Delhi District Court
Smt. Phoolpati vs Sh. Narender Kumar on 7 August, 2018
MACP No. 488716 (Old No. 56/15) FIR No. 970/14.; PS Narela DOD: 07.08.2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIDYA PRAKASH, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 4887/16 (Old MAC Petition No.56/15)
1. Smt. Phoolpati
W/o Sh Chander Bhan
(Mother of deceased)
2. Sh. Chander Bhan
S/o Sh. Chet Ram
(Father of deceased)
Both R/o H.No.138, Village Ismaila9,
Biswa, Teh. Rohtak, Distt. Rohtak
................Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Narender Kumar
S/o Sh. Maman
R/o Village Sirsa Ghoghra,
PO Bamla, Distt. Bhiwani, Haryana
(Driver)
2. Sh. Bajrang Lal
S/o Sh. Pali Ram Goyal
R/o H.No. B38/39, Sector5,
Rohini, Delhi.
(Regd owner)
3. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.
FAI Building, 10, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
Qutub Institutional Area.
(Insurer) ...............Respondents
Date of Institution : 23.01.2015
Date of Arguments : 23.07.2018
Date of Decision : 07.08.2018
APPEARANCES: Sh. R.K Jain Adv for petitioners.
Respondent no. 1 in person.
None for respondent no. 2.
Sh. Avdesh Kumar Adv for respondent no. 3.
Smt. Phoopati & Anr. Vs. Narender Kumar & Ors. Page 1 of 16
MACP No. 488716 (Old No. 56/15) FIR No. 970/14.; PS Narela DOD: 07.08.2018
Petition under Section 166 & 140 of M.V. Act, 1988
for grant of compensation
AWARD
1. Sh. Sat Pal had suffered fatal injuries in Motor Vehicular Accident which occurred on 31.07.2014 at 11.20 am near Kasturi Lal International School, Sector A10, Pocket7, 80 Foota Road, Narela, Delhi involving Truck bearing registration no. HR39A/9925 (alleged offending vehicle) allegedly being driven in rash and negligent manner and without following traffic rules by respondent no. 1. The petitioners are seeking compensation for the fatal injuries sustained by Sat Pal, in the wake of Detailed Accident Report (DAR) filed by police corresponding to the investigation carried out in FIR no. 970/14 U/s 279/304A IPC registered at PS Narela with regard to the said accident. DAR was treated as claim petition U/s 166(4) of M.V Act.
2. It is averred in the DAR petition that on 31.07.2014 at 11.20 am, Sat Pal (since expired) alongwith Sonu were going on foot towards their workplace/factory at D1667, DSIIDC, Narela, Delhi from their residence situated at Flat No. 173, Pocket6, Sector A10, Narela via near Kasturi Lal International School, Sector A10, Pocket7, 80 Foota Road, Narela Delhi. When they were standing on the road side, Truck bearing registration no. HR39A9925, which was being driven by R1 in rash and negligent manner, came from wrong side from Munim Ji Ka Bagh, TPoint side and hit against Sat Pal with great force. As a result thereof, he fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries all over his body. It is further mentioned that after causing the accident, the respondent no.1 i.e. driver of the said vehicle, fled away from the spot after leaving the said vehicle at the spot. Sat Pal was removed to SRHC Hospital Narela, where he was declared brought dead by the doctors of the said hospital. The aforesaid offending truck was found to be owned by respondent no. 2 and it was found to be insured with Smt. Phoopati & Anr. Vs. Narender Kumar & Ors. Page 2 of 16 MACP No. 488716 (Old No. 56/15) FIR No. 970/14.; PS Narela DOD: 07.08.2018 respondent no. 3 during the period in question.
3. The respondents no. 1 & 2 i.e. driver & regd owner have filed their joint WS, wherein they have claimed that vehicle no. HR39A9925 has been falsely implicated in the criminal case. It is claimed that deceased Satpal was handicapped and could not have moved without the help of sticks (Baisakhi). It is further claimed that the aforesaid vehicle was taking turn from main 80 foota road towards service road to Pocket7, Narela when deceased was crossing the road and deceased lost his control as his baisakhi was slipped, due to which he fell down and struck with rear back portion of the aforesaid truck from conductor side. There was no negligence on the part of driver of said truck and the accident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of deceased himself. Alternatively, they have claimed that respondent no. 1 was having valid DL no. HR6120090189689 dt. 11.12.09 having validity upto 14.09.14 and the said vehicle was duly insured with respondent no. 3 vide policy no. I29035KKP400 having validity from 23.08.13 to 22.08.14 and the said vehicle was having all the valid documents including Fitness, Permit etc and thus, they are not liable to pay any compensation amount in this case.
4. The insurance company/R3 has filed its legal offer to pay a sum of Rs. 5,79,564/, after deducting 50% of the compensation amount on account of contributory negligence on the part of deceased, as compensation towards full and final settlement of the claim for the fatal injuries raised by Sat Pal. It has not denied that Truck bearing registration no. HR39A9925 was insured with it in the name of respondent no. 2 for the period in question. However, the legal offer was not acceptable to the petitioners as mentioned in proceedings dt. 10.08.2015.
5. From pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by Ld Predecessor vide order dt. 10.08.2015.
Smt. Phoopati & Anr. Vs. Narender Kumar & Ors. Page 3 of 16MACP No. 488716 (Old No. 56/15) FIR No. 970/14.; PS Narela DOD: 07.08.2018
1) Whether the deceased Satpal suffered fatal injuries in road traffic accident on 31.07.2014 at about 11.20 am near Kasturi Lal International School, Sector A10, Pocket 7, 80 Foota Road, Narela, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Narela due to rashness and negligence on the part of the Narender Kumar who was driving truck bearing registration no. HR39A9925 owned by Bajrang Lal and insured with IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co.?OPP.
2) Whether the petitioners/Lrs of deceased are entitled to any compensation if so to what amount and from whom?OPP
3) Relief.
6. In support of their claim, the petitioners have examined two witnesses i.e. PW1 Smt. Phoolpati (mother of deceased) and PW2 Sh. Sonu (alleged eye witness). They closed their evidence through their counsel on 07.06.16. On the other hand, the respondents no. 1 & 2 have opted not to lead any evidence towards RE and their RE was closed on 21.03.17. Respondent no. 3/insurance co has examined two witnesses i.e. R3W1 SI Vijay and R3W1 (sic.) Dr. Rishi Prakash Singh towards its evidence and closed its evidence on 09.01.2018.
7. I have already heard the arguments addressed by ld counsels for the parties. I have also gone through the record. Both the sides were directed to submit their respective submissions in Form IV A vide order dated 23.07.2018. However, none of the parties submitted the same on record till date. My findings on the issues are as under: Issue No. 1
8. For the purpose of this issue, the testimony of PW2 Sh. Sonu is relevant. He deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A) that on 31.07.2014 at about 11.20 am, he alongwith Satpal (since expired) was Smt. Phoopati & Anr. Vs. Narender Kumar & Ors. Page 4 of 16 MACP No. 488716 (Old No. 56/15) FIR No. 970/14.; PS Narela DOD: 07.08.2018 going on foot and were proceeding towards factory at Narela, Delhi from their residence situated at Flat No. 173, Pocket6, Sector A10, Narela Via Kasturi Lal International School, Sector A10, Pocket7, 80 Foota Road, Narela, Delhi towards their factory situated at Narela, Delhi. They were standing on road side of service lane and were waiting to cross the road, in the meantime, Truck bearing no. HR39A9925 which was being driven by respondent no. 1 at very high speed; in rash and negligent manner; without taking necessary precautions; while violating the traffic rules and without blowing any horn, came in the Service Lane from Munim Ji Ka Bagh, T Point side and hit against Satpal with great force, due to which he fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries all over his body. He further deposed that after causing the accident, the respondent no.1 i.e. driver of the said vehicle, fled away from the spot after leaving the vehicle at the spot. He also deposed that Satpal was removed to SRHC Hospital, Narela, where his MLC was prepared and thereafter, he was taken to Max Hospital, where he died during the course of treatment. He further deposed that PM was conducted at mortuary of BJRM on 31.07.14. He categorically deposed that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing registration no. HR39A9925 by its driver and FIR no. 970/14 U/s 279/304A IPC was registered at PS Narela on his statement. During his cross examination, he deposed that deceased was his relative. He admitted that deceased was having polio in his right lower limb since birth and was unable to walk without crutches and used to walk with the help of two crutches. He was working in Factory No. B2672, DSIDC, Narela Industrial Area. He denied the suggestion that deceased sustained injuries from left rear wheel of the truck and volunteered that front portion of the truck had hit the deceased. He admitted that at the time of accident, they have to cross the road and were standing on foot path of service lane before the accident. He denied the suggestion that accident occurred due to the reason that Smt. Phoopati & Anr. Vs. Narender Kumar & Ors. Page 5 of 16 MACP No. 488716 (Old No. 56/15) FIR No. 970/14.; PS Narela DOD: 07.08.2018 deceased lost control on falling down of his crutches and fell down on the road. He further deposed that there was zebra crossing at the place wherefrom they were to cross the road. He admitted that PCR Van had shifted injured to SRHC Hospital, wherefrom he was referred to another hospital as blood was not available in SRHC Hospital and deceased died in transit. He denied the suggestion that he was not an eye witness of the accident in question.
9. It is quite evident from the aforesaid discussion that the respondents, more particularly the insurance company, have not been able to impeach the testimony of PW2 Sh Sonu despite the fact that he was cross examined at length. The presence of said witness at the place of accident, stands established from the fact that suggestion has been put to him on behalf of insurance co that accident occurred due to negligence of deceased himself, which was denied by the witness. Even otherwise, FIR No. 970/14 supra ( which is part of DAR) is shown to have registered on the statement of the aforesaid witness. The contents of said FIR would reveal that witness has disclosed therein the same sequence of facts leading to the accident in question, as deposed by him during the course of inquiry. Moreover, no evidence whatsoever has been led by either of the respondents to controvert the testimony of this witness during the course of inquiry. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of this witness made on oath.
10. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no.1/driver was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident had taken place. However, he preferred not to enter into witness box during the course of inquiry. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing registration no. HR39A9925 by him.
11. Moreover, it is an undisputed fact that FIR no.970/14 (supra) Smt. Phoopati & Anr. Vs. Narender Kumar & Ors. Page 6 of 16 MACP No. 488716 (Old No. 56/15) FIR No. 970/14.; PS Narela DOD: 07.08.2018 was registered at PS Narela with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR as also the copy of charge sheet arising out of said FIR(which are part of DAR ), would show that FIR was registered on 31.07.14 i.e. on the date of accident itself. Thus, FIR is shown to have been registered promptly and without any delay. Hence, there is no possibility of false implication of respondent no. 1 and/or false involvement of Truck bearing registration no. HR39A9925 at the instance of petitioners herein. Not only this, the respondent no. 1 namely Narender Kumar S/o Sh. Maman (accused in State case) has been charge sheeted for offences punishable U/s 279/304A IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing registration no. HR39A 9925 by him. Same would also point out towards rash and negligent driving of aforesaid vehicle by respondent no. 1.
12. Not only this, copy of MLC of Satpal (which is part of DAR) prepared at SRHC Hospital Narela would show that he had been removed to said hospital on 31.07.14 at 12.10 pm with alleged history of RTA. Further, copy of PM Report prepared at Mortuary of BJRM (which is part of DAR), would show that cause of death of deceased Satpal is opined due to hemorrhagic shock due to extensive soft tissue and bony injuries produced by heavy blunt force impact. All injuries were ante mortem and caused by blunt force and possible in a road traffic accident. The external injuries as mentioned in the relevant column of Autopsy Report, correspond with the injuries which occur in the Motor Vehicular Accident. Said documents have not been disputed from the side of respondents and corroborate the ocular testimony of PW2 as discussed above.
13. Apart from this, in response to notice U/s 133 M.V Act ( which is part of DAR) served upon respondent no. 2/ regd owner of Truck bearing registration no. HR39A9925, written reply was furnished by him that said Smt. Phoopati & Anr. Vs. Narender Kumar & Ors. Page 7 of 16 MACP No. 488716 (Old No. 56/15) FIR No. 970/14.; PS Narela DOD: 07.08.2018 vehicle was being driven by his driver Narender Kumar S/o Sh Maman on 31.07.14. Same would also corroborate the testimony of PW2 to the extent that the aforesaid vehicle was being driven by R1 at the time of accident.
14. Furthermore, the aforesaid vehicle was shown to have been seized by police from the place of accident itself on 31.07.14 i.e. on the date of accident itself, as per copy of its seizure memo (which is part of DAR). Same would show that the accident was caused by Truck bearing registration no. HR39A9925 only.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that Satpal had sustained fatal injuries in road accident which took place on 31.07.14 at 11.20 am near Kasturi Lal International School, Sector A10, Pocket7, 80 Foota Road, Narela Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Narela due to rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing registration no. HR39A9925 by respondent no. 1. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 216. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
17. As already stated above, the claimants are the parents of deceased. PW1 Smt. Phoolpati (mother of deceased) has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that deceased was aged 36 years ; he was working as Supervisor with M/s. Vivek Plastic and was earning Rs.
Smt. Phoopati & Anr. Vs. Narender Kumar & Ors. Page 8 of 16MACP No. 488716 (Old No. 56/15) FIR No. 970/14.; PS Narela DOD: 07.08.2018 12,000/ per month at the time of accident. She further deposed that deceased was enjoying a good health and he did not have any vice or addiction. She also deposed that both the petitioners were fully dependent upon the income of deceased. She has relied upon the following documents: Sr. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copies of acknowledgment Ex PW1/1 (colly) slip of her Aadhar Card and Ration Card
2. Copy of Aadhar Card of Ex. PW1/2 petitioner no. 2
3. Copy of School Leaving Ex PW1/3 Certificate of deceased
4. Original Salary Certificate of Ex. PW1/4 deceased
18. During her cross examination, she deposed that her deceased had studied upto 9th class, whereafter he left the school. She further deposed that deceased was doing service with Plastic Factory at Narela but could not disclose the exact post on which deceased was working. Deceased was unmarried. She admitted that deceased was handicapped and was having polio on his right lower limb since birth but volunteered that deceased was working very well.
19. During the course of arguments, counsel for petitioners fairly conceded that for want of any cogent and definite evidence being led by petitioners regarding monthly income of deceased, his income should be considered as per Minimum Wages Act in order to calculate the loss of dependency. He however argued that future prospects should also be awarded to the petitioners as per law.
Smt. Phoopati & Anr. Vs. Narender Kumar & Ors. Page 9 of 16MACP No. 488716 (Old No. 56/15) FIR No. 970/14.; PS Narela DOD: 07.08.2018
20. As already noted above, PW1 Smt Phoolpati has failed to produce any documentary proof regarding monthly income of deceased at the time of the accident. Mere bald statement made by PW1 in this regard, cannot be accepted under the law. At the same time, it is relevant to note that the petitioners have filed copy of School Leaving Certificate of 9th class ( Ex. PW1/3) of deceased purportedly issued by Adarsh High School, Kheri Sampla (Rohtak). For want of any definite evidence regarding monthly income of deceased being led by the petitioners, his monthly income has to be assessed as that of Non Matriculate as per Minimum Wages Act applicable in Delhi during the relevant period. The Minimum Wages of non matriculate under Minimum Wages Act applicable in Delhi as on 31.07.14, were Rs. 9438/ per month.
21. PW1, who is mother of deceased, has categorically testified that age of deceased was 36 years at the time of accident. The copy of School Leaving Certificate of deceased Satpal is filed, which is exhibited as Ex. PW1/3. According to said document, the date of birth of deceased is mentioned therein as 25.11.1977. The date of accident is 31.07.14. Accordingly, the age of deceased comes out to about 37 years at the time of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 15 would be applicable in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17.
22. Considering the fact that there was one dependent (there being no cogent evidence on record to show that father of deceased was financially dependent upon him) on deceased at the time of accident, there has to be deduction of ½ as held in the case of Pranay Sethi mentioned supra. There has to be addition of 40% towards element of future prospects in the monthly income of deceased(he being aged less than 40 years at the time of accident), in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Smt. Phoopati & Anr. Vs. Narender Kumar & Ors. Page 10 of 16 MACP No. 488716 (Old No. 56/15) FIR No. 970/14.; PS Narela DOD: 07.08.2018 Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", mentioned supra as well as in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011 titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", decided on 02.11.17. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 11,89,188/ (Rs. 9438 X ½ X 140/100 X 12 X 15). Hence, a sum of Rs. 11,89,188/ is awarded under this head in favour of the petitioners.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
23. After the celebrated judgment of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", mentioned supra, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal titled as "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors", mentioned supra, has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the constitution bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other nonpecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
24. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors." mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 15,000/ each is awarded in favour of petitioners on account of loss of estate and funeral expenses.
The total compensation is assessed as under:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 11,89,188/
2. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 30,000/ Expenses Total Rs. 12,19,188/ Rounded Off to Rs. 12,20,000/ Smt. Phoopati & Anr. Vs. Narender Kumar & Ors. Page 11 of 16 MACP No. 488716 (Old No. 56/15) FIR No. 970/14.; PS Narela DOD: 07.08.2018
25. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Counsel for insurance co vehemently argued that the claim petition is liable to be dismissed for the reason that deceased was suffering from polio in his right lower limb and he was not of sound health and false affidavit in evidence has been filed by PW1 during the course of inquiry. In order to buttress the aforesaid submission, he also placed reliance upon the relevant portion of cross examination of PW1 as well as upon testimonies of R3W1 SI Vijay i.e. IO of criminal case and R3W1 (sic.) namely Dr. Rishi Parkash Singh, Autopsy Surgeon of BJRM Hospital. On the other hand, counsel for petitioners vehemently argued that there is no concealment of fact on the part of petitioners and it is an undisputed fact that deceased was suffering from polio in his right lower limb since birth but he was of sound health and was working for gain in private factory situated at Narela. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the compensation for the fatal injuries sustained by their deceased son namely Satpal.
26. Before dealing with the aforesaid rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be necessary to discuss the testimonies of aforesaid two witnesses examined on behalf of insurance company. R3W1, who is the IO of criminal case based on FIR no. 970/14 of PS Narela, deposed that he had prepared inquest report of deceased Satpal, copy of which is exhibited as Ex. R3W1/1. He admitted that deceased was handicapped. He further deposed that in the affidavit furnished by mother of deceased, it was nowhere disclosed that deceased was handicapped and Salary Certificate of deceased was handed over by mother of deceased alongwith her affidavit. During his cross examination, said witness deposed that Salary Certificate was got verified by him from employer of deceased and his report Ex. R3W1/PX has been filed in this regard. He also admitted that he had filed the charge sheet against driver Sh Narender Kumar (R1 Smt. Phoopati & Anr. Vs. Narender Kumar & Ors. Page 12 of 16 MACP No. 488716 (Old No. 56/15) FIR No. 970/14.; PS Narela DOD: 07.08.2018 herein), wherein it is specifically mentioned that Satpal was standing and was waiting for crossing the road at the time of accident.
27. At this juncture, it may be noted that in the inquest report ( Ex. R3W1/1), it is clearly mentioned in Column No. 19 that deceased was handicapped by one leg.
28. R3W1 (sic.) i.e. Autopsy Surgeon of BJRM Hospital, has proved Autopsy Report dt. 31.07.14 in respect of deceased as Ex. R3W1/1 and deposed that deceased was not found to be handicapped as same is not mentioned in PM Report. Then he clarified that in case deceased was patient of polio then it was difficult to find out if he was having handicapness with regard to lower limbs as deceased had sustained crush injuries on his both the lower limbs. He admitted that physique of deceased was found well built as mentioned at point X in his report Ex. R3W1/1.
29. It is quite evident from the aforesaid discussion that deceased was having well built physique and the factum of deceased being suffering fromf polio, could not be detected while conducting autopsy on his body by Autopsy Surgeon as his both the lower limbs had been crushed due to the accident in question. In this backdrop, I do not find any substance whatsoever in the submission raised on behalf of insurance company that there is any concealment of material fact on the part of petitioners/claimants or that any false affidavit in evidence has been filed by PW1. Rather, PW1 has fairly admitted during her cross examination that deceased was suffering from polio in his right lower limb since birth. What she has mentioned in para5 of her affidavit Ex. PW1/A is that deceased enjoyed a good health and did not have any vice or addiction. Merely because a person is having polio in any portion of his body, does not ipsofacto lead to the inference that said person is incapable of leading a normal life or that he cannot engage himself in any avocation or that he cannot earn his livelihood. Hence, the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of insurance co are hereby rejected.
Smt. Phoopati & Anr. Vs. Narender Kumar & Ors. Page 13 of 16MACP No. 488716 (Old No. 56/15) FIR No. 970/14.; PS Narela DOD: 07.08.2018 Keeping in view the existence of valid insurance policy, respondent no. 3/insurance company becomes liable to pay the compensation amount, as it is liable to indemnify the insured. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
30. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 & 2, I award a sum of Rs. 12,20,000/ (including interim award amount if any) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f date of filing the petition i.e. 23.01.2015 till the date of its realization, in favour of Lrs of deceased/petitioners and against the respondents jointly and severally (Reliance placed on judgment "Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Devi & Ors" bearing MAC. APP. 165/2011 decided on 22.02.2016).
APPORTIONMENT
31. Statements of legal heirs of deceased in terms of Clause 27 MCTAP were recorded on 23.07.18. It is hereby ordered that out of the award amount, the petitioner no. 1 namely Smt. Phoolpati shall be entitled to remaining share amount of Rs. 7,20,000/( Rs. Seven Lacs & Twenty Thousdand Only) alongwith proportionate interest and the petitioner no. 2 namely Sh Chander Bhan shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 5,00,000/ ( Rs. Five Lacs Only) alongwith proportionate interest.
32. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 1, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ ( Rs. One Lakh Only) is directed to be immediately released to her through her Saving Bank Account No. 11591956538 with SBI Ismaila, Teh. Rohtak Branch having IFSC Code No. SBIN0002361 and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 1,00,000/ each for one year, two years, three years and so on and so forth.
33. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 2, a sum of Rs. 50,000/ ( Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) is directed to be immediately released to her Smt. Phoopati & Anr. Vs. Narender Kumar & Ors. Page 14 of 16 MACP No. 488716 (Old No. 56/15) FIR No. 970/14.; PS Narela DOD: 07.08.2018 through her Saving Bank Account No. 37651981748 with SBI Ismaila, Teh. Rohtak Branch having IFSC Code No. SBIN0002361 and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 1,00,000 each for one year, two years, three years and so on and so forth.
34. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:
(i) The interest on the fixed deposits be paid monthly to the claimants.
(ii) Original fixed deposit receipts be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, a passbook of the FDRs alongwith photocopies of the FDRs be given to the claimants/petitioners. At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be automatically credited in the savings bank accounts of the Claimants/petitioners.
(iii) No cheque book/Debit Card be issued to the claimants/petitioners without permission of the Court.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(v) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank accounts or fixed deposit account of the victims.
(vi) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank before the Tribunal.
35. During the course of hearing of final arguments, both the claimants submitted that they are entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS as their annual income do not exceed the taxable limit prescribed under the law. They have also furnished Form Nos. 15H on record.
36. Respondent no. 3, being insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with SBI, Rohini Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the respective share amounts directed to be released immediately to both the petitioners in their aforesaid saving bank accounts mentioned supra, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He be further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit Smt. Phoopati & Anr. Vs. Narender Kumar & Ors. Page 15 of 16 MACP No. 488716 (Old No. 56/15) FIR No. 970/14.; PS Narela DOD: 07.08.2018 in its own name till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioners and also to counsel for the insurance company alongwith original Form Nos.15H of claimants (after retaining photocopies thereof on record) for compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbooks and copy of residence proof of both the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance. Form IVA & Form V in terms of MCTAP is annexed herewith as AnnexureA. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP.
Announced in open Court on 07.08.2018 (VIDYA PRAKASH) Judge MACT2 (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi Smt. Phoopati & Anr. Vs. Narender Kumar & Ors. Page 16 of 16