Delhi District Court
Smt. Neha Srivastava W/O Late Sh. Vivek ... vs Sh. Durgesh Kushwaha on 19 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MS. SANTOSH SNEHI MANN,
JUDGE, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL02, WEST DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
Suit No.: 1234/2014
Unique Case ID No.: 02401C0611252011
1. Smt. Neha Srivastava W/o Late Sh. Vivek Kumar Srivastava
(Wife of the deceased)
2. Sh. Ghanshyam Lal S/o Late Sh. Sitla Prasad
(Father of the deceased)
3. Smt. Mridul Srivastava W/o Sh. Ghanshyam Lal
(Mother of the deceased)
All R/o H. No. 126, Village & PO Saidpur, because the ownership has not
been transferred to him through the proper document of sale or agreement
Gajipur, Uttar Pradesh. .......... Petitioners.
Versus
1. Sh. Durgesh Kushwaha
S/o Sh. Ganga Kushwaha
R/o Village Karauda Tola Chupwa,
P. O. Moripur, P. S. Khanur, Distt. Deoria,
Uttar Pradesh.
Also at :
HGI, Labour Colony, Jhuggi No. 107,
Sultanpuri, New Delhi.
(Driver)
2. Sh. Manoj S/o Sh. Dori Lal
R/o H. No. 254, BlockC4,
Sultanpuri, New Delhi.
(Regd. Owner)
3. Sh. Om Prakash S/o Sh. Chandrma
R/o BFC107, HGI Labour Colony,
Sultanpuri, New Delhi.
Suit No.: 1234/2014 Page No. 1 of 18
(Subsequent Purchaser)
4. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited.
414, Veer Savarkar Marg,
Prabha Devi, Mumbai400025.
(Insurer) .......... Respondents.
Date of Institution : 27.11.2014 (DAR). Arguments heard on : 12.01.2016. Judgment pronounced on : 19.02.2016. AWARD
1. Detailed Accident Report (DAR) filed in FIR No. 726/2014, under Section 279/304A IPC, Police Station Ranhola was initially registered as claim petition for compensation in respect of deceased Vivek Kumar Srivastava, who suffered fatal injury in vehicular accident on 22.09.2014. Subsequently, a formal claim petition was filed by Smt. Nisha Srivastava (petitioner no. 1) wife of deceased, Sh. Ghanshyam Lal (petitioner no. 2) father of deceased and Smt. Mridul Srivastava (petitioner no. 3) mother of the deceased.
2. Matter was investigated by the police and charge sheet under Section 279/304A IPC has been filed against Durgesh Kushwaha (Respondent no. 1), driver of the offending vehicle.
3. Brief facts of the vehicular accident as averred in the Claim Petition and DAR are that on 22.09.2014 at about 12.45 PM at Main Najafgarh, Nangloi Road near Pakija Meat Shop, Delhi deceased Vivek Kumar Srivastava, who was travelling in a Gramin Sewa bearing Regn. No. DL2W3499 fell off the vehicle while deboarding, due to rash and wrongful conduct of Durgesh Kushwaha (respondent no. 1) driver of the offending vehicle who had suddenly accelerated the speed of the vehicle, as a result of which, deceased lost balance and suffered Suit No.: 1234/2014 Page No. 2 of 18 fatal head injury. He was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi by the PCR Van where he was declared 'brought dead'. Respondent No. 2 Manoj is the registered owner of the offending vehicle and Om Prakash, Respondent no. 3 is the subsequent purchaser. The offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 4/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited. It is claimed that deceased Vivek Kumar Srivastava was running the book shop under the name and style of M/s. Vivek Book Depot. and was earning Rs. 30,000/ per month. Petitioners have claimed compensation for loss of dependency and other damages.
4. In the joint written statement filed by Respondents no. 1, 2 and 3, it is denied that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident. It is further denied that the accident took place due to the negligence of driver/respondent no. 1. It is claimed that the accident was caused by another vehicle. It is averred that respondent no. 1 has a valid driving licence and the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 4/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. on the date of accident.
5. In the written statement filed by Respondent no. 4/Insurance Co., it is admitted that the offending vehicle ie., Gramin Sewa bearing Regn. No. DL2W 3499 was insured vide Policy No. 3004/A/93123704/00/B00, Valid from 21.08.2014 to 20.08.2015, including the date of the accident. However, the liability is contested on the ground that the offending vehicle was driven without valid permit.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, contentions raised and material on record, the following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 24.02.2015 :
Suit No.: 1234/2014 Page No. 3 of 18
1. Whether the deceased Sh. Vivek Kumar Srivastava suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 22.09.2014 at about 12.45 pm involving Gramin Sewa bearing No. DL2W3499, driven by the respondent No. 1, owned by the Respondents No. 2 and 3 and insured with the respondent No. 4/Insurance Company? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If yes, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
7. Petitioners have examined Smt. Neha Srivastava, wife of the deceased as PW1 and Ms. Alka, an eye witness as PW2. No witness has been examined by any of the respondents.
8. I have heard Sh. Basant Gupta, Counsel for the petitioners, Sh. Ajay Solanki, Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3 and Sh. S. K. Sharma, Counsel for respondent no. 4/Insurance Company. I have carefully perused the record.
9. My findings on the issues are as under:
Issue No. 1:
Whether the deceased Sh. Vivek Kumar Srivastava suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 22.09.2014 at about 12.45 pm involving Gramin Sewa bearing No. DL2W3499, driven by the respondent No. 1, owned by the Respondents No. 2 and 3 and insured with the respondent No. 4/Insurance Company? OPP
10. In a claim petition filed by LRs of the deceased for compensation under Section 166 of the M. V. Act, onus is on the petitioners to prove that the deceased suffered fatal injuries in a vehicular accident caused by the wrongful act or negligence of owner of the vehicle or any other person, which will include the Suit No.: 1234/2014 Page No. 4 of 18 driver of the offending vehicle.
11. It is a settled legal position that while deciding the petition under Section 166 of the M. V. Act, the Claims Tribunal has to decide negligence on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities. Reference in this regard is made to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kaushnumma Begum and Others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, wherein it was held that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of the driver of motor vehicle involved in the accident is of secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable under Section 166 & 140 of the M. V. Act.
12. In this context observation of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287 is also relevant.
It was held that if the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record showing the completion of investigation by the police or filing of charge sheet for the offences under Section 279/304A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR in addition to copy of recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach at the conclusion in the enquiry proceedings that the driver was negligent. Hon'ble High Court also observed that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and therefore strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this proceedings.
13. This aspect was also considered recently by the High Court of Delhi in a matter titled United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Rinki @ Rinku & Others, MAC App. No. 200/2012 decided on 23.07.2012. The Court held as Suit No.: 1234/2014 Page No. 5 of 18 under:
"The Claims Tribunal was conscious of the fact that negligence is a sine qua non to a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act). It is also true that the proceedings for grant of compensation under the Act are neither governed by the criminal procedures nor are a civil suit. A reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court Bimla Devi and Ors. vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors, (2009) 13 SC 530 where it was held as under:
"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of any accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimant.
The claimants were merely to estab lish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
The standard of proof beyond rea sonable doubt could not have been applied."
14. PW2 Ms. Alka is an eye witness who has filed affidavit Ex. PW2/A stating therein that on 22.09.2014 when she reached at Main Najafgarh, Nangloi Road near Pakija Meat shop after purchasing grocery, she saw the offending vehicle coming at a very high speed, which slowed down and she saw her Jija, deceased Suit No.: 1234/2014 Page No. 6 of 18 Vivek Kumar Srivastava standing at the open door of Gramin Sewa bearing Regn. No. DL2W3499. The witness has deposed that the vehicle slowed down and while the deceased was in the process of deboarding the vehicle, the driver of Gramin Sewa suddenly accelerated the speed, as a result, deceased lost his balance and fell on the road, resulting in head injury and consequential death. In the cross examination by Respondents no. 1 to 3, she stated that it was the main road where the accident took place. She further stated that since the offending vehicle had the open door, she could see the deceased standing on the door. She claimed ignorant of the fact as to who called the PCR and stated that after the accident she left the spot and went home. She further stated that PCR came in her presence after about 5 minutes of the accident. She did not go to the hospital and stated that her sister and mother also reached the spot as they were informed by somebody. She denied the suggestion that she is not present at the spot and she was not an eye witness.
15. As per the DAR, FIR was registered on the statement of PW2 Ms. Alka who was met at the spot by the police which arrived on receiving information of the accident. This fact has gone unrebutted and none of the respondents have challenged the contents of the FIR and the circumstances in which it was recorded on the statement of eye witness Ms. Alka. Therefore, presence of Ms. Alka at the spot was by chance and her being an eye witness cannot be disbelieved.
16. As per the eye witness account, the deceased was standing at the open door of Gramin Sewa and he was in the process of deboarding the vehicle when it was slowed down by the driver of the vehicle, who without waiting for the deceased to safely get down, suddenly accelerated the speed. As a result of which, the deceased lost his balance and fell on the road. This version of eye Suit No.: 1234/2014 Page No. 7 of 18 witness has remained unassailed in the cross examination.
17. The fact that the deceased was standing at the open door of the vehicle and was in the process of deboarding the vehicle, the driver of the offending vehicle was under an obligation and responsibility to take care that the passenger had successfully deboarded the vehicle. The fact that driver had slowed down the vehicle and did not stop when the passenger was deboarding and rather accelerated the speed without waiting for the decased to deboard, shows gross rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle.
18. Criminal proceedings filed on record have not been refuted by any of the respondents which include FIR, postmortem report, site plan, seizure memo of the vehicle and chargesheet, which are admissible in evidence without formal proof and are presumed to be correct till proved to be contrary as per Rule 7 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008.
19. Durgesh Kushwaha, driver (Respondent no. 1) has been chargesheeted under Section 279/304A IPC to face criminal trial for rash and negligent driving and for causing death.
20. As per the postmortem report, deceased Vivek Kumar Srivastava died due to 'shock associated with craniocerebral damage'. Postmortem report clearly establish that deceased Vivek Kumar Srivastava died of the injuries suffered by him in a vehicular accident.
21. On the basis of material on record, above observations and discussion, I hold that the accident involving Gramin Sewa bearing Regn. No. DL2W3499, took place due to the negligence of its driver Durgesh Kushwaha (Respondent no.
1) and further that deceased Vivek Kumar Srivastava died of fatal injuries suffered in this accident.
Suit No.: 1234/2014 Page No. 8 of 18
Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
22. Finding on Issue No. 2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
Since, Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners, they are entitled for compensation.
23. In Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down general principals for computation of compensation in death cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:
18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:
(a) age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependents.
This issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:
4. additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
5. the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and
6. the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.
If these determinations are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the Insurance Companies to settle accident claims without delay.
19. To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the Suit No.: 1234/2014 Page No. 9 of 18 following wellsettled steps:
Step1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multiplier with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step3 (Actual Calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the 'loss of dependency' to the family.
Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/ to Rs. 10,000/ may be added as loss of estates. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of Rs. 5,000/ to Rs. 10,000/ should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and the cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also be added.
Age of the deceased
24. PW1 Smt. Nisha Srivastava, wife of deceased has placed on record High Suit No.: 1234/2014 Page No. 10 of 18 School certificate of deceased as Mark D which shows the date of birth of deceased as 03.08.1989. Copy of this document is also the part of the DAR filed by the IO and has not been disputed. Accident took place on 22.09.2014.
Accordingly, the deceased Vivek Kumar Srivastava was 25 years old at the time of the accident.
Income of the deceased
25. PW1 Smt. Nisha Srivastava, wife of the deceased has deposed in the affidavit Ex. PW1/A that deceased was graduate and was running a book shop under the name and style of M/s. Vivek Book Depot., earning Rs. 30,000/ per month. No evidence is brought on record in support of the claim of monthly income. Though, the IO has filed the affidavit of Ghanshyam Lal (petitioner no. 2) father of deceased stating that the deceased was running a shop under the name and style of M/s. Vivek Book Depot. at Ghaziabad, UP and was earning Rs. 25,000/ per month , the same cannot be the proof of income, in the absence of independent evidence. The documents of education of the deceased filed along with DAR as well as by petitioners show that he was graduate from V. B. S. Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. In these facts and circumstances of this case, monthly income of deceased can be assessed on the basis of Minimum Wages Rate of a graduate on the date of the accident.
26. It is submitted by the petitioners that wages applicable in Delhi be taken into consideration because death was caused in Delhi. Respondents have contended that minimum wage rate of U.P. be considered because deceased was working in U. P. and not in Delhi.
27. As per the residence and family certificate filed by petitioners as Ex. PW1/1, Suit No.: 1234/2014 Page No. 11 of 18 deceased was resident of Saidpur, Ward No. 14, Mohalla Aatma Nagar, PO & Tehsil Saidpur, Distt. Gajipur, U.P. The education documents of deceased are also of U. P. According to affidavit of Ghanshyam Lal, father of deceased filed by IO in DAR, the deceased was running a book shop in Uttar Pradesh. All these documents leave no doubt that the deceased was a resident of Uttar Pradesh. His presence in Delhi is explained in FIR which was registered on the statement of PW2 Ms. Alka, sister in law of deceased who stated that the deceased had come to Delhi to see his wife who was undergoing medical treatment.
28. In the above circumstances, monthly income of the deceased is assessed on the basis of minimum wages of a skilled person applicable in Uttar Pradesh. on the date of accident. Accordingly, monthly income of deceased at the time of accident is assessed as Rs. 7,839/ (Rupees Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Nine Only) and his annual income would be Rs.94,068/ {(Rs. 7,839/ X 12 months)}.
Number of dependents:
29. Petitioners are the wife and parents of deceased and they have claimed to be dependent on the deceased. Identity of petitioners have been verified by the IO who has filed affidavit of father of deceased along with DAR stating that deceased is survived by his wife and parents. Dependency of petitioners on the deceased as LRs has not been disputed. Hence, it is held that deceased is survived by his wife and parents who were dependent upon him.
Addition in the income towards future prospects:
30. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that addition be made in the income of the deceased considering the future prospects. This claim has been Suit No.: 1234/2014 Page No. 12 of 18 contested by the counsel for the Insurance Company on the ground that since no evidence has been led to show the possibility of addition in the income of the deceased in future, no addition can be given while calculating the compensation.
31. As far as the addition towards the future prospects is concerned, the issue was considered recently by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC. Appeal No. 622/2014 (The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lekharaj @ Lekh Raj & Ors.) decided on 27.01.2016. Relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced for reference:
"4. In the case reported as Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corpora tion & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, Supreme Court interalia, ruled that the element of future prospects of increase in income will not be granted in cases where the deceased was "self em ployed" or was working on a "fixed salary". Though this view was affirmed by a bench of three Hon'ble Judges in Resham Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65, on ac count of divergence of views, as arising from the ruling in Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Ra jbir & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54, the issue was later referred to a larger bench, in teralia, by order dated 02.07.2014 in Na tional Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pushpa & Ors., (2015) 9 SCC 166.
5. Against the above backdrop, by judg ment dated 22.01.2016 passed in MAC Appeal No. 956/2012 Sunil Kumar Vs. Pyar Mohd & Ors., this court has found it proper to follow the view taken earlier by a learned single judge in MAC Ap Suit No.: 1234/2014 Page No. 13 of 18 peal No. 189/2014 (HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Lalta Devi & Ors.) decided on 12.01.2015, present ly taking the decision in Reshma Ku mari (Supra) as the binding precedent, till such time the law on the subject of future prospects for those who are "self employed" or engaged in gainful em ployment at a "fixed salary" is clarified by a larger bench of the Supreme Court.
This applies to the matter at hand be cause the claimant here pleaded about gainful employment at a fixed salary and has not led any evidence showing the salary was subject to any periodic in crease."
32. In view of the settled legal position as discussed above, no addition can be made in the monthly income of the deceased Vivek Kumar Srivastava towards future prospects, because there is no proof of employment. Deduction towards personal living expenses of the deceased:
33. Deceased Vivek Kumar Srivastava was married at the time of the accident. His wife and parents are dependent LRs. On the basis of the criteria laid down in Sarla Verma case (supra), deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased would be 1/3rd of the income. Therefore, annual contribution to the family by the deceased would be Rs. 62,712/(Rs. Sixty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Twelve Only) {Rs. 94,068/ (annual income) X 2/3rd }, which is ascertained as multiplicand.
Selection of multiplier:
34. Age of the deceased was 25 years on the date of the accident. He was a Suit No.: 1234/2014 Page No. 14 of 18 married person. Keeping in view the criteria laid down in Sarla Verma case (supra), multiplier applicable according to age of the deceased would be 18. Loss of financial dependency:
35. On the basis of facts and circumstances of this case and the material on record, total loss of financial dependency of the LRs of the deceased would be Rs. 11,28,816/ (Rupees Eleven Lacs Twenty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Sixteen Only) {Rs. 62,712/ (multiplicand) X 18 (multiplier)} . Compensation under nonpecuniary heads:
36. In view of the judgment in Rajesh & Others v. Rajbir Singh & Others (2013) 9 SCC 54, petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lac Only) towards loss of love and affection, Rs. 25,000/ (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards loss of estate. Smt. Nisha Srivastava (petitioner No. 1) is also entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lac Only) towards loss of consortium.
Computation of compensation:
37. The total compensation is assessed as under:
Sl. No. Heads Amount
1. Loss of Financial Dependency 11,28,816.00
2. Loss of Love & Affection 1,00,000.00
3. Funeral Expenses 25,000.00
4. Loss of Estate 10,000.00
5. Loss of Consortium 1,00,000.00
Total 13,63,816.00
Suit No.: 1234/2014 Page No. 15 of 18
Accordingly, total compensation is assessed as Rs. 13,63,816/ (Rupees Thirteen Lacs Sixty Three Thousand Eight Hundred Sixteen Only). Liability:
38. Respondent No. 1 Durgesh Kushwaha is liable to pay compensation, being the driver of the offending vehicle ie., Gramin Sewa bearing Regn. No. DL2W3499, as the accident took place due to his rash and negligent conduct. Respondent No. 2 Manoj Kumar is vicariously liable for the conduct of driver, being owner of the offending vehicle. Liability cannot be fastened on Om Prakash, Respondent no. 3 because the ownership has not been transferred to him through proper agreement envisaged in the definition of owner under Section 2(30) of M. V. Act.
39. It is not disputed by the respondents that the offending vehicle i.e.,Gramin Sewa bearing Registration No. DL2W3499 was duly insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited (Respondent No. 3) vide Policy No. 3004/A/93123704/00/B00, Valid from 21.08.2014 to 20.08.2015, which covers the date of the accident. Insurance Co. has taken the plea in the written statement that the permit of the offending vehicle has not been made available. However, as per DAR, permit has been verified by the IO which was valid on the date of accident and thus there is no statutory defence available to the Insurance Co. Therefore, respondents no. 1, 2 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. However, since the offending vehicle was duly insured to cover the third party risk, respondent No. 4/Insurance Company is under the statutory liability to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Relief:
Suit No.: 1234/2014 Page No. 16 of 18
40. In view of above findings on Issues No. 1 & 2, I award an amount of Rs. 13,63,816/ (Rupees Thirteen Lacs Sixty Three Thousand Eight Hundred Sixteen Only) as compensation to the petitioners. Petitioners are also entitled to get interest @ 9% pa from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e 27.11.2014 till realisation.
Apportionment:
41. Share of petitioners in the award amount shall be as under: Sr. Name Relationship with Share in the No. the deceased award amount
1. Smt. Nisha Srivastva Wife 50%
2. Sh. Ghanshyam Lal Father 25%
3. Smt. Mridul Srivastava Mother 25% Mode of payment and disbursement:
42. Respondent No. 4/Insurance Company shall deposit the award amount within 30 days from the date of Award in the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch, Delhi in the name of the petitioners under intimation to the petitioners and the Tribunal. In default of payment within the prescribed period, respondent/Insurance Company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. for the period of delay till its realisation.
43. While making the deposit, Insurance Company shall mention the particulars of this case, name of the Tribunal and the date of decision on the back side of the cheque. Insurance Company shall also file copy of the award attested by its responsible officer in the bank at the time of deposit. Insurance Company is further directed to place on record proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice to the petitioners in respect of deposit of the award amount and Suit No.: 1234/2014 Page No. 17 of 18 complete details in respect of calculation of interest etc. in the Tribunal within 30 days with effect from today.
44. In order to avoid the compensation money being frittered away, 50% of the share of the petitioners shall be kept in FDRs in their names for a period of five (07) years. No loan or advance shall be allowed against these deposits. Petitioners can withdraw the quarterly interest from these deposits.
45. Petitioners shall open account in State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch, Delhi. Manager of the Bank shall comply and release the award amount to the petitioners in terms of the Award.
46. Copy of the Award be given to the parties free of cost.
47. Nazir is directed to prepare a separate file for compliance report and put up the same on 29.03.2016.
48. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (Santosh Snehi Mann) on 19.02.2016 Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Suit No.: 1234/2014 Page No. 18 of 18