Delhi District Court
Mr. Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Nagpal vs Mr. Bhanwar Singh on 4 December, 2018
IN THE COURT OF S.S. MALHOTRA:
PO:MACT-1 (NORTH): ROHINI: DELHI
MACT no. 4213/16
FIR no. 166/14
PS City Bahadurgarh
1. Mr. Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Nagpal
S/o Sh.Ram Lal
R/o 631, Near Mother Dairy,
West Parmanand Colony,
Delhi-09
2. Ms. Archana Sehgal @ Nancy
Wife of Sh. Sanjay Sehgal
R/o 28-C, J&K Pocket,
Dilshad Garden, Delhi-95.
3. Ms. Parul
D/o Sh. Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Nagpal
R/o 631, Near Mother Dairy,
West Parmanand Colony,
Delhi-09
.........Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Mr. Bhanwar Singh
S/o Sh. Karni Singh
R/o Kinsariya, Tehsil Parbatsar,
Nagaur, Rajasthan.
2. M/s Shree Shyam Associates
Through its Proprietor Ms. Madhu Devi
Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Nagpal & Ors. Vs. Bhanwar Singh
MACT no. 4213/16 1 /26
108, Himmat Nagar, Gopal Pura Mor,
Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
Also through:
Mr. Pradeep Saini S/o Ram Gopal Saini
Railway Station Road, Near Panchayat Samiti,
Lachman Garh, Sikar, Rajasthan
3. The National Ins. Co. Ltd.
Division Office-10, Flat No. 101-106, N-1,
BMC
......Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 08.01.2015
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 30.11.2018
DATE OF AWARD : 04.12.2018
FINAL ORDER : AWARD OF
RS. 4,38,000/-
FORM - IV A
1. Date of accident: 20.04.2014
2. Name of deceased: Ms. Manju Nagpal
3. Age of the deceased: More than 50 years at the time of
accident (as per Secondary School
Examination certificate Ex. PW1/5
DOB is 19.02.1964)
4. Occupation of the deceased: House wife
Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Nagpal & Ors. Vs. Bhanwar Singh
MACT no. 4213/16 2 /26
5. Income of the deceased: Nil
6. Name, age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S. Name Age Relation
No
(i) Mr. Sushil Kumar 60 years Husband
(ii) Mr. Archana Sehgal @ Nancy 30 years Married daughter
(ii) Ms. Parul 27 years Married daughter
Computation of Compensation
S. Heads Awarded by the Claims
No Tribunal
7. Income of the deceased (A) 10,374/- as per minimum
wages of matriculate
8. Add-Future Prospects (B) 10% (deceased being more
than 50 years of age)
9. Less-Personal expenses of the 9699.69 per month (85%
deceased (C ) being no dependent upon
victim)
10. Monthly loss of dependency / Estate Petitioner were not
{ (A+B) - C =D} dependent upon the
deceased but monthly loss
to estate comes to Rs.
1711.71
11. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) 20,540.52
12. Multiplier (E) 13 (as per Ex PW1/5, date
Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Nagpal & Ors. Vs. Bhanwar Singh MACT no. 4213/16 3 /26 of birth of deceased is 19.02.1964, in other words he was 50 years and 2 months at the time of accident and therefore for as per judgment in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298 SC the the multiplier of 13 is taken for the purpose of calculation of compensation.
13. Total loss of dependency (Dx12xE = Petitioners were not F) dependent upon the deceased
14. Medical Expenses (G) Nil.
15. Compensation for loss of love and Nil. affection (H)
16. Compensation for loss of consortium 40,000/- (I)
17. Compensation for loss of estate (J) Rs. 2,67,026.76 (Loss of estate assessed as per judgment in Keith Rowe Vs. Prashant Sagar & Ors.)
18. Compensation towards funeral Rs. 15,000/- expenses (K)
19. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 3,22,026.76 (F+G+H+I+J+K =L) Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Nagpal & Ors. Vs. Bhanwar Singh MACT no. 4213/16 4 /26
20. RATE OF INTEREST AWARDED 9% 21 Interest amount up to the date of 1,15,929.63 (48 months) award (M)
22. Total amount including interest 4,37,956.39 rounded off to (L+M) Rs. 4,38,000/-
23. Award amount released 10% subject to modified direction of the Hon'ble High Court
24. Award amount kept in FDRs 90% as per direction of the Hon'ble High Court
25. Mode of disbursement of the award In phased manner amount to the claimant (s) (Clause
29)
26. Next date for compliance of the 08.01.2019 award. (Clause 31) FORM - V AGREED PROCEXDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of the accident 20.04.2014
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the Accident pertain to investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal out of Delhi (Clause 2)
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the N/A investigating officer to the insurance company. (Clause 2).
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 N/A Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Nagpal & Ors. Vs. Bhanwar Singh MACT no. 4213/16 5 /26 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate (Clause 10).
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident N/A Information Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal (Clause 10)
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance N/A Company (Clause 11)
7. Date of Service of DAR on the N/A complainant(s)(Clause 11)
8. Whether DAR was complete in all N/A respects? (Clause 16)
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR N/A removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the N/A documents filed with DAR? (Clause 4)
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency N/A on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Not appointed Officer by the insurance Company.
(Clause20)
13. Name, address and contact number of the Not appointed Designated Officer of the Insurance Company. (Clause 20) Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Nagpal & Ors. Vs. Bhanwar Singh MACT no. 4213/16 6 /26
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Not appointed Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR? (Clause 20)
15. Whether the insurance company admitted No offer was filed the liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer of the insurance company fairly computed the compensation in accordance with law. (Clause 23)
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency No designated officer o the part of the Designated Officer of the was appointed Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the No offer was filed offer of the Insurance Company .(Clause
24)
18. Date of the Award 04.12.2018
19. Whether the award was passed with the No. Parties contested consent of the parties? (Clause 22) the case
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to Yes. open saving bank account(s) near their place of residence? (Clause 18)
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 05.04.2018 directed to open saving bank account (s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Aadhar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Nagpal & Ors. Vs. Bhanwar Singh MACT no. 4213/16 7 /26 make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s). (Clause 18)
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced 04.12.2018 the passbook of their saving bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card? (Clause 18)
23. Permanent Residential Address of the P1 R/o R/o 631, Near Claimant(s) (Clause 27) Mother Dairy, West Parmanand Colony, Delhi-09 P2 R/o 28-C, J&K Pocket, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-95.
P3. R/o 631, Near Mother Dairy, West Parmanand Colony, Delhi-09
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the P-1, SBI, Branch claimant(s) and the address of the bank Kingsway Camp with IFSC Code (Clause 27) a/c 37911392091 IFSC Code no.
19096 P-2, SBI, Branch Dilshand Garden a/c 37887837332 IFSC Code no. 9370 P-3 SBI, Branch Vikas Puri a/c 378990065492 Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Nagpal & Ors. Vs. Bhanwar Singh MACT no. 4213/16 8 /26 IFSC Code no.
51289
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank Yes account(s) is near his place of residence? (Clause 27)
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at Yes the time of passing of the award.
AWARD
1. Vide this order I shall dispose of claim petition under Section 166 and 140 of The Motor Vehicle's Act, 1988 filed by petitioners / LRs of deceased Manju Nagpal seeking compensation from the respondents. According to petitioners, on the intervening night of 19 & 20th April-2014, the deceased was travelling in a Maruti Esteem Car No. DL3CR 2181 on NH-10 and going from Rohtak, Haryana towards Hardev Nagar, Delhi along with her family and relatives i.e. Neelam @ Kaushalya, Kishan Pal @ Rakesh @ Raju. The said car was being driven by the husband of deceased (petitioner Sushil Nagpal himself) at a normal speed with utmost care. There was no Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Nagpal & Ors. Vs. Bhanwar Singh MACT no. 4213/16 9 /26 street light and the atmosphere was quite dusty which had reduced the visibility on road. It was about 2.30 a.m. when his car reached opposite Sangwan Hotel, Near PDM Flyover, Bahadurgarh by-pass, the offending vehicle was parked unattended in dangerous condition in the middle of road by respondent no. 1 and even parking lights of the offending vehicle were switched off. The offending vehicle was not even visible from the distance of 6 to 8 meters. As a result of which the petitioner could not see the offending vehicle due to which the accident had occurred. As a result of which Neelam @ Kaushalya (deceased in present case) and her relatives i.e. Manju Nagpal, Kishan Pal and Rakesh @ Raju (deceased in other connected cases), who were also travelling in the said car died at different intervals in the hospital. Petitioner Sushil Nagpal also suffered injuries in this accident.
2. Contending that said accident took place due to wrong parking of Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Nagpal & Ors. Vs. Bhanwar Singh MACT no. 4213/16 10 /26 the offending truck / dumper bearing registration no. RJ14GE 6260 by Bhanwar Singh, (respondent no. 1), offending vehicle was owned by M/s Shree Shyam (respondent no. 2) and insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. (respondent no. 3), petitioners claimed a sum of Rs. 25 lacs as compensation from the respondents along with interest @ 15% per annum from date of filing claim petition, till realization of amount. An interim award of Rs. 50,000/- was also prayed for.
3. Claim of petitioners was not contested by the respondents no. 1 and
2. Respondent no. 3 in its written statement has taken preliminary objections inter alia stating that it would not be liable to indemnify the insured / owner in case respondent no. 1 was not holding any valid DL or if there is any breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is further stated that accident had occurred due to negligence of petitioner Sushil Kumar himself as he hit his car Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Nagpal & Ors. Vs. Bhanwar Singh MACT no. 4213/16 11 /26 against the offending vehicle which was stationary at the time of accident and accordingly, it has denied its liabilities on technical grounds as well.
4. From the pleadings of parties following issues were framed vide order dated 12.10.2015 :-
1. Whether Smt. Manju Nagpal died due to injuries suffered in a vehicular accident occurred on 20.04.2014 at 2.30 a.m. at Bahadurgarh, Bypass, Opposite Sangwan Hotel, near PDM Flyover, Bahadurgarh, Haryana due to collusion between car No. DL3C-R-2181 and truck no. RJ-14-GT-6260? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners who are LRs of deceased Manju Nagpal are entitled to compensation, if yes, what amount and from whom of respondents. OPP
3. Relief.
5. In order to prove the claim, petitioner Mr. Sushil Kumar (husband of deceased), stated to be eye-witness of the accident as well, filed his Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Nagpal & Ors. Vs. Bhanwar Singh MACT no. 4213/16 12 /26 affidavit Ex. PW1/A in evidence and examined himself as PW1. None from the respondents opted to lead any evidence. I have heard ld. counsels appearing on behalf of parties and gone through the record. My findings issue wise are as under:- ISSUE NO. 1
Whether Smt. Manju Nagpal died due to injuries suffered in a vehicular accident occurred on 20.04.2014 at 2.30 a.m. at Bahadurgarh, Bypass, Opposite Sangwan Hotel, near PDM Flyover, Bahadurgarh, Haryana due to collusion between car No. DL3C-R-2181 and truck no. RJ-14-GT-6260? OPP
6. Onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioners. To prove that victim suffered fatal injuries on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent no. 1, petitioner (PW1) filed his affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) in evidence and reiterated the facts as per his claim petition. Nothing material has come on record to disbelieve testimony of PW1. No suggestion was given to PW1, in his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for respondents, regarding the manner in which the accident Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Nagpal & Ors. Vs. Bhanwar Singh MACT no. 4213/16 13 /26 took place. Respondent no. 1 even has not examined himself to prove that he was not negligent or that he was not at fault or that he has been falsely implicated in criminal case or that accident had occurred due to negligence on the part of petitioner. Criminal case record filed on recored show that respondent no. 1 was indicted by police for offences punishable under Section 283/337/304A IPC. Respondent no. 1 did not approach to any higher authority or any forum against his implication in this case. Apart from deposition of PW1, the fact that victim suffered fatal injuries in the accident is also supported from her postmortem report etc. Considering all this, it stands proved that accident in question occurred due to rash or negligence driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1 and victim suffered fatal injuries in that accident.
7. Issue no. 1 is decided accordingly in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Nagpal & Ors. Vs. Bhanwar Singh MACT no. 4213/16 14 /26 ISSUE NO. 2 Whether the petitioners who are LRs of deceased Manju Nagpal are entitled to compensation, if yes, what amount and from whom of respondents. OPP
8. It is not disputed the petitioners are husband and daughters of deceased, therefore, being LRs of deceased, petitioners who are husband and married daughters of deceased are well within their rights to claim compensation from the respondents. NOW COMING TO QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION
9. As stated above, it is admitted fact that deceased was housewife and petitioners are husband and two married daughters of deceased and in terms of the judgment in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298 SC petitioners were not financially dependent upon deceased and therefore they would be entitled to the compensation for loss of estate only in terms of the judgment in Keith Rowe Vs. Prashant Sagar & Ors MAC.APP.No.601/2007 decided on 15 January- Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Nagpal & Ors. Vs. Bhanwar Singh MACT no. 4213/16 15 /26 2010 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has summarised the law with respect to such cases where LRs is/are not financially dependent upon the deceased as under:
"(i) The law contemplates two categories of damages on the death of a person. The first is the pecuniary loss sustained by the dependent members of his family as a result of such death. The second is the loss caused to the estate of the deceased as a result of such death. In the first category, the action is brought by the legal representatives, as trustees for the dependents beneficially entitled.
In the second category, the action is brought by the legal representatives, on behalf of the estate of the deceased and the compensation, when recovered, forms part of the assets of the estate. In the first category of cases, the Tribunal in exercise of power under Section 168 of the Act, can specify the persons to whom compensation should be paid and also specify how it should be distributed.
(ii) Where the claim is by the dependents, the basis for award of compensation is the loss of dependency, that is loss of what was contributed by the deceased to such claimants. A conventional amount is awarded towards loss of expectation of life, under the head of loss to estate.
(iii) Where the claim by the legal representatives of the deceased who were not dependents of the deceased, then the basis for award of compensation is the loss to the estate, that is the loss of savings by the deceased.
A conventional sum for loss of expectation of life, is added.
(iv) The procedure for determination of loss to estate is broadly the Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Nagpal & Ors. Vs. Bhanwar Singh MACT no. 4213/16 16 /26 same as the procedure for determination of the loss of dependency. Both involve ascertaining the multiplicand and capitalising it by multiplying it by an appropriate multiplier. But, the significant difference is in the figure arrived at as multiplicand in cases where the claimants who are dependents claim loss of dependency, and in cases where the claimants who are not dependents, claim loss to estate. The annual contribution to the family constitutes the multiplicand in the case of loss of dependency, whereas the annual savings of the deceased becomes the multiplicand in the case of loss to estate. The method of selection of multiplier is however the same in both cases."
10. Now coming to the multiplier aspect. As discussed herein above, petitioners are entitled to compensation on account of loss of estate only and in Keith Rowe Vs. Prashant Sagar & ors. MAC appeal no.601 of 2007 decided on 15.01.2010, it has also been settled that multiplier would however remain same and it is only the head under which the petitioners would likely to succeed would change.
11. Now coming to the calculation part of compensation. Ld. Counsel for petitioners submitted that even if the victim was housewife, she cannot be treated having no income of her own. Considering the Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Nagpal & Ors. Vs. Bhanwar Singh MACT no. 4213/16 17 /26 judgment in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Master Manmeet Singh & Ors MAC.APP. 590/2011 decided by our own High Court on 30.01.2012, where it was held that services rendered by a housewife cannot be counted; cooking, washing, ironing clothes and stitching clothes (in some cases) for the husband and children, teaching and guiding them and working as a nurse, whenever husband or children are sick, are some of the major activities of housewife. She has no fixed hours of work; she is also in attendance to take care of each and every need of daily family work at the cost of her personal comfort and health. Thus value of services rendered by such home maker should be taken as minimum wages of a non-matriculate or graduate (in the absence of any evidence to the contrary).
12. According to petitioners, the victim was 50 years of age at the time of accident. As per Ex. PW1/5 (matriculate certificate), the date of Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Nagpal & Ors. Vs. Bhanwar Singh MACT no. 4213/16 18 /26 birth of deceased is 19.02.1964 and therefore earnings of victim are taken to be equal to minimum wages of a matriculate, which were Rs. 10,374/- per month at the time of accident. Being more than 50 years of age, a multiplier of 13 is applied. As per the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner is also entitled for future prospects @ 10% as the deceased was more than 50 years of age.
13. In case, where the petitioners / claimants were not financially dependent upon the victim, the illustration given in Keith Rowe Vs. Prashant Sagar & ors. MAC appeal no.601 of 2007 decided on 15.01.2010, by the Hon'ble Court are helpful which reads as under:
l........
ll..........
lll..............
iv.................
(v) if the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are two non-
dependent brothers / sisters aged 47 years and 45 years with independent income, the position would be different. As the deceased did not have a 'family', the tendency would be to spend Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Nagpal & Ors. Vs. Bhanwar Singh MACT no. 4213/16 19 /26 more on oneself and the saving would be hardly 15%. If the saving is taken as 15% (Rs. 1350/- per month), the annual saving would be Rs. 16,200/- which would be the multiplicand. The multiplier will be 13 with reference to the age of the claimants and the loss of estate would be Rs. 2,10,600/- per annum.
The above will apply where the family consists of non-dependent spouse/children/parents. Where the claimants are non-dependent brothers/sisters claiming on behalf of the estate, the saving can be taken as 15% of the income. The above percentage, one of course, subject to any specific evidence to the contrary led by the claimants. Therefore, loss to estate is taken as 15% of the income i.e. Rs. 10,374 + 1037.4(10%) = 11411.4x13x12 = 17,80,178.4/-, 15% of which comes to Rs. 2,67,026.76 and after adding Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium, it comes to Rs. 3,22,026.76 and after adding 48 months interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing claim petition i.e. 08.01.2015 to 08.01.2019 i.e. Rs. 1,15,929.63, a total compensation of Rs. 4,37,956.39/-, rounded off to Rs 4,38,000/- is awarded to the petitioner, details of which are mentioned in the above proforma.
This issue is thus decided in favour of petitioner and against respondents.
Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Nagpal & Ors. Vs. Bhanwar Singh MACT no. 4213/16 20 /26 Now coming to the aspect as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
14. It is not disputed the vehicle was duly insured with respondent no. 3 on the date of accident. Ld. counsel for Ins. Co. has argued with respect to the contributory negligence on the part of petitioner. It is admitted fact that victim was not driving the vehicle and therefore contributory negligence cannot be attributed on the prt of victim. This contention of Ld. Counsel for Ins. Co. is not well found and accordingly declined.
15. The next contention of the Ld. Counsel for Ins. Co. is that victim was aged 50 years, survived by husband and two married daughters and therefore no one was financially dependent upon the deceased. Although, the petitioner no. 2 was married and petitioner no. 3 was not married, as stated in the petition but subsequently it has come on record that petitioner no. 3 was married even on the date of accident Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Nagpal & Ors. Vs. Bhanwar Singh MACT no. 4213/16 21 /26 and disclosing such fact an application under Section 151 CPC was also filed by Ld. Counsel for petitioner on 25.10.2018. Therefore, this fact also stands established that the petitioners have not suffered any loss as far as loss of dependency is concerned and therefore, as stated herein above, the compensation to the petitioners allowed only with respect to loss of estate and in view of Keith Row judgment and since Ins. Co. has failed to lead any statutory deferred in its favour, being insurer, respondent no. 3 is liable to indemnify the insured / owner and to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
This issue is therefore, decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondent no. 3.
ISSUE NO. 3 (RELIFE).
16. Petition in hands is allowed. Respondent no. 3 is directed to pay Rs.
4,38,000/- to the petitioner failing which respondent no. 3 would Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Nagpal & Ors. Vs. Bhanwar Singh MACT no. 4213/16 22 /26 pay the interest @ 9% on the amount of Rs. 3,22,026.76 from 08.01.2019, till realization apart from awarded amount of Rs. 4,38,000/-.
17. Statement of petitioner about disbursement of amount of compensation was recorded. Further petitioner petitioners have got their bank account opened in terms of modified direction of Hon'ble High Court and filed photocopy of their passbook of such account. Considering circumstances of petitioners, it is directed that awarded amount be divided equally among the petitioners and out of their share, 90% amount be kept in FDRs to be released to them in a phased manner i.e. Rs. 10,000/- monthly directly crediting in their account and remaining 10% amount be released to them through their saving bank account, detail of which are mentioned in the above proforma, this amount will be withdrawn only by way of withdrawal slip and by no other mode or digital mode i.e. Debit card / Credit card Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Nagpal & Ors. Vs. Bhanwar Singh MACT no. 4213/16 23 /26 /ATM/NEFT/RTGS/letter etc.
18. The salient features as prescribed in the judgment in Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Ramesh Chandra Gupta FAO No. 842/2009 and MAC. APP. No. 422/2009 decided on 07.11.2014 are to be applied: -
1. The fixed deposit be renewed automatically till the period prescribed by the Court.
2. The interest on the fixed deposit be paid monthly.
3. The monthly interest be credited automatically in the saving account of the claimant.
4. Original fixed deposit receipt be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the original passbook shall be given to the claimant along with the photocopy of the FDR.
5. The original fixed deposit receipt be handed over to the claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period.
6. Photo identity card shall be issued to the claimant and the Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Nagpal & Ors. Vs. Bhanwar Singh MACT no. 4213/16 24 /26 withdrawal shall be permitted only after due verification by the Bank of the identity card of the claimant.
7. No cheque book and debit / credit card shall be issued to the claimant without permission of the Court.
8. No loan, advance or premature withdrawal or premature encashment shall be allowed on the fixed deposit without permission of the Court.
9. The amount would be directly credited in the bank account of the petitioner, without any necessity of visiting her to court, where FDRs are kept.
10. The bank of the petitioner would make necessary endorsement on the passbook of the petitioner and in its own record as "MACT case" and amount to be disbursed only in terms of the order of the court.
11. Bank manager concerned to inform the court in writing prior to Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Nagpal & Ors. Vs. Bhanwar Singh MACT no. 4213/16 25 /26 releasing of any amount to the petitioner, to the effect that compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court has been made with respect to disbursement. In no case, amount of award can be released without filing a compliance report in the court and the amount, which the respective petitioner would be withdrawing can only be allowed through withdrawal slip and by no other mode or any digital mode i.e. Debit card / Credit card /ATM/NEFT/RTGS/letter etc. Respondent no. 3 /The National Ins. Co. Ltd.. is directed to deposit entire amount of compensation with this tribunal within 30 days, with advance notice to petitioners. Digitally signed by SUKHVIR SUKHVIR SINGH File be consigned to record room. SINGH MALHOTRA MALHOTRA Date:
2018.12.04 17:03:45 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (S.S. MALHOTRA) COURT ON 04.12.2018 PO, MACT- NORTH, ROHINI, DELHI Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Nagpal & Ors. Vs. Bhanwar Singh MACT no. 4213/16 26 /26