Delhi District Court
Smt. Bina Pandey (Widow) vs Mact No. 62/12/10 Smt. Bina Pandey & Ors. ... on 17 December, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARUN BHARDWAJ
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNALII,
DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
MACT No. 62/12/10
IN THE MATTER OF :
1. Smt. Bina Pandey (Widow)
W/o late Sh. Sudhakar Pandey
R/o MQ424, Sector3, Lakhani
Market, Jayant District
Sighrauli (Madhya Pradesh)
2. Sh. Ramayan Pandey (Father)
R/o As above.
3. Smt. Ram Sakhi Devi (Mother)
W/o Sh. Ramayan Pandey
R/o As above.
4. Master Shubhankar Pandey (Son - Age 11 yrs. Approx.)
S/o late Sh. Sudhakar Pandey
R/o As above.
Through his Mother Smt. Bina Pandey
5. Master Dipankar Pandey (Son - Age 09 yrs. Approx.)
S/o late Sh. Sudhakar Pandey
R/o As above.
Through his Mother Smt. Bina Pandey
... Petitioners
Versus
MACT No. 62/12/10 Smt. Bina Pandey & Ors. v. Sh. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page No. 1 of 19
1. Sh. Pradeep Kumar (Driver)
S/o Sh. Kartar Singh
R/o 116, Village Issapur
New Delhi110073.
2. Sh. Sanjay Kumar (Owner)
S/o Sh. Karam Singh
R/o 263, Bharthal Village
Purana Holi Chowk
New Delhi45.
3. ICICI Lombard (Insurer)
Registered Office
ICICI Bank Tower
BandraKurla Complex Mumbai51.
Also at:
Zenit House Peshavrao Khade Marg
Mahalaxmi, Mumbai.
... Respondents
Filed on : 04.01.2010
Reserved on : 07.12.2012
Decided on : 17.12.2012
: J U D G M E N T :
1. This claim petition is filed under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation.
2. Petitioner No. 1 is the widow, Petitioner No. 2 is the father, Petitioner No. 3 is the mother and Petitioner No. 4 and 5 are the minor children of Late. Sh. Sudhakar Pandey (hereinafter referred as the deceased) who suffered fatal injuries in a road traffic accident.
MACT No. 62/12/10 Smt. Bina Pandey & Ors. v. Sh. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page No. 2 of 19
3. Respondent No. 1 is the driver, Respondent No. 2 is the owner and Respondent No. 3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle.
4. It is stated in this claim petition that on 7th August 2009, at around 15.12 hours, at NH8, Link Road, Service Road, opposite G1, Pushpanjali Farm, Dwarka New Delhi, the deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing registration no. UP 64 E 8113, Bajaj CT100 and was going in the east direction on the said service road and vehicle owned by Respondent No. 2, bearing registration no. DL4A0521, RTV mini bus, was coming from the opposite direction towards the west on the said service road at NH 8, Link Road and in front of G1, Pushpanjali Farm, collided with the motorcycle of the deceased, Sh. Sudhakar Pandey
5. It is stated that the deceased died due to above said accident.
6. It is stated that police has registered FIR No. 163/2009 at P.S. Kapashera, South West Delhi, New Delhi.
7. It is also stated that the deceased was self employed and was contractor with reputed companies of construction and labour. It is stated that the petitioner was earning Rs. 45,000/ per month and was 45 years of age at the time of accident.
8. It is also stated that the deceased was proprietor of a firm namely M/s. S.P. Enterprises and was engaged in the services of construction. Lastly, he was residing at Larsen and Toubro, at IGI Airport T3, Delhi, New Delhi.
MACT No. 62/12/10 Smt. Bina Pandey & Ors. v. Sh. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page No. 3 of 19
9. In these circumstances, petitioners have prayed for a compensation of Rs. 55,00,000/ with interest at the rate of 16% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.
10. A common written statement is filed by Respondent No. 1 & 2. They have stated that they are not responsible for the accident as the accident was not caused due to fault of Respondent No. 1. They have also stated that the compensation claimed by petitioners is exorbitant and excessive. They have also stated that vehicle of Respondent No. 2 is falsely implicated in this case and the accident was caused by some other vehicle and the police has falsely implicated the respondents.
11. Respondent No. 1 & 2 have also stated that the accident was caused due to carelessness and negligence of the deceased himself.
12. Rest of the contents of claim petition were also denied and it was prayed that claim petition be dismissed.
13. On behalf of insurance company, it was stated in the written statement that it is taking all pleas under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act available to it and claim petition be dismissed, if it is found that there is contravention of the provisions of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
14. It is also stated that insurance company will deny all liability if it is found that the insured vehicle was being driven by a person without permission or authority of the insured and the said vehicle was used contrary to terms of MACT No. 62/12/10 Smt. Bina Pandey & Ors. v. Sh. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page No. 4 of 19 policy and permit.
15. It was also stated that claim petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties since owner, driver and insurer of the motorcycle no. UP64E8113 involved in the accident are necessary parties.
16. Rest of the contents of claim petition were also denied but it was admitted that the vehicle in question was insured in the name of Sh. Pradeep Kumar vide policy no. 3004/A/55052553/00/B00 valid from 27.09.08 to 26.09.09.
17. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:
1) Whether Sh. Sudhakar, husband of petitioner no. 1, had sustained fatal injuries on his person in an accident which took place on 07.08.2009 due to negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration number DLIVA0521 being driven by respondent no. 2, owned by respondent no. 1 and insured with respondent no. 3? OPP
2) In case, issue no. 1 is decided in affirmative, then to what amount of compensation, are the petitioners entitled to and from whom? OPP
3) Relief.
Evidence on behalf of Petitioner:
18. On behalf of petitioners, three witnesses were examined.
19. Petitioner No. 1 entered in the witness box twice.
20. In the first evidence by way of affidavit filed by petitioner no. 1, similar facts were stated as were already stated by her in the claim petition.
MACT No. 62/12/10 Smt. Bina Pandey & Ors. v. Sh. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page No. 5 of 19
21. During her statement PW1 proved six documents which are Ex. PW1/1 MLC, Ex. PW1/2 FIR, Ex. PW1/3 RC of offending vehicle, Ex. PW1/4 insurance policy, Ex. PW1/5 Site Plan, Ex. PW1/6 transactions inquiry of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. from 22.07.09 till 29.09.09.
22. In cross examination, PW1 stated that for date of birth of her husband she is relying on ration card; her husband was proprietor of M/s. S.P. Enterprises. She stated that her husband was an income tax assessee but she has not filed any income tax record. Suggestions contrary to her case were denied by her.
23. Realising that some important evidence may have been left out, PW1 again entered in the witness box and filed her additional evidence by way of affidavit.
24. This time she exhibited three documents which are Ex. PW1/A1 statement of account of M/s. S.P. Enterprises with Axis Bank from 01.04.09 till 30.03.09, Ex. PW1/A2 Form No. 16 A, Certificate of deduction of tax at source issued under Section 203 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for period 200708, 200809 and 200910 of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. and statement of account of Smt. Beena Pandey at State Bank of India as Ex. PW1/A3.
25. In cross examination, PW1 stated that M/s. S.P. Enterprises was a proprietorship firm which was being run by her husband. Suggestions contrary to her case were again denied by her.
26. Second witness examined by petitioners was Sh.
MACT No. 62/12/10 Smt. Bina Pandey & Ors. v. Sh. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page No. 6 of 19 Govind Kumar, Assistant Manager (Operations) Axis Bank who entered in the witness box as PW2 and proved statement of account of M/s. S.P. Enterprises from 01.11.07 till 24.06.09 as Ex. PW2/A.
27. Last witness examined on behalf of petitioners was PW3 Sh. Ajay Jain, Manager Accounts, Larsen & Toubro Ltd. He proved three TDS certificates number 200672, 100762 and 557 as Ex. PW3/1. TDS details of M/s. S.P. Enterprises was proved by this witness as Ex. PW3/2.
28. No witness was examined on behalf of respondents.
29. Arguments were addressed by Sh. Ajay Shrivastava, learned Counsel for petitioners and Sh. Mehtab Singh, learned Counsel for insurance company.
30. On the basis of pleadings of parties, evidence on record and arguments addressed, issuewise findings are as under: ISSUE NO. 1
31. Burden of proving this issue is on the petitioner.
32. For succeeding in a claim petition under Motor Vehicles Act, it is for the petitioner to prove that the vehicle which caused the accident was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver.
33. This is sine qua non for getting the relief.
34. Petitioners have not examined any eye witness to the accident. However, it is available on record that FIR no. 163/09 was registered at P.S. Kapashera, New Delhi under MACT No. 62/12/10 Smt. Bina Pandey & Ors. v. Sh. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page No. 7 of 19 Section 279/304 A IPC with regard to accident in question.
35. The driver of offending vehicle was arrested by the police in this case and arrest memo of the driver is available on record. As per MLC at All India Institute of Medical Sciences it was noted to be a case of road traffic accident and deceased was brought in the hospital by CATS and it is also noted that while petitioner was driving the motorcycle he was hit by a vehicle.
36. The defence of Respondent No. 1 in written statement was two fold. First, that Respondent No. 1 is falsely implicated as he has not caused any accident and second defence was that the accident took place due to carelessness and negligence of the deceased himself. It is also simultaneously stated by Respondent No. 1 in his written statement that liability if any is of insurance company as the vehicle was insured by insurance company.
37. During pendency of this claim petition except for filing of written statement, Respondent No. 1 did not take any other step to prove the defence taken by him in the written statement.
38. Respondent No. 1 did not enter in the witness box to prove his innocence.
39. Perusal of Mechanical Inspection Report of the offending vehicle which is filed by the police alongwith Accident Information Report, front right corner was damaged, front bumper was also damaged from right side, front right side bolt of kamani was also found broken and front right rim MACT No. 62/12/10 Smt. Bina Pandey & Ors. v. Sh. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page No. 8 of 19 was also found damaged. So much so vehicle was not in working condition.
40. Perusal of this Mechanical Inspection Report is indicative of a fact that this vehicle had suffered with an accident from its front side. This damage is in consonance with the description of the accident explained by the petitioners in their claim petition.
41. Respondent No. 1 has not proved how the offending vehicle suffered damages to its body from front portion if it had not met with road traffic accident.
42. Police after investigation has also filed charge sheet and even today case is at the stage of Prosecution Evidence against Respondent No. 1.
43. In Ranu Bala Paul & Ors. v. Bani Chakraborty & Ors. 1999 ACJ 634, the Hon'ble Gawhati High Court has observed as under: "In deciding a matter tribunal should bear in mind the caution struck by the Apex Court that a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is neither a criminal case nor a civil case. In a criminal case in order to have conviction, the matter is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and in a civil case the matter is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence, but in a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal the standard of proof is much below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in a civil case. No doubt before the tribunal there must be some material on the basis of which the tribunal can arrive or decide things necessary to be decided for awarding compensation. But the tribunal is not MACT No. 62/12/10 Smt. Bina Pandey & Ors. v. Sh. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page No. 9 of 19 expected to take or to adopt the nicety of a civil or of a criminal case. After all, it is a summary inquiry and this is a legislation for the welfare of the society"
44. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vijay Laxmi & Ors. MAC APP. No. 375/06 dated 05.07.12, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as under: "8. In Bimla Devi and Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors., (2009) 13 SC 530, the Supreme Court held that in a petition under Section 166 of the Act, the Claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition under the Motor Vehicles Act. Para 15 of the report is extracted hereunder: "15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
9. The report in Bimla Devi (Supra) was relied on by the Supreme Court in its latest judgments in Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand (2011) 11 SCC 635 and Kusum Lata v. Satbir, (2011) 3 SCC 646."
45. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana & Ors.: 2009 ACJ 287, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that: "The last contention of the appellant insurance MACT No. 62/12/10 Smt. Bina Pandey & Ors. v. Sh. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page No. 10 of 19 company is that the respondentsclaimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal (Supra). On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced: (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in F.I.R No. 955 of 2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle; (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of chargesheet under Sections 279/304A, Indian Penal Code against the driver; (iii) certified copy of F.I.R., wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under the Motor Vehicles 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. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of the driver."
46. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents. ISSUE NO. 2:
47. Case of respondents in claim petition is that the deceased was earning Rs. 45,000/ per month as he was a contractor with reputed companies of construction and labour.
48. It is the contention of petitioners that claimant was MACT No. 62/12/10 Smt. Bina Pandey & Ors. v. Sh. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page No. 11 of 19 sole proprietor of a firm namely M/s. S.P. Enterprises and was working for Larsen & Toubro Ltd. at IGI Airport, T3, Delhi, New Delhi.
49. Petitioner No. 1 as PW1 had placed on record photocopy of registration of firm of the deceased with Central Excise Commissioner which was marked as Mark X. Therefore, petitioners have not even properly proved that deceased was sole proprietor of M/s. S.P. Enterprises.
50. Unfortunately, deceased was not an income tax assessee inspite of claim of the petitioners that the deceased was earning Rs. 45,000/ per month or Rs. 5,40,000/ p.a.
51. Counsel for the petitioners, relying upon the fact that in the year 200809 a T.D.S. of Rs. 24,827/ was deducted which was increased to Rs. 33,494/ in the assessment year 200910 and also relying upon the fact that wife of the deceased, after the death of the deceased, was given a sum of Rs. 2,80,674/ and Rs. 3,64,009/ which is shown in Ex. PW1/A3, argued that once income tax on the income of a person is Rs. 33,00,495/, his annual income can be taken as Rs. 5 lacs.
52. Therefore, counsel for petitioners argued that loss of dependency be assessed by treating the financial loss as Rs. 5 lacs p.a.
53. For this submission, counsel for petitioners is relying upon T.D.S only.
54. In the case of Sumitra v. UPSRTC, FAO No. 116/98, dated 31.03.09, whereas the Claims Tribunal had assumed MACT No. 62/12/10 Smt. Bina Pandey & Ors. v. Sh. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page No. 12 of 19 income of a businessman doing business of tents at par with income of an unskilled workman but Hon'ble High Court of Delhi referring to the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhupinder Kaur, 2004 ACJ 1130, assumed income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/ per month.
55. In the case of Bhupender Kaur (supra), the deceased was not paying income tax. However, the Hon'ble High Court had held that it would not nullify the statement of wife of the deceased that she was actually receiving Rs. 10,000/ to 12,000/ per month from the deceased.
56. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in the case of Rampati v. Shyambir, 2012 (189) DLT 144, discussed effect of T.D.S for assessing income in para 7 as under: "During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, Claimant Rampati filed her affidavit Ex. PW1/X and entered the witness box as PW1. In the Affidavit she testified that her husband was earning more than Rs. 5,00,000/ per annum as tax was being deducted at source. The claimants also produced Kamal Kishore who also testified that the deceased was earning Rs. 40,000/ to Rs. 50,000/ per month. In cross examination, the witness candidly admitted that he had no personal knowledge about the documents produced by him. The deceased's profession as a building contractor cannot be disputed in view of the document Ex. PW3/C which shows that the tax was being deducted at source for the work carried by the deceased. At the same time, Form 16A (Ex. PW3/C) simply reveals the gross payment made to the deceased by M/s. Vardhman Properties Limited. It does not show as to how much was the cost of the material and how much was the MACT No. 62/12/10 Smt. Bina Pandey & Ors. v. Sh. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page No. 13 of 19 cost of the labour. The claimants did not file any Income Tax Return to show as to what was the deceased's actual income after all his expenditure (on the business of building contractor). The Claims Tribunal performed the difficult task of making a guess work of the deceased's net income to be Rs. 2,00,000/ from the gross receipts as mentioned in Ex. PW3/C."
57. In the present case also the deceased was a contractor and there is only evidence with regard to TDS deducted from gross payment made to the deceased by Larsen & Toubro Ltd. It does not show as to how much was the cost of the material and how much was the cost of the labour. Therefore, this Tribunal is also left with a difficult task of making guess work of the deceased's net income.
58. In the case of Rani Gupta v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., AIR 2009 Supreme Court 3226, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the case of death of a businessman, actual loss of dependency to the family is his contribution to run the business but assets of business remain. The amount of compensation, therefore, is required to be determined keeping in view that factor in mind.
59. In the light of judgments of Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court referred above and by applying guess work on the basis of TDS Certificates placed on record by the petitioners, this Tribunal assumes the income of the deceased at Rs. 12,000/ per month or Rs. 1,44,000/ p.a.
60. As per claim petition, age of the deceased at the time of his death was 45 years. This is the case of PW1 in her MACT No. 62/12/10 Smt. Bina Pandey & Ors. v. Sh. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page No. 14 of 19 evidence by way of affidavit as well. No suggestion was given to PW1 that the age of the deceased was not 45 years on the date of accident.
61. Therefore, age of the deceased shall be taken as 45 years on the date of accident.
62. There are five dependents. There is not even a suggestion that father of the deceased was not financially dependent upon the deceased. Therefore, deduction towards personal expenses will be 1/4th.
63. Once 1/4th is deducted from Rs. 1,44,000/, the loss of dependency for petitioners will be Rs. 1,08,000/ p.a.
64. The multiplier applicable to the case will be of 14 as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC, 2009 (6) SCALE 129.
65. Loss of Dependency would work out to be Rs. 15,12,000/ (i.e. 1,08,000/ x 14).
66. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bharat Singh, MAC APP. No. 137/12, dated 08.08.12, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that when full compensation is awarded towards loss of dependency, only a nominal sum is to be awarded towards loss of love and affection.
67. It was further held that the trend of the Hon'ble High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is to grant a sum of Rs. 25,000/ under the head of loss of love and affection.
68. Such a sum was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Sharma v. Bachittar Singh (2011) 11 SCC 425 MACT No. 62/12/10 Smt. Bina Pandey & Ors. v. Sh. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page No. 15 of 19 and in Baby Radhika Gupta v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 17 SCC 627 towards love and affection.
69. Therefore, for Love and Affection, petitioners are given a compensation of Rs. 25,000/.
70. Besides this, Petitioner No. 1 widow is awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,000/ towards Loss of Consortium.
71. For Loss of Estate, petitioners are given a sum of Rs. 10,000/ and for Cremation Charges, they are given a compensation of Rs. 10,000/.
72. Therefore, total compensation payable to the petitioner would be Rs. 15,67,000/ which will be paid with interest @ 7.5% p.a. (this is the rate of interest which is being awarded by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at present) from the date of filing of this claim petition which is 04.01.10 till its deposit in the Tribunal.
73. Insurance company has not proved any defence. Therefore, compensation is to be paid by insurance company which be paid within 30 days from today under intimation to the petitioner by registered post.
74. Following directions are given for apportionment of compensation: (1) 30%, out of the total compensation awarded, with proportionate interest shall be payable in favour of Petitioner No. 1 widow of the deceased. This payment shall be deposited by insurance company directly with State Bank of India, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi and the cheque will be in the name of SBI A/c. Bina Pandey. Out of this, 10% shall be released in her Saving Bank Account to be opened in State Bank of India, MACT No. 62/12/10 Smt. Bina Pandey & Ors. v. Sh. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page No. 16 of 19 Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. Balance compensation will be kept in 10 FDRs of equal amount for a period of 1 to 10 years. Monthly interest will be credited in her Saving Bank Account regularly.
(2) 10% out of the total awarded compensation with proportionate interest shall be payable in favour of petitioner no. 2, father of the deceased. This payment shall be deposited by insurance company directly with State Bank of India, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi and the cheque will be in the name of SBI A/c. Ramayan Pandey. Out of this, 10% shall be released in his Saving Bank Account to be opened in State Bank of India, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. Balance compensation will be kept in 3 FDRs of equal amount for a period of 1 to 3 years. Monthly interest will be credited in his Saving Bank Account regularly.
(3) 10% out of the total awarded compensation with proportionate interest shall be payable in favour of petitioner no. 3, mother of the deceased. This payment shall be deposited by insurance company directly with State Bank of India, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi and the cheque will be in the name of SBI A/c. Ram Sakhi Devi. Out of this, 10% shall be released in her Saving Bank Account to be opened in State Bank of India, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. Balance compensation will be kept in 3 FDRs of equal amount for a period of 1 to 3 years. Monthly interest will be credited in her Saving Bank Account regularly.
(4) 25% out of the total awarded compensation with proportionate interest shall be payable in favour of petitioner no. 4, son of the deceased. The cheque will be deposited in the name of SBI MACT No. 62/12/10 Smt. Bina Pandey & Ors. v. Sh. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page No. 17 of 19 A/c. Shubhankar Pandey. This amount will be kept in FDR till he attains age of 21 years. However, monthly interest will be credited in Saving Bank Account of petitioner no. 1 regularly so that she can use it for the welfare of petitioner no. 4.
(5) 25% out of the total awarded compensation with proportionate interest shall be payable in favour of petitioner no. 5, son of the deceased. The cheque will be deposited in the name of SBI A/c. Dipankar Pandey. This amount will be kept in FDR till he attains age of 21 years. However, monthly interest will be credited in Saving Bank Account of petitioner no. 1 regularly so that she can use it for the welfare of petitioner no. 5.
(6) All the original FDRs shall remain with the bank. Only copies thereof will be given to the petitioners. However, pass book will be given to the petitioners. No cheque book shall be issued to the petitioners.
(7) No loan or advance will be given against these deposits.
(8) FDRs shall not be prematurely encashed without leave of this Tribunal.
(9) Petitioners shall cooperate with the bank by providing requisite documents and by completing required formalities for opening Saving Bank and FDR Accounts.
(10) Petitioners shall be at liberty to get their Saving Bank Account and FD Accounts transferred to any branch of SBI of their choice if so desired.
75. Copy of this order be given dasti to all the parties.
MACT No. 62/12/10 Smt. Bina Pandey & Ors. v. Sh. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page No. 18 of 19
76. A copy of this order be also sent to the State Bank of India, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
77. File be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court.
On the 17th day of December, 2012 (ARUN BHARDWAJ) PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNALII DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
MACT No. 62/12/10 Smt. Bina Pandey & Ors. v. Sh. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Page No. 19 of 19