Delhi District Court
Veena Chopra vs . Suraj Sherawat & Ors. on 31 May, 2016
Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAVEEN ARORA: PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT
SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
Suit No.. : 159/12
Unique ID No. 02406C0217782012
1. Sh. Rajinder Kumar Chopra
S/o Sh. Des Raj Chopra
R/o B120, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi110017 (Husband)
2. Smt. Geetu Manchanda,
W/o Sh Vineet Manchanda,
R/o Bharat Cement Block,
Opposite Telephone Exchange
Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur
Chattisgarh495001 (Daughter)
3. Smt. Neelu Malhotra
W/o Sh. Yogesh Malahotra,
R/o H No. C/30, Lalpura Koshtapara,
Village Tekrapara, Teh Raipur,
District Raipur, Jharkhan. (Daughter)
4. Smt. Vandana Gosain,
W/o Sh. Ajay Gosain,
R/o 102, Essenton Drive,
Upper Marlboro, Maryland 20774, USA (Daughter)
5 Sh. Rakesh Chopra
S/o Sh. Rajinder Kumar Chopra,
R/o 227 Boardwalk Place, London
E145SQ - U. K. (Son) ..... Petitioner
Versus
Page No. 1 of 39
Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
1. Sh. Suraj Sherawat
S/o Sh. Devinder Singh ........ Driver
2. Sh. Devinder Singh
S/o Late Sh. Dilbagh Singh
Both are R/o Vill. Bhadal Khera, Tohana
Dist. Fatehabad , Haryana .......Owner
3. ICICI Lombard General Ins. Co. Ltd.
S13, First Floor, Green Park,
Uphar Cinema Complex,
New Delhi110016 ..... Ins. Co. ..... Respondents
Date of Institution : 04.08.2012
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 05.05.2016
Date of pronouncement : 31.05.2016
J U D G M E N T :
1. In the present case the petition was filed in respect of the accident on 05.05.2012 at about 12:15 Pm at IFFCOTower, Sector 29, Near Leisure Valley Park, Gurgaon, Haryana, caused by the Vehicle bearing No. HR 26 AV 0007 and FIR bearing No.178/12 dated 05.05.2012 registered under section 279/337/338/304A IPC wherein the petitioners Sh. Shailesh Shetye, Sh. Rajinder Kumar Chopra and Smt. Veena Chopra got injured and Smt. Kashma Chopra received fatal injuries.
Page No. 2 of 39
Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
2. WS was filed on behalf of Respondents No.1 & 2 stating that Respondent No.1 has been falsely implicated in the present case FIR No. 178/12 by the police as he was not driving the offending car on the day of alleged accident and the offending car was driven by the cousin of the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2 disclosed these facts to the IO during the investigation. It is stated that on 11.05.2012, respondent No.2 joined the investigation and disclosed this fact to the police that at the time of accident Respondent No.1 along with his friend Daksh Jaiswal and Sh. Rajesh @ Raja were present in the alleged offending car. It is stated that in the said accident Daksh Jaiswal got injuries and respondent No.1 and actual driver of the alleged offending car at the time of alleged accident namely Rajesh @ Raja ran away from the spot due to fear. It is stated that at the time of accident Respondent No. 1 was sitting in the alleged offending car near the driver seat which was being driven by Rajesh @Raja i.e. cousin of Respondent No.2 in a very proper manner and according to traffic rules. It is stated that on 12.05.2012 driver Rajesh @ Raja surrendered himself before the Hon'ble Court of CJM Gurgaon (Haryana). It is stated that the blood samples of the respondent No.1 was collected vide order of the Ld. CJM Gurgaon and sent to FSL Madhuban (Haryana) for getting the same compared with the blood stains collected from the various parts of the offending vehicle to ensure the identity of the driver who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of alleged accident. It is stated that the Page No. 3 of 39 Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
respondent No.1 has been falsely implicated in the present case by the IO under the pressure of Media.
3. In the present case, initially the petition was filed in the name of Smt. Veena Chopra with respect the injuries sustained by her, but during her treatment she expired because of the injuries suffered in teh accident and the present case was amended and now this case is with respect to the Death of Smt. Veena Chopra.
4. WS filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 stating that Respondent NO. 1 / driver of the offending vehicle bearing No. HR 26 AV 0007 was not holding a legal, valid and effective driving license at the time of alleged accident. It is stated that the alleged accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the TATA Indigo Car bearing No. DL 3TC 0366 who was driving the said vehicle at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and could not control his vehicle and hit the vehicle bearing No. HR 26 AV 0007 and that the petitioner is bad for non joinder of the driver, owner and insurer of the TATA Indigo Car which was involved in the accident and was not impleaded as party by the petitioner. It is stated that the driver of the TATA Indigo Car bearing No. DL 3TC 0366 was not holding a valid and effective driving license and route permit at the time of the accident. It is stated that the respondent No. 3 is thus, not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.
5. From the pleadings following issues were framed vide order dated on Page No. 4 of 39 Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
01.11.2012:
1. Whether Smt. Veena Chopra sustained injuries in an accident on 05.05.2012 at about 12:15 PM near Leisure park Valley, IFFCO Tower, Sector 29, Gugaon due to rash and negligent driving of BMW Car bearing No. HR 26 AV 0007 by R1, Vehicle owned by R2 and insured with R3 ?
2. If so what amount of compensation LRs of deceased/ petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
6. In the present case the injured/ petitioner Smt. Veena Chopra died during the court proceedings, thus, amended petition is filed and the following additional issues are framed on 21.05.2014:
1. Whether the injured Veena Chopra succumbed to the injuries received by her in the accident which took place on 05.05.2012 at about 12.15 PM near Leisure Park valley, IFFCO Tower, Sector29 Gurgaon due to rash and negligent driving of BMW Car bearing No. HR 26 AV 0007 by R1, owned by R2 and insured with R3?
2. If so, to what amount of compensation, LRs of deceased are entitled to and from whom?
3 Relief.
7. As far as the question of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the same has been dealt with by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 25.08.2012 whereby it is stated that petitioners at the time of accident were living at Page No. 5 of 39 Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
B21, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi which fact has also come in the MLC of injured, thus, this tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim of the petition.
8. Vide order dated 01.11.2012, all the four petitions i.e. Petition bearing No. 159/12, 160/12 , 169/12 and 170/12 were consolidated and the petition titled as Shailesh Shetye Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors. was taken as lead case.
9. The petitioners have examined 13 witnesses in total but only the relevant witnesses to the present case are being mentioned herein below:
i) SI Jagdish Rai, as PW1 who was the IO of the case FIR No. 178/12 PS Sector 29 DLF Qutub Enclave, Gurgaon.
ii) PW2 Dr. Deepak Kumar, consultant Neurosurgeon at Max Hospital, Gurgaon, who stated that he was a part of team who treated Mrs. Veena Chopra, and exhibited her discharge summary with respect to her hospitalization w.e.f 05.05.2012 to 28.08.2012 as Ex. PW2/1, certificate Ex. PW2/2, her medical bills Ex. PW2/3 to PW2/7 against his home visits to Mrs. Veena Chopra.
iii) PW3 Sh. Rajinder Kumar Chopra i.e. the petitioner, who filed his affidavit in evidence reiterating therein the contents of the petition (relevant for the present case being the eye witness as well as the claimant in the present accident) Page No. 6 of 39 Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
iv) PW4 Sh. Rakesh Chopra who exhibited his passport as Ex. PW4/A who is the son of the petitioner and stated that he came to India on 06.05.2012 after hearing about the accidents of his parents Sh. Rajinder Chopra and Smt. Veena Chopra and that he is bearing most of the expenses on the treatment of his parents and that he spent Rs. 8,56,500/ on air fare from London to Delhi and viceversa and that he took his mother to London for further treatment, the bills summary is marked as Mark X and copies of flight tickets are Ex. PW4/B. During his cross examination he stated that he is doing job in Allianz as Project Manager in U. K and that there is no insurance in UK with his employer for his parents and that he had not taken any mediclaim policy for his parents and he is incurring the medical expenses of his parents from his own sources of income and that he had spent Rs. 70,00,000/ on their treatment. He stated that his wife is also working in SONY DADC at U. K and that they are living in U. K. Since 2005. The discharge summary of Smt. Veena Chopra for her admission to Max Hospital is Ex. PW4/D1.
v) PW5 Dr. Amin Ahmad, Physiotherapist, Saket City Hospital, Saket, New Delhi, who gave physiotherapies to Smt. Veena Chopra from the month of August 2012 for about three months and thereafter she went to London for further treatment. He stated that after she came back, he again started physiotherapy session with her and that she is dependent 90% on the family members /nurse for her daily living. He stated that she hardly sit on Page No. 7 of 39 Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
the bed and stand at her own and that her voice is also not very clear and that most of the time she is depressed. He stated that he normally charged Rs. 500 600 per visit and there were around 2022 visits per month and that there were other physiotherapists were also there for treating Smt. Veena Chopra.
vi) PW6 Sh. Saurabh Deoliya Physiotherapist, who had given physiotherapy to Smt. Veena Chopra, Sh. Rajender Kumar Chopra and Sh. Shailesh Shetya, privately and was also one of the doctors when all the three patients were admitted to MAX Hospital Grugaon. He stated that he treated Smt. Veena Chopra from August 2012 till March 2013 and exhibited the bills Ex. PW3/211, PW3/213, PW3/224, PW3/226, PW3/228, PW3/229, PW3/232 and Ex. PW3/233.
vii) PW7 Sh. Shailesh Shetye who is one of the eye witness, filed his affidavit in evidence and was accompanying his wife Smt. Kshama Chopra and her parents on the day of accident. (relevant for the present case only for proving negligence of driver being the eye witness of the present accident)
viii) PW10 Sh. Keshav Babu Sengar, from MAX Super Specialty Hospital, who proved the treatment record of Smt. Veena Chopra as Ex.PW10/1 and the duplicate copy of medical bills of Smt. Veena Chopra as Ex. PW10/2.
ix) PW12 Mohd. Tanveer who brought the bill and treatment record of Page No. 8 of 39 Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
Smt. Veena Chopra and exhibited the copy of the same as Ex. PW12/A.
x) PW13 Deepa who filed her affidavit in evidence and has provided the service of attendant to Smt. Veena Chopra.
10. Thereafter, PE was closed.
11. Petitioner No. 2, 3 & 4 gave their affidavits to the court stating that they have no objection in case their share of award amount is released in favour of their father i.e. Petitioner No.1 Sh. Rajinder Kumar Chopra, the affidavits are on record.
12. R1W1 Sh. Rajesh @ Raja who filed his affidavit in evidence denying the contents of the petition. He stated that he was accompanying the respondent No.1 at the time of the accident and stated that the offending car was being driven by him at the time of accident.
13. R1 W2 Sh. Daksh Jaiswal who was also accompanying respondent No.1 at the time of the accident who deposed that on 05.05.2012, he was travelling with Suraj in his car bearing no. HR 26 AV 0007 and was proceedings towards Gurgaon and when reached Sector 29 market at about 12/12:15 noon, an accident took place with our car and I became unconscious immediately and cannot say which vehicle caused the accident and the manner in which the accident took place.
14. Respondent No.3 i.e. insurance company examined Sh. Ankit Jalan, their Legal Manager, as R3W1 who proved certified copy of insurance policy as Ex. R3W1/1, copy of the notice U/o 12 rule 8 CPC issued to the Page No. 9 of 39 Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
owner and driver is Ex. R3W1/3 and its postal receipts as Ex. R3W1/4.
15. It is pertinent to mention here that in the present case, it is contention of the petitioner that the death of the deceased Smt. Veena Chopra was caused on account of injuries suffered by her in the accident and since then she was under regular treatment but finally she could not recover and died. I have heard both the parties. More or less there is no dispute on this point that she was under regular treatment from the date of accident till the date of her death. She had undergone various surgeries but finally could not recover, therefore, I consider it to be a case of death arising out of the accident. As far as the arguments of respondent No.1 is concerned, that her postmortem was not conducted, in my opinion the postmortem of the deceased is essential to find out the cause of the death but it is one piece evidence to draw the inference and is not the only piece of evidence on which the inference of cause of death can be drawn, other facts proved on record shows that her condition could not improve much during her treatment for such a long period after the accident. Had she not met with an accident then she would not have died fighting with those injuries. There is enough material to suggest that her death was caused because of the injuries suffered in the accident, held accordingly.
16. I have heard the arguments and have perused the record. My findings on the issues are as follows :
Page No. 10 of 39
Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
17. I S S U E NO. 1: 1. Whether the injured Veena Chopra succumbed to the injuries received by her in the accident which took place on 05.05.2012 at about 12.15 PM near Leisure Park valley, IFFCO Tower, Sector29 Gurgaon due to rash and negligent driving of BMW Car bearing No. HR 26 AV 0007 by R1, owned by R2 and insured with R3?
18. Needless to say that for making someone entitled U/s 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, for a motor vehicle accident claim, the negligence of the driver of offending vehicle needs to be proved on record. And to prove rash and negligent driving in a petition under Motor Vehicles Act, Tribunal need not go into the technicalities because strict rules of procedure and evidence are not followed. Basically, in road accident cases, Tribunal has simply to quantify the compensation which is just rational and reasonable on the basis of enquiry. Though it is an admitted legal position that the negligence on the part of driver with respect to the use of vehicle needs to be established and the same is to be established on the principles of preponderance of probabilities as decided in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harsh Mishra & Ors. III (2015) ACC 435 Delhi. In the said judgment all the aspects relating to the aspect of negligence, its manner of proving were discussed and it was observed (as decided in Pushpa Bai Purushottam Udeshi & Ors. Vs. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. Pvt. Ltd.) that in certain situations there is hardship caused to the petitioner to prove the manner of accident. In such cases applying the principle of "resipsaloquitor" the onus to prove, how the Page No. 11 of 39 Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
accident happened, would shift on the respondent. These are the cases where the circumstances are such that they are speaking for themselves showing the negligence on the part of the driver but there are no eye witnesses. Needless to say that as per the general rule it is the petitioner who has to prove the negligence on the part of respondent no.1 but exceptions to this rule can be carved out under certain circumstances.
19. In the present case there are disputes between the parties with respect to the following issues:
i) As to whether the driver of the offending car i.e. BMW bearing No. HR 26 AV 0007 was negligent in driving his vehicle due to which the accident took place?
ii) As to whether the respondent No.1 was driving, the vehicle or not?
20. In the present case it is an admitted fact that the accident has taken place on a crossing of the main double way road and a single way link road, where the BMW car was going straight on the double way main road which is around 60 meter wide, though the Indigo car was coming from the link road from the left side and the same entered the main road and was hit by the BMW car. On the face of it, it can be easily held that the driver of the Indigo Car should have been more cautious while entering into the main road and it seems that he did not take precautions and came on the road without noticing the traffic including the BMW car coming on the Page No. 12 of 39 Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
road. But if we see the impact of the collision as per the contents of the FIR after collision the Indigo Car, toppled and was thrown at a distance, which clearly shows that the speed of BMW Car was excessive and would have been less than 100 Km/hour. In my opinion it was also the duty of driver of the BMW car though coming on a straight road to slow down his car at the crossing to avoid any mis happening but it seems that BMW car was not slowed down and due to which the accident took place.
21. I am conscious of the fact that very high speed does not mean negligence in itself and no one can be held guilty merely on the basis of high speed of the car but it is also a well settled position of law that proceedings before Tribunal are not akin to the proceeding before Criminal Trial Court to decide guilt of the accused. From the facts of the case it can be safely held that speed of BMW car was excessive and the driver of the BMW car did not slow down his vehicle at the crossing which itself amounts to negligence though it may not be gross negligence / culpable rashness U/s 304 A IPC but this much negligence on the part of the driver of the BMW car is also sufficient under the law of tort to create liability.
22. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that driver of both the cars were negligent in driving their vehicles. I can go to the extent of saying that the negligence on the part of the driver of Indigo Car was much more then the driver of BMW car as it was Indigo car which was coming from the link road and was to cross one Page No. 13 of 39 Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
side of the main road to go to the other side of the main road and its driver instead of noticing the traffic on the main road, did not take precautions and he jumped into the main road which resulted into the accident. Needless to say that even if there is slightness of negligence on the part of the respondents they are liable. This is a case of composite negligence and petitioner had the option to file petition against any of the driver, owner and Insurer of the vehicles. In these facts and circumstances, this issue stands decided in favour of the petitioner and against the driver of the BMW Car.
23. As far as the identity of the driver of the BMW car is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that at the time of the accident there were two persons only in the offending vehicle i.e. Sh. Suraj Sehrawat and his friend Sh Daksh Jaiswal. Both were sitting on the front seats. Though, it is the case of the respondent No.1 & 2 that at the time of the accident there were three persons in the offending car i.e. Rajesh @ Raja S/o Sh. Umed Singh who was driving the car, Suraj Sehrawat was sitting on the front seats besides the seat of the driver and Sh. Daksh Jaiswal was sitting on the rear seat behind driver. Both the parties have lead their evidence, to support their contentions.
24. The petitioner have relied upon the testimony of Sh. Shailesh Shetye, i.e. PW7, Sh. Rajender Kumar Chopra i.e. PW3, SI Jagdish Rai the first IO of the criminal case i.e. PW1 and the charge sheet filed in the criminal case i.e. Ex. PW7/4.
Page No. 14 of 39
Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
25. On the other hand the respondents have relied upon the charge sheet filed in the criminal case, the statement of Sh. Daksh Jaiswal i.e. R1W2 and statement of Sh. Rajesh @ Raja i.e.R1R2W1 and statement of Sh. Devender Singh i.e. R2W1 i.e. the owner of the offending vehicle.
26. All the above mentioned statements/ material is being discussed herein below:
27. The perusal of the FIR Ex. PW7/1 mentions that in the accident the driver of the indigo car Sh. Sanjay Gulati, and Mrs. Kshama Chopra died on the spot. Sh. Rajender Chopra was found fit to give statement and Sh. Shailesh Shetye was declared unfit for statement. FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of Sh. Rajender Chopra and the investigation was marked to SI Jagdish Rai i.e. PW1.
28. The perusal of the charge sheet/ final report shows that after collision the Indigo Car toppled and was thrown away at a distance and all the injured persons were taken to MAX Hospital by general public.
29. As per charge sheet, the offending vehicle was inspected and it was found that both the Air bags of front seats had opened, there were blood stains on the rear seat of the car. Both the Air Bags and one piece of the rear seat with blood stain were sent to FSL Madhuban. It is also mentioned in the Charge sheet that it was Sh. Daksh Jaiswal who was injured in the accident. It is also stated in the charge sheet that during inquiry from the people residing nearby, it was revealed that only two Page No. 15 of 39 Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
persons were sitting in the offending vehicle, the driver fled from the spot though the other person got injured. On seeing the Roll Numbers found in the car, the public persons identified Sh. Suraj Sehrawat as driver, who had fled from the spot. The respondent No.2 i.e. owner of the vehicle was asked to produce Sh. Suraj Sehrawat and Sh. Rajesh @Raja for investigation on 12.05.2012 but Sh. Rajesh @ Raja was produced on 12.05.2012 before CJM Gurgaon, but as per investigation it was Sh. Suraj Sehrawat who was driving the vehicle, therefore, Ld. CJM in order to resolve the controversy passed the order dated 17.05.2012, relevant portion of which is reproduced here in below:
" Police file perused. As per Zimni dated 13.05.2012 and recovery memo (Fard) prepared on the same day a piece of Air bag removed from the steering of offending vehicle, two other pieces of Air Bags, one of them collected from conductor side of the dash board and other collected from the driver side back seat have been taken into police custody for sending the same to FSL Madhuban. Naturally the blood stains appearing on the pieces of the air bags as well as on seat cover will be of a person who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident and as per the prosecution case Sh. Suraj Sehrawat S/o Sh. Devender Sehrawat was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident and in order to collect the scientific evidence regarding the identity of the accused there are reasonable grounds for believing that collection of the blood samples of the accused, for getting the same compared with the blood stains collected from the various parts of the offending vehicle will afford sufficient evidence as to the identity of th Page No. 16 of 39 Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
accused as driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the commission of offence. "
In view of the fact that photographs of the accused has duly been published in print media and has duly been telecast in the electronic media and complete particulars like name, father's name etc. of accused are in knowledge of the Investigating Officer, this court is of the opinion that test identification parade shall also not suffice any purpose, therefore, this request is hereby declined.
30. PW1 Sh. Jagdish Rai in his cross examination admitted that Sh. Suraj Sehrawat was not named in the FIR. He stated that one witness was examined at the spot. In MAX Hospital he examined only Sh. Rajender on whose statement the FIR was registered. He also did not state the name of Sh. Suraj as driver of offending vehicle. He did not inquire from the owner of the BMW Car as to who was driving the offending Vehicle. He stated that he cannot say at the time of accident Sh. Rajesh @ Raja was driving the BMW Car or not. He admitted that Sh. Daksh Jaiswal sustained injuries who was in BMW car and as per him it was Sh. Rajesh@ Raja who was driving the BMW Car. The eye witness had stated that there were two persons in the BMW car at the time of accident.
31. Sh. Rajender Kumar Chopra i.e. PW3, in this regard did not state anything in his affidavit that he had seen Sh. Suraj Sehrawat driving the car. Rather in his cross examination he stated that at the time of the accident he was sitting besides the driver in TATA Indigo Car. He stated Page No. 17 of 39 Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
that as far as he could see there were two persons sitting in the offending vehicle and he was informed by the police that respondent No.1 was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, however, he did not see that who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
32. Sh. Shailesh Shetye i.e. PW7 filed his affidavit in his examination in chief. In his affidavit he made a general allegation that the accident took place solely due to rash and negligence of the respondent No.1 who was driving the vehicle, he did not mention anything that when and how he saw respondent No.1 driving the vehicle. He did not explain the circumstances. But during his cross examination, he stated that he was sitting right behind the driver seat. The speed of BMW Car was apprx. 150 km/hour. He stated that he was conscious after the accident. He was taken to the hospital by the bystanders. Police persons met him at the hospital on the same day of accident but he does not remember the time nor he can tell the name of the police official. He cannot remember whether his statement was recorded by the police official on the said date. He was fully conscious after the accident. There were only two people in the car and respondent No.1 was driving the vehicle. The name of the driver was told by group of his friends when he was hospitalized. He remembered the face of the offending driver very well. He noted the number of the car after the accident on the site itself.
33. Certified copy of the testimony of Sh. Shailesh Shetye recorded in the criminal case, was also placed on record though not proved in Page No. 18 of 39 Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
evidence wherein he stated that he had seen Sh. Suraj Sehrawat, driving the offending vehicle. There were two persons in the offending vehicle, and because of his position (behind the driver seat) in the Indigo car he was able to see both the persons. He stated that after accident their vehicle toppled three or four times. The injured persons were taken out of the Indigo Car by the bystanders. The two passengers of the offending vehicle were also taken out of the car by the bystanders but the driver fled away. All the injured were admitted in the Max Hospital. During his treatment in the MAX Hospital he came to know that his wife and Sh. Sanjay Gulati had been declared dead.
34. During his cross examination he stated that the accident took place in the middle of intersection. He stated that as soon as the accident took place, lot of people gathered at the spot. The BMW car hit their car on front right side and other parts of the car also. He denied that BMW driver tried to save the accident and took a right turn because of which the only front right portion of the car was hit. He stated that he does not know whether their indigo car was brand new or whether there was ribbon on the front bonnet or whether there were plastic coverings on the seats. He stated that after the accident their car was on the left side of the road and the BMW car was lying just few meters from their car which he could see and it was on the same side of the road. He stated that he cannot say whether the BMW car was lying on the opposite side of the road. He denied that he is Page No. 19 of 39 Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
deliberately avoiding to give correct the directions and position of the car.
35. He stated that he was pulled out, out of his car by the public and he could see the BMW car and its occupants clearly from the place he was made to sit. There were two occupants in the accidental BMW car, they both were removed in front of them by the public. He stated that he does not remember whether Sh. Daksh was badly bleeding from his jaw. He stated that he does not know whether anyone tried to catch Sh. Suraj when he was walking away from the spot. He stated that he was conscious after the accident but he does not know about the other victims. He stated that he does not remember whether police accompanied him and his family members to the hospital. He stated that on the date of accident he had talked to his doctor about his examination and on the date of reaching hospital police spoke to him generally. He stated that he did not speak to his father in law in the hospital.
36. During his cross examination, he was confronted with his statement U/s 161 Cr. P. C (which must have been recorded after few days) where he did not disclose that accused Sh.Suraj Sehrawat was driving the car. In his statement it is also not recorded that he was sitting behind the driver seat nor it is mentioned in his complaint that driver had fled from the spot. He admitted that he had given interview to the print and electronic media about the accident but it was not about Sh. Suraj Sehrawat.
Page No. 20 of 39
Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
37. I have heard the arguments and have perused the record.
38. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the statement of PW7 Sh. Shailesh Shetye is very clear and specific with respect to the identity of the driver and the same is sufficient to hold that Sh. Suraj Sehrawat was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident.
39. Though on the other hand it is argued on behalf of respondents that the statement of PW7 Sh. Shailesh Shetye suffers from material contradiction and cannot be said to be a natural statement. This statement is tutored and motivated to implicate Sh. Suraj Sehrawat.
40. I have heard both the Ld. Counsels and have perused their written submissions also. As far as the statement of PW1 SI Jagdish Rai is concerned, the basis of identification of the accused was the statement of some local person who told this fact secretly to him in the inquiry but who were those witnesses have not been explained, therefore, his statement in this regard is of no legal consequence and cannot be considered for holding Respondent No.1 as driver of the offending vehicle.
41. As far as the statement of PW3 Sh. Rajender Kumar Chopra is concerned, as per his own statement police officials had told him about the name of the driver, therefore, his testimony is also not reliable for the said purpose.
42. As far as the statement of PW7 Sh. Shailesh Shetye is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that before this tribunal, in his affidavit tendered in Page No. 21 of 39 Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
his examination in chief he did not mention any circumstance which enabled him to identify the driver and he made only a general allegations that Respondent No.1 was driving the vehicle. During his cross examination before the Tribunal, he stated that he was fully conscious after the accident and that is how he saw the respondent No.1 driving the offending vehicle and he remembered his face also and that he noted the number of the offending vehicle also. If we peruse his statement recorded before the Criminal Court he made very specific answers with respect to the facts concerning the position of cars, the distance between the cars after the accident, the position of the driver of the offending vehicle, the position of Sh. Daksh Jaiswal, where they were sitting, how they were removed from their vehicle, but when questions were asked about his own family members he could not tell about them. He could not tell whether the police accompanied them to the hospital. He stated that he spoke to the doctor on the date of accident about his examination, he spoke to the police also but as per the FIR he was declared unfit for statement by the doctor in the hospital and police could not examine him there. He stated that he did not speak to his father in law on the date of accident who was very much conscious and on whose statement the FIR was registered. It is very surprising that PW7 Sh. Shailesh Shetye after surviving such an accident where he lost his wife, his father in law and mother in law were injured badly, the driver of their car expired, he was very conscious and Page No. 22 of 39 Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
attentive towards the things which should not have been much relevant for him at that stage. Rather he should have been more vigilant towards the conditions of his family members, if he was conscious. But he could not tell anything about his own family members and told every thing about the offending vehicle passengers and as per record his condition was not such on the very first date that he could make statement to the IO.
43. If we see the medical records of Sh. Shailesh Shetye, he had suffered pelvic fracture, dislocation (left) Sacroiliac joint with fracture, superior pubic rami (right side ) and other multiple injuries. His MLC states that patient sustained injuries and is unable to sit and stand. He was conscious and oriented. As per his discharge summary he was under
severe pain and swelling in pelvic region, therefore, he cannot be expected to be in a comfortable position at the time of accident when he was taken out from the car and in all probabilities, he must have been made to lie down on the footpath and would not have been sitting there and noticing each and everything what is happening to the offending vehicle and its driver or passenger. He must have been surrounded by various public persons and it is assumed that at that time his every attention would have been towards his own relatives including his pregnant wife. The witness has stated that he was fully conscious. It is an admitted fact that the driver of the indigo car and his wife died on the spot but he in his statement stated that in MAX Hospital, he came to know about the death of his wife, meaning thereby that he was Page No. 23 of 39 Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
not aware about the death of his wife and driver on the spot which raises a doubt with respect to his statement that he was fully conscious on the spot and noticed the above mentioned things which he stated in his statement. In my opinion, had he been fully conscious then he would have definitely noticed about condition of his family members on the spot itself. Even as per FIR he was not fit for statement on the very first day when FIR was registered.
44. It is also pertinent to mention here that PW7 specifically stated that he was sitting behind the driver in the Indigo Car. Though the said fact was not stated before the police U/s 161 Cr. P.C and the said fact was also confronted to him during his cross examination. Admittedly, there were five occupants in the Indigo car i.e. the driver, Mr. Rajender Kumar Chopra on the seat besides the driver, the deceased Smt. Kshama Chopra, the deceased Smt. Veena Chopra and PW7 Sh. Shailesh Shetye were on the rear seat.
45. None of the parties have placed on record the photographs, rather in their arguments they stated that internet is full of photograph and videos regarding this case. I have seen the news clipping videos on the internet with respect to the position of the vehicles after the accident, which makes it clear so many things which are relevant to decide this issue.
46. The photographs on the internet makes it clear that the front and front left portion of the BMW had hit the front right portion of the Indigo Car. The right Page No. 24 of 39 Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
front fendor and door of driver side of the Indigo Car were totally damaged, the roof of the indigo Car from right hand side was lifted in the air from its original place but no damage could be seen in the photographs on internet on the left portion of the Indigo car. It clearly shows that the maximum damage on the indigo car was on the right side, front and back which also raises a probability that it was Smt. Kshama Chopra who was sitting behind the driver seat and that is why both the driver and Smt. Kshama Chopra died on the spot and it raises the inference that Sh. Shailesh Shetye was not sitting behind the driver seat. It is pertinent to mention here that Sh. Rajender Kr. Chopra who was sitting on the left front seat (who was discharged from the hospital after his heart surgery) did not suffer much injuries in comparison to his wife and his daughter and the same is with Sh. Shailesh Shetye. Probably Smt. Veena Chopra was sitting in the middle of rear seat who had suffered much more injuries than Sh.Shailesh Shetye and she finally expired after 1 ½ year of her treatment. The ultimate consequences of the accident shows that Sh. Shailesh Shetye was probably sitting on the left rear seat of the Indigo Car.
47. On seeing the photographs and videos (in news clippings) on the internet i.e. on You Tube, I am not in agreement that the Indigo Car toppled 3 or 4 times after being hit as stated by PW7 Sh. Shailesh Shetye, and on seeing the conditions of the vehicle shown in the photographs, it seems that at the last moment as a reflex action the driver of the BMW car on seeing the Page No. 25 of 39 Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
Indigo Car just in front of him tried to turn his car in right direction and before he could turn, it hit against the Indigo Car on front right portion and thereafter, because of the huge impact the indigo car had turned into perpendicular position (having right portion below and left portion above) then it would have fallen on earth with right portion below due to which the roof of the Indigo car got lifted upside from its right side and then at last it would have stopped after some distance after hitting the divider and moving further. Had it toppled on the road 3 or 4 times, then the roof of the Indigo car should have been scratched or have been damaged badly but it had not happened in the present case as per the photographs on the internet. Even the left portion of the Indigo car can be seen without any damage.
48. The positions and conditions of the cars on road after the accident (as per the photographs and videos on the internet) is as follows: Page No. 26 of 39 Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
Page No. 27 of 39
Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
49. The above mentioned diagram shows that Sh. Shailesh Shetye after being taken out from the Indigo Car must have been made to lie down at point A from where he was not able to see the driver as the door of the driver of the offending vehicle was exactly in opposite direction i.e. at point B. Even he could not tell about the condition of Sh. Daksh Jaiswal as to whether he was bleeding or not, which also shows that Sh. Daksh Jaiswal would not have come out from the site at point C as alleged by him and there is a probability that he might have come out from point B i.e. right rear door.
50. Having regard to all the above mentioned facts, I am of the opinion that PW7 Sh.Shailesh Shetye cannot be said to be a natural witness and his testimony cannot be relied upon for this purpose as it seems to be tutored.
51. It is pertinent to mention here that dispute with respect to the identity of the driver arose in the initial stage of the investigation, due to which the Ld. CJM made various observation in its order dated 17.05.2016 harping upon the need of scientific investigation but the investigating agency could not obtained the FSL Report till now i.e. after the expiry of four years. There is no scientific evidence on record to support that it was respondent No.1 who was driving the vehicle as of now.
52. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances I am of the opinion that it cannot be held at this stage that who was driving the offending vehicle i.e. Sh.Suraj Sehrawat or Sh. Rajesh @ Raja in the absence of any Page No. 28 of 39 Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
cogent evidence. This is a case of a poor investigation conducted by the investigating agency where they have tried to establish the identity of the driver on the basis of some secret statement of local people. Admittedly, it is a case which was media hyped and which is sufficient to make any unfounded opinion about the identity of the vehicle in a short span of time making the task of the Investigating officer more difficult. Issue No.1 is disposed off accordingly.
53. I S S U E No. 2 : To what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom?
The petitioners being the legal representatives of the deceased Sh. Veena Chopra, shall be entitled for the compensation, in view of the settled law as decided in various judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, and our own Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, including Rajesh Vs. Rajbir 2013 (6) Scale 563, the LR's of the deceased shall be entitled for compensation under pecuniary and non pecuniary heads, which are as follows: Sl. No. Head Amount 1 Love & Affection 1,00,000/ 2 Loss of Consortium to widow. 1,00,000/ 3 Funeral Expenses 25,000/ 4 Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000/ Page No. 29 of 39 Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
1. Medical Bills : In the present case the treatment of deceased continued from the date of accident to her date of death. The medical bills have been proved on record by her husband i.e. petitioner Sh. Rajinder Kumar Chopra, PW3 and PW10 Sh. Keshav Babu Sengar, record keeper, Max Hospital, Saket, PW12 Mohd. Tanveer, Record Keeper, Max Hospital Gurgaon, Haryana. The medical bills proved on record are not disputed in any respect whatsoever.
2. Physiotherapy Charges : As per the testimony of PW3, PW5 Dr. Amin Ahmad, PW6 Dr. Saurabh Deoliya and PW2 Dr. Deepak Kumar, they had given physiotherapy treatment to the deceased during her treatment the bills have already been proved as Ex.PW3/211 to 234 and Ex. PW3/442 to 451, the details of which are provided in the table given below. Having regard to the injuries suffered by the injured, there is nothing to doubt that she would have been on physiotherapy treatment as stated by the doctors. Even otherwise, these bills were not disputed in material particulars by the respondents. Hence, the same are being granted.
The details of medical bills and other bills are as follows: Sl. No. Name of the Hospital and Exh. No. Amount in Rs.
Dates of hospitalization Max Hospital, Gurgaon, PW3/1 (Colly) 36,08,412/ w.e.f 05.05.2012 to 28.05.2012 (After discount of 1 Rs.1,90,000/) 2 Max Hospital, Gurgaon, PW3/2 (Colly) 1,12,608/ Page No. 30 of 39 Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
w.e.f 08.09.2012 to 13.09.2012 Max Hospital, Gurgaon, PW3/3 (Colly) 60,083/ 3 w.e.f 13.09.2012 to 17.09.2012 Max Hospital, Gurgaon, PW3/4 (Colly) 68,480/ 4 w.e.f 23.10.2012 to 27.10.2012 Max Hospital, Saket, New Delhi PW3/377 (Colly) 45,730/ 5 w.e.f 22.08.2013 to 23.08.2013 Care Equipments/machine PW3/5 to 29 3,73,806/ (Purchased/rented in India under 6 medical advise) Medicine Bills /Pharmacy PW3/30 to 156 2,95,658/ 7 (Purchased in India)
Bills of X Ray Tests/ Scans (In PW3/157 to 186 32,422/ 8 India) 9 Ambulance Bills (India) PW3/187 to 190 3,200/ Nursing Staff Bills ( at home in PW3/191 to 210 4,34,878/ India hired through Nursing 10 bureaus, bills annexed) 11 Physiotherapy Bills (in India) PW3/211 to 234 3,42,700/ Dr. Consultation Bills (OPD Bills PW3/235 to 252 34,400/ and personal house visit bills in 12 India) Care Equipment/ Machines ( after PW3/378 to 381 25,060/ 13 August 2013) Pharmacy/ medicine Bills (After PW3/382 to 429 1,05,988/ 14 August 2013) X Ray tests/Scans (After August PW3/430 to 441 15,034/ 15 2013) Page No. 31 of 39 Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
16 Physiotherapy (After August 2013) PW3/442 to 451 1,55,100/ Doctor's Consultation (After PW3/452 to 455 2,110/ 17 August 2013) Counselling Sessions Bills (After PW3/456 30,000/ 18 August 2013) Expenses incurred in UK w.e.f March 2013 to August 2013.
Sl. Name of the Hospital and Exh. No. Amount in
No. Dates of hospitalization pounds
OPD Visits, Medicines and PW3/253 to 297 11,825.08
Conveyance. (All bills annexed ( multiplied by
details mentioned in Mark E) 99.22 = Rs.
1 11,73,284/)
OPD Visits, Medicines and PW3/457 (Colly) 6330.49
Conveyance. (All bills annexed ( converted @
details mentioned in Mark E) 104.8 comes to
2 Rs. 6,63,435/)
All the above mentioned expenses are no where in dispute and hence, are granted accordingly, on actuals. I here by award Rs. 57,63,824/ towards the Medical expenses, Conveyance charges of UK (for OPD Visits) and Physiotherapy charges. Additional sum of Rs. 20,000/ is granted for conveyance which must have been incurred for taking the injured to the hospital for treatment in India on various occasions.
In the present case, the petitioner has claimed conveyance charges of Rs.12,22,704/ incurred on the air tickets of the injured / deceased and her family members i.e. son and daughter in law from UK to India and India to UK and again UK to India when her son came to India to Page No. 32 of 39 Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
bring her to UK in March 2013 and then she was brought back to India for surgery in the Month of August 2013. In my opinion these, expenses cannot be granted to the petitioner as these expenses have not arisen out of the accident, rather it has arisen out of the wish of the son to take her to UK. Hence, These expenses are not being granted, though, the other conveyance bills as mentioned in the above mentioned table when the patient was taken for OPD visits or for her treatment to the hospital (In UK).
3. Attendant Charges : As per the testimony of PW3, and PW13 (Attendant herself) a sum of Rs. 97,500/(@ Rs. 15,000/ per month for 6 ½ months) was spent on attendant charges for the deceased Smt. Veena Chopra, during her treatment. Having regard to the condition of the deceased during her treatment, the length of her treatment there is nothing to disbelieve the allegations of the petitioner in this regard, hence, the attendant charges of Rs.97,500/ are granted as claimed, under this head.
4. Special Diet : No documentary evidence has been placed on record for proving the expenditure incurred on special diet but having regard to the nature of injury suffered, the period of treatment, it can be safely assumed that she must have been given special diet for her early recovery. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby grant Rs. 50,000/ in lump sum towards special diet charges.
5. As far as the head of Loss of Dependency is concerned, the same is to be calculated as per the multiplier method which has been adopted as a Page No. 33 of 39 Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
thumb rule as per land mark judgment of Sarla Verma's Case [2009 (6) Scale 129] and various other judgments. For calculating the Loss of Dependency, the Tribunal has to determine various factors i.e. Age of the deceased, Income of the deceased and Multiplier applicable.
As far as the age of the deceased is concerned, as per petition she was 66 years old at the time of the accident as per her passport. She was house wife. Therefore, in view of the judgment of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Manmeet Singh 2012 ACJ 721, the value of gratuitous services should be considered as nil when the home maker is above 65 years of age, as in the present case, hence, no claim is made out for loss of income.
In view of the decision of above mentioned issue, the total compensation in favour of the petitioners i.e. LR's of deceased Smt. Veena Chopra, is calculated as under :
1) LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION = Rs. 1,00,000/
2) LOSS OF CONSORTIUM = Rs. 1,00,000/
3) FUNERAL EXPENSES = Rs. 25,000/
4) LOSS OF ESTATE = Rs. 10,000/
5) MEDICAL BILLS, PHYSIOTHERAPY AND CONVEYANCE CHARGES = Rs. 57,83,824/
6) ATTENDANT CHARGES = Rs. 97,500/
7) SPECIAL DIET = Rs. 50,000/ Rs. 61,66,324/ ============ Page No. 34 of 39 Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
R E L I E F
54. In view of my findings on issues, I award a sum of Rs. 61,66,324/ which is rounded off to Rs. 61,66,400/ (Rupees Sixty One Lacs Sixty Six Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Four only) to the petitioners i.e. Legal Heirs of deceased as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization of the amount.
: RELEASE OF THE AWARDED AMOUNT : In the share of Petitioners :
55. Having regard to the relation, age, life expectancy, financial condition, and his future requirements, the above mentioned amount along with proportionate interest thereon, is being awarded to the petitioners in the following phased manner to secure their future interest such as future income etc.: Sl. Petitioners Principal Amount entitled with Amount to be Duration No. Relation proportionate interest converted into FDR present Age 1 Sh. Rajinder Kumar Rs.6,66,400/ Rs. 5,00,000/ 10 yrs.
Chopra (interest shall be
payable on monthly
basis to the account
holder)
Sh. Rakesh Chopra Rs.55 Lacs (as most of the expenses In the form of Cheque
were admittedly made by Sh. Rakesh or Demand draft. 2 CHopra) L I A B I L I T Y
56. In the present case, as decided in Issue No.1 it could not be decided as to whether it was Sh. Suraj Sehrawat i.e. Respondent No.1 or Sh. Rajesh Page No. 35 of 39 Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
@ Raja who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, but the testimony of Sh. Rajesh @ Raja is there on record, wherein he admitted that it was him who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. In my opinion for deciding these proceedings i.e. for the purpose of determining the compensation, it is not necessary to decide as to who was driving the vehicle, as the manner of accident has already been proved as decided in Issue No.1 and negligence on the part of the driver of BMW car also stands established as he was driving the vehicle in excessive speed therefore, respondent No.2 being the owner of the offending vehicle, becomes, vicariously liable to compensate the petitioner. It is an admitted position on record that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.3, therefore, respondent no. 3 becomes contractually to indemnify the owner. It is submitted on behalf of the insurance company that even as per the charge sheet it was respondent No.1 who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and he was not holding the DL , therefore, recovery right should be given to the Insurance company for breach of policy on the part of respondent No.2. As stated earlier , it could not be established on record that respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle and in view of the admission of Sh. Rajesh @ Raja who was holding a valid driving license, it cannot be said that there was breach of policy on the part of Respondent No.
2. Needless to say that present case was taken up by the media at the relevant time and the chances of developing a wrong opinion about the Page No. 36 of 39 Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
identity of the driver cannot be ruled out and that is why the Ld. CJM Gurgaon, in its order dated 17.05.2012 emphasized for scientific investigation / evidence for establishing the identity of the accused and it is also an admitted position that blood samples were taken and car seats containing the blood stains were sent to CFL Madhuban for the said purpose which was still to be received till the filing of the charge sheet meaning thereby that even in criminal case it could not be established till now on the basis of scientific evidence, that it was Sh. Suraj Sehrawat who was driving the offending vehicle, therefore, as far as recovery rights are concerned I do not deem it fit to keep this matter pending for deciding the issue of recovery rights as it may take longer time, therefore, I leave this question open for the insurance company to claim their recovery rights by filing a suit against the owner in case some clinching/ scientific evidence comes on record. Therefore, I hold respondent No.3 liable to compensate the petitioner with the awarded compensation at this stage. The issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent No.3.
57. Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
In consonance to the idea conceptualized and formulated in various land mark judgments of our own Hon'ble High Court, by which part of the awarded amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit / savings account by Hon'ble high Court, Insurance Company is directed to deposit the awarded Page No. 37 of 39 Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
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 the respondent no.3 shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
58. 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.
(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, Page No. 38 of 39 Veena Chopra Vs. Suraj Sherawat & Ors.
New Delhi.
(x) The bank is also directed to get the nomination form filled by the claimants at the time of preparation of FDRs.
(xi) The bank is also directed to keep the money received from the insurance company in an FDR in the name of the bank till the FDRs are prepared in the name of the claimants, so that the benefit of better interest may be given to the claimants for the said period. DIRECTIONS FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANY/RESPONDENT No.3:
59. The Respondent no.3 is directed to file the compliance report of its having deposited the awarded amount with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch in this tribunal within a period of 30 days from today.
60. The respondent no.3 shall intimate to the claimants / petitioners about its 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.
61. Copy of this award / judgment be given to the parties for compliance.
62. The case is now fixed for compliance by the insurance company for 07.07.2016.
Announced in the Open Court
on 31st May 2016 (NAVEEN ARORA)
Presiding Officer : MACT
South Distt. : Saket Courts
New Delhi
Page No. 39 of 39