Delhi District Court
Sumna Devi vs . Shyam Dev on 18 January, 2012
Sumna Devi Vs. Shyam Dev
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJIV JAIN PO : MACT02 : SOUTH DISTT.
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI.
In Suit No. 655/10
1. Smt. Sumna Devi W/o Late Suresh Kumar
2. Sumit S/o Late Suresh Kumar
3. Payal D/o Late Suresh Kumar
4. Sh. Munshi Ram
5. Judhya Devi W/o Sh. Munshi Ram
All R/o Vill. & P.O. Bari, Teh. Palampur,
Distt. Kangra, Himachal Pradesh
...... Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Shyam Dev (Driver)
S/o Sh. Teeju
R/o L72, Railway Colony,
Library Road, Azad Market,
Delhi
2. Sh. Shyam Dev (Owner)
S/o Sh. Teeju
R/o L72, Railway Colony,
Library Road, Azad Market,
Delhi
3. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Naraina Community Centre,
Naraina Vihar, New Delhi - 110 028
.......Respondents
Suit No. : 655/10 1/25
Sumna Devi Vs. Shyam Dev
2
Date of Institution : 25.09.2009
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 04.01.2012
Date of pronouncement : 18.01.2012
J U D G M E N T:
1. Suresh Kumar unaware of the fact that a calamity in the form of his 'untimely death' was standing at threshold of his destiny, was going on National Highway no. 8 by his Innova Car DL 1Y B 2809. This journey proved unaffordable for him as he lost his life in the same, leaving behind his wife, minor children and parents.
2. It was alleged that Suresh Kumar sustained fatal injuries in an accident which took place with a TSR DL 1L H 7462 being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no. 3.
3. Subsequent thereto, wife, minor children and the parents of the deceased, being his legal heirs, invoked the jurisdiction this Tribunal by filing the present petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation against the above respondents. Suit No. : 655/10 2/25
Sumna Devi Vs. Shyam Dev 3
4. Relevant facts necessary for adjudication and disposal of the present petition as emanating from the same, apart from those stated herein above are that:
(a) On 28.07.09 at about 0020 hrs., deceased was going by his Innova car DL 1Y B 2809. When he reached NH8, Mahipal Pur flyover, his car got punctured. When he was changing the wheel by giving indicator, a TSR DL 1L H 7462 Mahindra Champion came being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed and hit him. Due to this forceful impact, the deceased fell down on the road and died. He was removed to Safdarjung hospital where his postmortem was conducted. A case vide FIR no. 330/09 U/s 279/304A IPC was registered at P.S. Vasant Kunj.
(b) It was stated that the deceased was an employee of ABC Tours & Travels and getting a salary of Rs. 10,000/ p.m. He was healthy and caring for his family. He had to go a long way in his life.
(c) It was stated that due to untimely death of Suresh Kumar, Suit No. : 655/10 3/25 Sumna Devi Vs. Shyam Dev 4 petitioners have been under pain and agony, since lost the affectionate company of the deceased.
(d) It is stated that petitioners be adequately compensated.
5. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. Pursuant to the same, respondents appeared. Respondent no.1 and 2 filed their written statements claiming that the TSR DL 1L H 7462 was not involved in the accident. Respondent no.3 stated that the TSR was insured with the company vide policy note no. 39549656 which was valid from 25.07.09 to 24.07.10. However, it was stated that the liability of the company shall be as per the terms and conditions of the policy and the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. It was stated that the owner who was driver himself was not holding an effective and valid license to drive the offending vehicle/LGV as he was holding the license for LMV (NT and TSR).
6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 22.02.2010 :
i) Whether Suresh Kumar sustained fatal injuries in an accident on 28.07.2009 due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle no.
DL 1L H 7462, Mahindra TSR driven by Suit No. : 655/10 4/25 Sumna Devi Vs. Shyam Dev 5 Respondent no.1, vehicle owned by Respondent no.2, insured by Respondent No.R3.
ii) If so, what amount of compensation, petitioner is entitled to and from whom?
iii) Relief.
7. Parties to the present petition were thereafter called upon to substantiate their case by leading evidence.
8. Petitioner no. 1 Smt. Sumna Devi appeared in the witness box as PW1 and filed her affidavit Ex.PW1/A reiterating the facts as averred in the petition. She also tendered the documents Ex. PW1/A1 to A2 i.e. FIR and the Form
54. She stated that the deceased was 34 years of age. He was working as driver with ABC Tours and Travels and earning Rs. 10,000/ p.m. She denied that the deceased had wrongly parked his vehicle without giving any indicator.
9. Respondent no.3 examined Ms. Sneha Mittal, Asstt. Manager as R3W1 and Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Record Keeper, Mall Road, Authority as R3W2. R3W1 tendered her affidavit Ex.R3W1/A stating that the offending vehicle falls Suit No. : 655/10 5/25 Sumna Devi Vs. Shyam Dev 6 under the category of light goods vehicle but the driving license held by respondent no.1 was only for motorcycle and LMV (NT and TSR) and not for LGV. She stated that the respondent no.2 deliberately violated the terms and conditions of the policy Ex.R3W1/1. She stated that the respondent no.1 and 2 did not supply the copy of permit and fitness of the vehicle. She placed on record the report of the Surveyor Ex.R3W1/2. R3W2 brought the record in respect of the driving license of respondent no.1. He stated that the license was for LMV (NT, TSR & Motorcycle) and not for LGV Mahindra goods vehicle. He proved the license verification report issued by the Authority Ex.R3W2/1.
10. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel Sh. Sunil Tiwari for the insurance company and Sh. Akshay Kumar for respondent no.1 and 2 as well as perused the documentary evidence on record.
11. My Findings on the issues are as under : I S S U E N O . 1
12. It is well settled law that where petition under Section 166 of the Act is instituted, it becomes the duty of the petitioner to establish rash and Suit No. : 655/10 6/25 Sumna Devi Vs. Shyam Dev 7 negligent driving. To prove rash and negligent driving in a petition under Motor Vehicles Act, Tribunal need not go into the technicality because strict rules of procedure and evidence are not followed. Basically, in road accident cases, Tribunal is simply to quantify the compensation which is just rational and reasonable on the basis of inquiry. The proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit. Further, roving enquiry is not required to prove the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver as has been held in Kaushumma Begum and others Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2001 ACJ 421 SC.
13. PW1 in her testimony has stated that on 28.07.09 her husband was driving Innova car DL 1Y B 2809. When he reached NH8, Mahipal Pur flyover, his car got punctured. When he was changing the wheel the TSR Mahindra Champion DL 1L H 7462 being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner hit him. Her husband fell down on the road and died. She placed on record the FIR and the Form 54 Ex.PW1/A1 to A2. Perusal of the FIR reveals that when the police reached the spot they found a white Innova car standing and its front right wheel punctured. An eyewitness Manoj Kumar was found on the spot who alleged that when the deceased was changing the tyre, a TSR came from the side of Gurgaon bearing no. DL 1L Suit No. : 655/10 7/25 Sumna Devi Vs. Shyam Dev 8 H 7462 at a fast speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the car from behind. The car driver fell down on the road and sustained head injuries. They apprehended the TSR driver with the help of Constable who revealed his name as Shyam Dev. The site plan corroborates this fact. The mechanical inspection report of the TSR and the car shows that there were fresh damages on the front portion of the TSR and rear portion of the car. All these facts show that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of DL 1L H 7462 Mahindra Champion by respondent no.1. It has come on record that respondent no.1 was also the owner of the TSR and it was insured with respondent no.3. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case titled as 2009 ACJ 287 National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana has held that where a petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record showing completion of investigation, issuance of charge sheet, certified copy of the FIR, all these documents are sufficient proof to come to the conclusion that the driver was negligent.
14. Accordingly, the issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3.
Suit No. : 655/10 8/25
Sumna Devi Vs. Shyam Dev 9 I S S U E N o . 2
15. The petitioners have claimed Rs. 25,00,000/ as compensation. In a road accident a person is entitled to compensation for the pecuniary and non pecuniary damages. Let me assess the compensation which the petitioner is entitled for under different heads.
16. It has been held in a catena of judgments that emphasis in cases of personal injury and fatal accident should be on awarding substantial, just and fair compensation and not a token amount. General principle in calculating such sum of compensation, should be so as to put the injured or legal heirs of a deceased in case of fatal accident, in the same position as he would have been, if accident had not taken place. The amount of compensation no doubt cannot bring back the dead but it certainly helps the LR's and dependents to live life with dignity and comfort as they were living during the lifetime of the deceased. The amount of compensation is awarded on the basis of age, the earning capacity and other liabilities of the deceased. The appropriate method of calculating compensation in fatal cases is multiplier method. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments has laid down that in India, the multiplier method is proper for calculation of compensation. Suit No. : 655/10 9/25
Sumna Devi Vs. Shyam Dev 10
17. In order to calculate the amount of compensation, the sum is required to be considered under the various heads :
(a) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY :
18. Petitioner No. 1 Smt. Sumna Devi during the course of her deposition as PW1 has stated that they being wife, children and the parents are the only legal heirs of the deceased. She stated that the deceased was about 35 years of age, driver with ABC Tours and Travels and earning Rs. 10,000/ per month. Had he not died in the accident he would have earned much more. This fact has not been controverted by the respondents as no contrary evidence to that effect has been brought on record. No one else has challenged the claim petition filed by the petitioners, therefore, deposition of PW1 is to be believed on this aspect.
19. Although, PW1 has stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/ p.m. but she did not place any proof of income of the deceased. Nevertheless, she has filed the driving license of the deceased Ex.PW1/A3 vide which he was authorised to drive Taxi/LMV (commercial vehicles). In the driving license the date of birth of deceased has been shown as 07.11.72 thus, as on date of accident he was 36 years of age. In the absence of any Suit No. : 655/10 10/25 Sumna Devi Vs. Shyam Dev 11 documentary evidence, regard is to be had to the minimum wages prevailing at the time of accident with respect to "skilled person" which as per schedule was Rs. 4,358/ per month.
20. Although, there is no evidence on record with respect to future prospects, however, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled "Narender Bishal & Another V/s Sh. Ramit Singh & Ors." bearing MAC. App. No. 100708/2006 decided on 20th February 2008 had considered the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in "General Manazger Kerala Transport Road Corporation V/s. Susamma Thomas" reported as 1994 ACJ 1 (SC) as well as in Smt. Sarla Dixit & Ors. V/s Balwant Yadav & Ors. Reported as AIR 1996, SC1274" and held :
"As would be evident from catena of judgments of the Supreme Court, the future prospects have no correlation with the price index, inflation or denunciation of currency value. The future prospects would necessarily mean advancement in future career, earnings and progression in one's life. It could be considered by seeing, from which post a person began his career, what avenues or prospects he has while being in a particular avocation and what targets he/she would finally achieve at the end of his career. The promotional avenues, career progression, grant of selection grades etc. are some of the broad features for considering one's future Suit No. : 655/10 11/25 Sumna Devi Vs. Shyam Dev 12 prospects in one's career.
The minimum wage, in the very context of economy has a correlation with the growth and development of the nation's economy, postulating increase in the price index, reduction of purchasing power with the denunciation of currency value and consequent fixation of minimum wages giving some periodical increase so as to ensure sustenance and survival of the workman class. Keeping this in view, under no circumstance the revision of minimum wages can be treated on the same footing with the factor of future prospects.
For instance, minimum wages of unskilled workman in the year 2000 were Rs.2524/ under the Minimum Wages Act. The said minimum wages in the year 2007 for the same class of unskilled workman came to be Rs.3470/ under the Act. This increase is not due to any promotion of unskilled workman or any kind of advancement in his career but the same are due to increase in price index and cost of living which are the determining factors taken into consideration for increasing the wages under the Minimum Wages Act. The nature of the job of unskilled workman will not change as the same shall remain unchanged. The same principle may be true even in the case of business or trade or other such allied activities where the future prospects of the deceased can be considered on the basis of his assets, income tax return, wealth tax return, balance sheet etc. But as far as the Suit No. : 655/10 12/25 Sumna Devi Vs. Shyam Dev 13 increase in the minimum wages is concerned the same takes into consideration the price index and the inflationary trends and the same have no correlation with the future prospects of a skilled, semiskilled or an unskilled workman."
21. It has also been held in catena of Judgments that future prospects of advancement of life and career should also be sounded in terms of money to augment the multiplicand (annual contribution to the dependent) and the Court can take note of the prospects of the future and it will be unreasonable to estimate the loss of dependency on the actual income of the deceased at the time of the death. Thus, future prospects are also to be taken in the present case while calculating the dependency, which as per the Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 (6) scale 129 is taken as 50% of the basic income as the deceased was 36 years of age at the time of accident. Adding the future prospects, the gross monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 4358 + 50% of 4358 = Rs. 6537/.
22. The deceased was married and survived by his wife, two sons and parents.
Out of the gross income and considering that widow, children and parents are the legal heirs of deceased, then he by no stretch of imagination could have spent more than onefourth of his earning on himself. In view thereof, Suit No. : 655/10 13/25 Sumna Devi Vs. Shyam Dev 14 monthly loss of dependency of the petitioners would come out to Rs. 6537 - 1634 [1/4th of 6537] = Rs. 4903/. Yearly loss of dependency would come out to Rs. 4903 x 12 = Rs. 58836/. It was held in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 (6) Scale 129 that while calculating the dependency, the multiplier is to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. Hence, a multiplier of '15' is taken for calculating the loss of dependency. Using the multiplier of '15', the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 882540/ (15 x 58836) which is rounded off as Rs. 882600/
23. I therefore, award a sum of Rs. 8,82,600/ to the petitioners towards "Loss of Dependency".
(b) LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION :
24. Petitioners no.1 at this stage of her life has lost her husband on whom she was financially and emotionally dependent. The love and care which the children and parents could have got from their father/son cannot be measured in terms of money. It has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled Kailash Kaur Vs. New India Insurance Company bearing M.A.C Pet. No. 318/08 decided on 24.03.2009 that compensation towards loss of love and affection should be granted at the rate of Rs. 25,000/ per petitioner.
Suit No. : 655/10 14/25
Sumna Devi Vs. Shyam Dev 15
25. In view thereof, I award a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/ i.e. Rs. 25,000 x 5 to the petitioners towards "Loss of Love and Affection".
(c) FUNERAL EXPENSES :
26. I award a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the petitioners on account of "Funeral Expenses".
(d) LOSS TO ESTATE :
27. I award a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the petitioners on account of "Loss to Estate".
(e) LOSS OF CONSORTIUM:
28. I award a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the petitioner no.1 on account of "Loss of Consortium".
: L I A B I L I T Y :
29. As the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 1 therefore primary liability to compensate the petitioners is that of respondent No. 1. As the offending vehicle was also owned by respondent No. 1/2 therefore, he becomes vicariously liable to compensate the petitioners. It is an admitted position on record that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.
3. Therefore, respondent no. 3 becomes contractually liable to compensate Suit No. : 655/10 15/25 Sumna Devi Vs. Shyam Dev 16 the petitioners for the above mentioned awarded amount to the extent of liability of the insured.
30. Ld. Counsel for the Insurance company, however, in his quest to have the Insurance company exonerated of its contractual obligation contended that the offending vehicle was being driven by the driver using the invalid license. He relied on the testimony of R3W1 and R3W2.
31. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
32. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled as Lal Chand Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported as 2006 (3) TAC321 SC that Insurance Company has to show and prove on record that due and adequate care was not taken by the owner or owner had the knowledge that driver was not holding a valid driving license. Only in that eventuality the Insurance Company can be absolved of its contractual obligation, not otherwise.
33. On going through the report of the investigator Ex.R3W1/2, insurance policy Ex.R3W1/1 and the testimony of R3W1 and R3W2, I find that the respondent no. 1 was driving the Mahindra Champion using the invalid license. Mahindra Suit No. : 655/10 16/25 Sumna Devi Vs. Shyam Dev 17 Champion is a light goods vehicle but the respondent no.1 was possessing a license for motorcycle, LMV (NT) and TSR thus was not authorised to drive the Mahindra Champion LGV vehicle. Nothing has come in the cross examination of R3W1 and R3W2 to disbelieve them. No evidence is led by the respondent no.1 to substantiate his claim that he had a valid and effective license to drive the offending vehicle at the time of accident. As per the terms of the policy, a person must hold an effective driving license and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license. This very act on the part of respondent no. 1/2 amounts to breach of the insurance policy. It was held in the case of Kamala Mangalal Vayani & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others (2010) 12 SCC 488 that once a comprehensive insurance policy is admitted on or so proving any breach of insurance conditions, is on the insurer and not claimants. In the present case, the insurance company i.e. respondent no. 3 has been able to establish that the vehicle was not plying on the road in consonance with the terms of the policy. Thus, the liability to compensate the petitioners would remain with that of respondent no. 1/2 i.e. driver /owner of the offending vehicle jointly and severally.
34. Legislature being conscious of the magnitude of the plight of the victims of Suit No. : 655/10 17/25 Sumna Devi Vs. Shyam Dev 18 road accident have introduced the present beneficial provisions to protect the interest of third parties i.e. victims of road accident so as to enable them to claim compensation from the driver/ owner of the vehicle. Legislature in its wisdom has made it a statutory obligation of every owner to have his vehicle insured against third party risks. This has been made mandatory so that victims of road accident even after being granted compensation from the court, should not run from pillar to post to have the orders of the court executed and to facilitate them to get the same from the Insurance Company. It was held in the case of "National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vasdev Kukreja & Ors II (2010) ACC 148" that primary liability to pay the award amount is of insurance company. In that case there was a breach of terms and conditions of the policy as there was violation as to the category of the vehicle which the driver was authorised to drive. The Hon'ble High Court directed the insurance company to pay the award and granted the recovery rights in its favour to recover the award amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.
35. Balancing the "twin interest" of the Insurance Company at one hand and that of the third party i.e. petitioner for whose benefit the present legislation was brought on the statute book, it is directed that the Insurance Company shall Suit No. : 655/10 18/25 Sumna Devi Vs. Shyam Dev 19 pay the compensation awarded to the petitioner within the time given in this award and shall have the right to recover the same from respondent No.1/2.
36. For the foregoing reasons, the respondent no. 3 is directed to pay compensation awarded to the petitioners and shall have the right to recover the same from respondent no. 1/2.
37. Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly in favour of the petitioners.
R E L I E F
38. In view of my finding on issue no. 1 and 2, petitioners are entitled to the following compensation :
1) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY = Rs. 8,82,600/
2) LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION = Rs. 1,25,000/
3) FUNERAL EXPENSES = Rs. 10,000/
4) LOSS OF ESTATE = Rs. 10,000/
5) LOSS OF CONSORTIUM = Rs. 10,000/
===========
TOTAL = Rs. 10,37,600/
===========
39. Petitioners are thus awarded a sum of Rs. 10,37,600/ (Rs. Ten Lakh Thirty Suit No. : 655/10 19/25 Sumna Devi Vs. Shyam Dev 20 Seven Thousand Six Hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date filing of petition till realization of the amount.
: RELEASE OF THE AWARDED AMOUNT : In the share of Petitioner no.1 : (Widow of deceased)
40. A sum of Rs. 6,87,600/ alongwith the proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to petitioner no.1 being wife of deceased.
41. Out of this awarded amount, a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ be deposited in the form of FDR in the name of petitioner no.1 in the following phased manner :
(a) A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ for a period of 2 years
(b) A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ for a period of 3 years.
(c) A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ for a period of 4 years.
(d) A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ for a period of 5 years.
(e) A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ for a period of 6 years.
In the share of Petitioner No. 2 and 3: (minor children of deceased)
42. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ each alongwith proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to petitioner No. 2 to 3 being minor children of the deceased. This awarded amount shall be kept in the form of separate FDR's in the name of Suit No. : 655/10 20/25 Sumna Devi Vs. Shyam Dev 21 Petitioner No. 2 to 3 till they attain 18 years of age.
In the share of Petitioner No. 4 and 5: (Parents of deceased)
43. A sum of Rs. 75,000/ each alongwith proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to petitioner No. 4 and 5 being parents of the deceased. Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
44.In terms of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in case titled " Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors." bearing FAO number 842/2003 decided on 08.06.20009, UCO Bank/ State Bank of India has agreed to open a Special Fixed Deposit Account for the victims of road accidents.
45. As per orders of Hon'ble High Court in case titled " New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Ganga Devi & Ors bearing MAC. App. 135/2008" as well as in another case titled as " Union of India V/s Nanisiri" bearing M.A.C. Appeal No. 682/2005 dated 13.01.2010, directions were given to the Claims Tribunal to deposit part of the awarded amount in fixed deposit in a phased manner depending upon the financial status and financial needs of the claimants.
46. In consonance to the idea by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to Suit No. : 655/10 21/25 Sumna Devi Vs. Shyam Dev 22 be kept in fixed deposit / savings account by Hon'ble high Court, Insurance Company is directed to deposit the awarded amount in favour of the petitioners with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioners.
within a period of 30 days from today, failing which respondent no. 3 Insurance Company shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
47. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the "fixed deposit / saving account'' in the following manner:
(i) The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioners / claimants by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank accounts with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
(ii) Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to claimants / petitioners after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimants / petitioners to facilitate identity.
(iii) No cheque book be issued to claimants / petitioners without the permission of this Court.
(iv) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the claimants / petitioners alongwith the photocopy of the FDR's .
(v) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to claimants / petitioners at the end of the fixed deposit period.
(vi) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the permission of this Court. Suit No. : 655/10 22/25
Sumna Devi Vs. Shyam Dev 23
(vii)Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
(viii)On the request of claimants / petitioners, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
(ix) Claimants / petitioners shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
DIRECTIONS FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANY
48. The Respondents no. 3 is directed to file the compliance report of their having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this tribunal within a period of 30 days from today.
49. The Respondent no.3 is directed to furnish a copy of this award alongwith the cheques of the awarded amount to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, so as to facilitate the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch to have the identification of the claimants/ petitioners in whose favour the award has been passed.
50. The Respondent no. 3 is further directed to furnish the claim petition number and name of the parties at the back side of the cheques of the awarded amount, so that the same be not misplaced. Suit No. : 655/10 23/25
Sumna Devi Vs. Shyam Dev 24
51. The Insurance Company shall intimate to the claimants / petitioners about their having deposited the cheques in favor of the petitioners in terms of the award, at the address of the petitioners mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate them to withdraw the same.
52. Copy of this award / judgment be given to the petitioners who are directed to furnish the same to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch for necessary compliance after their having received the notice of the deposit of awarded amount from the Insurance company.
53. Copy of this Award / Judgment be given to counsel for the Insurance Company for necessary compliance.
54. File be consigned to record room after receipt of the compliance report from the Insurance company.
Announced in the open court
th
on 18 Day of January, 2012 (SANJIV JAIN)
PO : MACT02 : SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
18.01.2012
Suit No. : 655/10 24/25
Sumna Devi Vs. Shyam Dev
25
Sumna Devi Vs. Shyam Dev
Suit No. 655/10
18.01.12
Present: Ld. Counsel for the parties.
Vide separate order of even date a compensation of Rs. 10,37,600/ (Rs. Ten Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand Six Hundred only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization of the amount is passed in favour of petitioner.
Copy of the award be given to the parties.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(SANJIV JAIN) PO : MACT02 : SOUTH DISTRICT SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI 18.01.2012 Suit No. : 655/10 25/25