta Vs. UOI in CWP 13029/85, reported as (1977) 8 SCC, 770, the respondents no.1 & 2 are guilty of violation of permit conditions on account of the following grounds:
(a) That suitable speed control device was not fitted in the offending vehicle to ensure that vehicle is not being driven beyond the speed limit of 40 KMPL
(b) That authorization card of driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident has not been proved by R1 & R2.
36. That vehicle was being driven beyond the speed of 40 KMPH at the time of accident. In respect of his contention ld. counsel for R3/Ins. Co. submitted that in the case of M.C. Mehta, detailed guidelines have been given in respect of speed controlling device and authorization of drivers entitle to ply the vehicle. R1 MACT Case No.14/10 Page 15 of 21 & R2 i.e. the owner and the driver failed to lead any evidence to establish that vehicle was being run in accordance with the permit conditions and provisions of MV Act.
37. Ld. counsel further pointed out that despite service of notice Ex.P3W2/1 and Ex.P3W2/2, issued to the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, they failed to produce the original documents pertaining to the authorization of the driver, proof for purchasing and installing of speed governor device and the original permit. Therefore, adverse inference should be taken against R1 & R2. It was submitted by ld. counsel for Insurance Co. that in case compensation is awarded in favour of the petitioners and Insurance Co. is directed to pay the same, recovery rights be given to the Insurance Co. against R1 & R2.
38. I have carefully considered the submissions. There is no dispute to the legal proposition that any vehicle being driven by a person other than the authorized driver, without installation of speed governor device shall be treated as being used in contravention of the permit. The careful reading of the judgment in the case of M.C. Mehta makes it clear that directions were given by the Hon. Supreme Court in a bigger prospective to ensure system of safe traffic for all concerned. In the judgment of M.C. Mehta, the question relating to the recovery rights against driver and owner of offending vehicle were not specifically raised before the Hon. Supreme Court.
39. The question of recovery rights in a case of MACT is a serious MACT Case No.14/10 Page 16 of 21 question of rights between the parties. Therefore, in accordance with the established norms of adversarial system of adjudication, the party who took the plea is under legal obligation to prove its plea by way of convincing evidence. Merely because despite notice u/o 12 rule 8 CPC issued to R1 & R2 they failed to produce the relevant documents, R3 cannot claim that they have been able to discharge their burden of proof. R3/Ins. Co. was under legal duty to prove the permit violation by positive and cogent evidence. Testimony of R3/W1 Shri S.P. Singh from STA Branch, Rajpura Road, Delhi may be perused. Witness stated that he does not know whether any authorization letter is given to the authority to inform as to who would be authorized to drive vehicle in question. Shri S.P. Singh did not bring any such letter. He stated that R2 was the registered owner of the vehicle and the permit was issued in the name of R2 on 05.11.08. From the testimony of this witness itself, it is not established that offending was being run without speed governor device or being run at excessive speed or was being driven without any authorization. When R3W1 was unable to answer, authorization records could have summoned from the Transport Authority by respondent no.3 to establish the fact who were the authorized person to drive the offending vehicle. After R3W1. no witness was called from Transport Authority in its support by R3/Insurance Co.
40. Though in the charge sheet and the testimony of witnesses, it was stated that offending vehicle was being driven at a high speed exceeding 40 KMPH at the time of accident, the exact speed of the accident cannot be assessed from the testimony of the witnesses and material on record. The documents placed on record does not clarify, whether speed governor device MACT Case No.14/10 Page 17 of 21 was installed in the offending vehicle or not? Respondent no.3 could have summon mechanical inspector who conducted the mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle during investigation of FIR case to clarify about the speed governor device, but this witness was not summoned. Merely by the absence of R1 & R2 and in view of the testimony of Shri S.P.Singh, it cannot be accepted that the insurance company has established the fact that vehicle was being run at the excessive speed in violation of permit conditions. In my view Respondent no.3 has not established their contention in respect of the violation of permit condition by cogent and convincing evidence. Therefore, the law laid down by the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta cannot be made applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In my opinion, as there was a valid and effect insurance policy at the time of accident, R3/Insurance Co. is liable to pay the compensation.
41. Relief In view of the findings of issues no.1 & 2, I am of the opinion that petitioners are entitled to Rs.28,29,800/ as compensation alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of deposit of compensation amount in favour of the petitioners by Respondent no.3/Insurance Company.
42. Apportionment of Compensation The amount of award shall be disbursed to all petitioners in the following proportion:
1. Smt. Mona Mehdiratta (50%) Rs.14,14,900.00 MACT Case No.14/10 Page 18 of 21
2. Km. Nisha Mehdiratta (20%) Rs. 5,65,960.00
3. Km. Chhavi Mehdiratta (20%) Rs. 5,65,960.00
4. Smt. Veena Rani (10%) Rs. 2,82,980.00
43. Since the amount award should not be frittered away by beneficiaries owing to the ignorance, illiteracy etc., the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled 'M.G. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas reported in 1994(2) SCC 176, has laid guidelines pronouncing that in a case of compensation for death, it is appropriate that Tribunals to keep in mind the principles enunciated by this court in Union Carbide Corporation Vs. Union of India', 1991(4) SCC 584, in the matter of appropriate investments to safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptible to exploitation Guidelines inter alia included of investment of share of the claimants in FDRs in nationalized banks with conditions that bank will not permit any loan or advance on the fixed deposits and interest on the amount invested is paid monthly/periodically directly to the claimant and such investment may be made in more than one fixed deposit. In case of any exigency, claimants are at liberty to apply to Tribunal for withdrawal of such investment.
44. In terms thereof, out of the award amount, 50% amount of petitioner no.1 be invested in the shape of FDR in her name for a period of seven years in State Bank of India. Petitioner no.2 and 3 are minor daughters of the deceased, hence the amount of compensation of their share be deposited in the form of FDRs with State Bank of India for the period till they attain the age of 21 (twenty one). In case of exigency, they can move application for premature withdrawal MACT Case No.14/10 Page 19 of 21 before this Tribunal, as per law. The compensation/share of Respondent no. 4 be deposited in her Saving Bank Account.
45. Aforesaid fixed deposits are to be made by State Bank of India, Tis Hazari in the following manner:
1. The State Bank of India, Tis Hazari shall open separate Savings Accounts in the name of the claimants/petitioner no.1 to 3 and the entire interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits be credited in the said account. The fixed deposits shall be automatically renewed till the period prescribed by the court.
2. The interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits shall be paid monthly by automatic credit of interest in the Saving Account.
3. Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to the claimants after due verification and the bank shall issue photo identity card/pass book with attested photographs to claim to facilitate their identity.
4. No cheque book be issued to the claimant without the permission of this court.
5. Half yearly statement of account be filed by the bank in this court.
6. The original FDRs shall be retained by the bank in the safe custody. However, the original passbook shall be given to the claimants alongwith the photocopy of the FDRs.
7. The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to the claimants at the end of the fixed deposit period.
8. No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said FDRs without the permission of this court.
9. On the request of the claimants, the bank shall transfer the Saving MACT Case No.14/10 Page 20 of 21 Account to any other branch of State Bank of India according to the convenience of the claimants.
46. In terms of directions contained in case of UOI Vs. Nanisiri, in MAC Appeal no.682/2005, order dated 13.01.2010, of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha, Respondent no.3 is directed to directly deposit the award sum with State Bank of India (SBI), Tis Hazari within 30 days through its nodal officer and the Manager concerned of SBI, Tis Hazari Court to keep the specified amount aforesaid in fixed deposit in terms of the award and release the balance amount by transferring the same to the Saving Account of the petitioners/claimants. Insurance Co. to also file proof of deposit of award sum, also within said period. Manager SBI, Tis Hazari to also furnish compliance report within 15 days of deposit of award sum. Claimants to do the necessary formalities in respect of the bank account(s). Ahlmad to keep the copy of Award in a miscellaneous file for awaiting compliance report from all concerned which be put up on 17.03.11 Inquiry file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(SANJEEV JAIN) JUDGE: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL TIS HAZARI, DELHI Announced in the Open Court Today : 17.02.11 MACT Case No.14/10 Page 21 of 21