Delhi District Court
Sh. Kanhaiya Lal S/O Sh. Ram Badai vs Sh.Baljit Singh S/O Sh. Maha Singh on 4 June, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SHRI GURVINDER PAL SINGH
JUDGE,MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL(WEST)
TIS HAZARI COURTS,DELHI
Suit No. 150/08(New )
Old No. 65/07
Unique ID No. 02404C0060132007
1.Sh. Kanhaiya Lal s/o Sh. Ram Badai
r/o A67, Vikas Kunj, Vikas Nagar,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
2.Smt. Chhatti Devi w/o Sh. Kanhaiya Lal
r/o A67, Vikas Kunj, Vikas Nagar,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi
......Petitioners/Claimants
Versus
1.Sh.Baljit Singh s/o Sh. Maha Singh
r/o 360, Vill. Laadpur, Bawana, Delhi(owner)
2.The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Regd. Office at : A25/27, Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi 02(Insurer)
3.Sh. Gulab Singh s/o Sh. Surat Singh
R/o 146, Nangal Thakran, P.S. Bawana, Delhi (driver)
.....Respondents
Date of filing of the petition : 03/02/07
When reserved for judgment : 01/06/10
Date of final judgment/award : 04/06/10.
Appearances :
For claimants/ petitioners : Sh. Rishi Saini Advocate
Seat J.J Board, Mukherjee
Nagar, Delhi.
For respondent No.2 : Sh. Lalit Kumar Dhingra Adv.
37, CSCB (P) Market,
Pitam Pura, Delhi.
For respondents no.1&3 : Sh. Hari Om Gupta Advocate
T51, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Consolidated cases bearing :
(Suit No. 150/08 (New) and Suit no. 139/08(New)) Page1/16
Suit No. 139/08(New )
Old No. 66/07
Unique ID No. 02404C0060112007
1.Sh.Bhola Kushwaha s/o Sh.Nathuni Kushwaha r/o A64, Gupta Enclave, Uttam Nagar, Vikas Nagar, Vikas Kunj, New Delhi.
2.Smt. Parwati Kushwaha w/o Sh. Bhola Kushwaha r/o A64, Gupta Enclave, Uttam Nagar, Vikas Nagar, Vikas Kunj, New Delhi.
......Petitioners/Claimants Versus
1. Sh.Baljit Singh s/o Sh. Maha Singh r/o 360, Vill. Laadpur, Bawana, Delhi(owner)
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Regd. Office at : A25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 02(insurer)
3. Sh. Gulab Singh s/o Sh. Surat Singh R/o 146, Nangal Thakran, P.S. Bawana, Delhi (driver) .....Respondents Date of filing of the petition : 03/02/07 When reserved for judgment : 01/06/10 Date of final judgment/award : 04/06/10.
Appearances : For claimants/ petitioners : Sh. Rishi Saini Advocate Seat J.J Board, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi.
For respondent No. 2 : Sh. Lalit Kumar Dhingra Adv.
37, CSCB (P) Market, Pitam Pura, Delhi.
For respondents no.1 &3 : Sh. Hari Om Gupta Advocate T51, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Consolidated cases bearing : (Suit No. 150/08 (New) and Suit no. 139/08(New)) Page2/16 JUDGMENT/ AWARD Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off two claim petitions bearing (1) Suit No. 150/08(New) and 65/07(Old) and (2)Suit No. 139/08(New) and 66/07 (Old), since these two claim petitions have been consolidated in terms of order dated 29/08/08 of my Ld. Predecessor as they had arisen out of the same accident which had taken place on 22/10/06, while the claim petition Suit No. 150/08(New) has been treated as main case and the evidence recorded in petition Suit No. 150/08(New) is to be read as evidence in the leading case as well.
2. In the claim petition bearing Suit No. 139/08(New), the petitioners have claimed Rs. 10,00,000/(Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) vide claim petition u/s 160/140 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, as compensation for the fatal injuries received by Sh.Ranjit Kushwaha
3. In the claim petition bearing Suit no. 150/08(New), the petitioners have claimed Rs.18,00,000/(Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Only)vide claim petition u/s 160/140 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988,as compensation for the fatal injuries received by Sh. Anish Kumar.
4. Brief resume of the facts of the claim petition is as follows. On 22/10/06, Sh. Anish Kumar, now deceased was driving scooter No. DL4SH 8382, having on pillion seat his neighbour boy Sh. Ranjeet Kumar near Ganda Nala, opposite ply factory, Tilak Enclave, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. Then light goods vehicle No. DL1LD5700, driven by respondent no.3 in fast speed, rashly and negligently came from back side hit the said scooter. Sh. Anish and Sh Ranjeet fell down. Both suffered crush injuries and expired at the spot.
5. Respondents no.1,2 & 3 are the owner, insurer and driver of the offending vehicle respectively.
6. All respondents were summoned and served.
Consolidated cases bearing : (Suit No. 150/08 (New) and Suit no. 139/08(New)) Page3/16
7. All the respondents filed the written statements and denied the claim of the petitioner.
8. Respondent No.2, insurer has however, admitted the fact that vehicle No. DL1LD5700,was insured with it vide policy no. 271901/31/2006/5603 valid from 16/03/06 to 15/03/07. In the filed written statement, the insurer has no where taken any specific plea of any breach of any term or condition of the policy by respondent no.1, insured/vehicle owner nor has filed any document on record to show of the driving license of respondent No.1 issued from Faridabad (Haryana) to be not genuine, or it was a fake document, by placing on record any material from licensing authority of Faridabad.
9. Vide order dated 28/02/08 of my Ld. Predecessor in Suit No. 150/08 (New),the petitioners were awarded interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/ with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization and following issues were also framed:
1.Whether the deceased Anish Kumar had sustained fatal injuries on 22.10.2006 at about 7.30 a.m. near Ganda Nala Ply Factory, Tilak Enclave, Uttam Nagar, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of respondent Sh. Gulab Singh while driving vehicle bearing registration no. DL1LD5700?
2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3.Relief.
10. Vide order dated 28/02/08 of my Ld. Predecessor in Suit No. 139/08 (New),the petitioners were awarded interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/ with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization and following issues were also framed: Consolidated cases bearing : (Suit No. 150/08 (New) and Suit no. 139/08(New)) Page4/16
1.Whether the deceased Ranjit Kushwaha had sustained fatal injuries on 22.10.2006 at about 7.30 a.m. near Ganda Nala Ply Factory, Tilak Enclave, Uttam Nagar, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of respondent Sh. Gulab Singh while driving vehicle bearing registration no. DL1LD5700?
2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief
11. Petitioner Sh. Kanhiya Lal as PW1; petitioner Sh. Bhola Kushwaha as PW2 and Sh. Hira Lal as PW3 are the examined petitioner witnesses.
12. Since respondent evidence was not led despite opportunity given, initially, it was closed on 02/06/09. Later on request, the respondents were permitted to lead respondent's evidence.
13. Insurer, respondent No.2 examined solitary respondent witness R2W1 Sh. Veer Narayan Singh, who in his statement has proved the computerized copy of the permit record of vehicle no. DL1LD5700 as Ex. R2W1/A stating that as on 22/10/06, the date of accident the said vehicle was having valid permit.
14. I have heard submissions of Ld. counsel for the petitioner, Ld. proxy counsel for respondents No.1 & 3, but no arguments were addressed by Ld. counsel for respondent no.2 despite opportunity nor he filed any written arguments. I have perused the record and given my thoughts to the contentions put forth. My issue wise findings are as under: COMMON ISSUE NO.1 [ in Suit No. 150/08(New) and Suit No. 139/08(New)]
15. PW3 Sh.Heera Lal testified that on the fateful morning at the place of occurrence, he saw on two wheeler scooter no. DL4SAH8382 the deceased persons. Then a tempo bearing No. DL1LD5700, driven by Consolidated cases bearing : (Suit No. 150/08 (New) and Suit no. 139/08(New)) Page5/16 respondent no.3 at high speed, rashly and negligently hit said scooter. The boys sustained injuries and people gathered there. Later, PW3 came to know that boys had expired.
16. Neither respondent No.3 has entered in the witness box to testify in contrary to the version of PW3. There is nothing on record to discard or disbelieve the testimony of PW3 either in toto or in particular.
17. A driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle is under bounden duty to observe necessary caution for not striking other vehicles, persons on road. Having failed to observe such necessary care and caution, being oblivious of said duty, respondent No.1 was berserk locomotion since he caused fatal injuries to the deceased after striking their scooter from back side. Respondent No.1 was thus negligent.
18. The version of PW3 is lent corroboration by the version emanating from the certified copy of the chargesheet, Ex. C1(colly)against respondent no.3 of case FIR No. 1006/06, P.S. Uttam Nagar u/s 279/304A IPC, in terms of which the investigating agency opined that the respondent No.3 has committed the said offences and was responsible for the death of the deceased Sh. Ranjeet Kushwaha and Sh. Anish Kumar caused by his rash and negligent driving of said vehicle in question.
19. In terms of the certified copy of the post mortem on the body of Sh. Ranjit Kushwaha , the cause of death opined is ' crush injury of head'.'
20. In terms of the certified copy of the post mortem on the body of Sh. Anish Kumar , the cause of death opined is ' crush injury of head'.
21. Aforesaid discussions lead me to the conclusion that the petitioners have been able to prove that deceased sustained fatal injuries due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3. Issue No.1 is decided in favour of the Consolidated cases bearing : (Suit No. 150/08 (New) and Suit no. 139/08(New)) Page6/16 petitioners and against the respondents in both claim petitions. ISSUE NO. 2 IN SUIT NO. 150/08(NEW) & 65/07(OLD)
22. The appropriate method of calculating the compensation in fatal cases is multiplier method. In catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held that in India the multiplier method is appropriate for calculation of compensation. It was so enunciated by their Lordship Wright in "Davies Vs. Powell Duffregn Associated Collieries Ltd" reported in 1942 AC601, that the appropriate method to calculate compensation is the multiplier method. In the cases of 'General Manager, Kerela State Road Transport Corporation, Trivendram Vs Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) & Ors', (1994) 2 SCC 176; ( 2 ) 'Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd. Vs K.I. Bindu & Ors'. (2005) 8SCC 473; (3) 'Gobald Motor Service Ltd. & Anr Vs RMK Veluswami & Ors', AIR 1962 SC 1, (4)Syed Basheer Ahamad & Ors. V Mohd Jameel and Anr'. in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2009, decided by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06/01/2009 and (5) Smt. Sarla Verma & ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr, reported in III (2009) ACC 708 (SC), decided by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15/04/09, the payment of compensation in lump sum to legal representatives of deceased by multiplier method has been approved.
23. Starting point for calculating amount of compensation to be paid to dependents of deceased in a motor accident claim is the amount of monthly income which the deceased was earning; then there is an estimate of what was required for his personal and living expenses. The balance will generally be turned into lump sum by taking certain number of years of purchase. The choice of multiplier is ascertained by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant whichever is higher.
Consolidated cases bearing : (Suit No. 150/08 (New) and Suit no. 139/08(New)) Page7/16 THE MULTIPLICAND
24. As per, Ex. PW1/1, the copy of CBSE Certificate of Delhi Secondary School Examination, 2004, the deceased Sh. Anish Kumar was a matriculate having date of birth 20/02/87. He was of age 19 years 8 months as on the date of accident. I take the age of the deceased Sh. Anish Kumar, below 20 years accordingly.
25. PW1, the father of the deceased testified that the deceased Sh. Anish Kumar was an Agent with M/s Peerless General Finance & Investment Company Ltd., earning Rs. 3500/ per month. On record, the identity card slip for agent, Ex. PW1/2 issued by M/s Peerless General Finance & Investment Company Ltd has been proved. No cogent evidence has been led for such claimed monthly earnings of the deceased. Even the minimum wages of a matriculate person as notified by Delhi Government as on the date of accident were Rs. 3760/. There is no occasion to disbelieve PW1 on the count of the monthly earnings of the deceased as claimed monthly earnings are well below the minimum wages of the matriculate person. I take the monthly earnings of the deceased Sh. Anish Kumar as Rs. 3500/ per month.
26. Since the deceased Sh. Anish Kumar was agent of Peerless General Finance & Investment Company Ltd. , self employed, not having any permanent job, in terms of law laid in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & ors (supra), I take the actual income Rs. 3500/ of the deceased as his monthly earnings.
27. Petitioner no.1, PW1, the father of the deceased Sh. Anish Kumar deposed that he was working as Plumber and earning person. Accordingly, petitioner no.2, the mother of the deceased was sole dependent on the earnings of the deceased.
Consolidated cases bearing : (Suit No. 150/08 (New) and Suit no. 139/08(New)) Page8/16
28. In terms of law laid in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors (supra), 50% deduction is to be made from the monthly income of deceased for his personal and living expenses. The said deduction is Rs. 1750/ (50% of Rs. 3500/). The monthly loss of dependency is accordingly Rs. 1750/(Rs. 3500/ less Rs. 1750/).
MULTIPLIER
29. As per the copy of ration card, the year of birth of petitioner no.2, the mother of the deceased was 1962 and she was of age 44 years plus as on the date of accident. Petitioner no.1, the father of the deceased as per the copy of Identity Card of Election Commission of India was of age 44 years plus as on the date of accident.
30. In terms of law laid in the case of New India Assurance Co. Limited Vs. Shanti Pathak & Ors, reported in III(2007)ACC 505(SC), the multiplier is to be adopted on the basis of age of deceased or that of claimant whichever is higher.
31. In terms of the law laid by the Apex Court in case of ' Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors (Supra), as per the age of 44 years of mother of deceased, as on the date of accident, the multiplier of 14( for the age group of 41years to 45 years) is to be applied in this case. Accordingly the total loss of dependency to claimants/ petitioners would be Rs. 2,94,000/ (Rs. 1750/ x 12x 14). COMPENSTION FOR LOSS OF ESTATE
32. In terms of law laid by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors (Supra), the claimants are entitled to sum of Rs. 10,000/ under the head of loss of estate.
COMPENSATION TOWARDS FUNERAL EXPENSES
33. In view of the law laid by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Consolidated cases bearing : (Suit No. 150/08 (New) and Suit no. 139/08(New)) Page9/16 Verma & Ors (Supra) , the claimants are entitled to Rs. 5,000/ under this head. COMPENSATION FOR LOVE AND AFFECTION.
34. No amount would suffice to compensate the loss of love and affection to petitioners. Yet, relying upon the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. R. Midha in case of ' Rajesh Tyagi & ors Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors as FAO No. 842/2003, orders dated 08/05/09, the claimants, two in number, are entitled to sum of Rs. 10,000/ each i.e., totalling Rs. 20,000/ as loss of love and affection.
35. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation to which the petitioners are entitled to comes as under:
1.Compensation for Loss of dependency Rs. 2,94,000/
2.Compensation for loss of estate Rs. 10,000/
3.Compensation for funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/
4.Compensation for love and affection Rs. 20,000/ _____________ Rs. 3,29,000 Less Interim Compensation Rs. 50,000/ Balance payable sum _____________ Rs. 2,79,000/ _____________
36. In view of the above discussions, Issue No.2 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. Petitioners are, thus, entitled to Rs. 2,79,000/ as compensation alongwith interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization from the respondents. ISSUE NO. 2 IN SUIT NO. 139/08(NEW) & 66/07(OLD)
37. Petitioners have not led any cogent evidence in respect of the age of the deceased. In the post mortem report, the age of the deceased mentioned is 14 years. PW2 testified that the deceased was a student of class 5th for which he has placed on record as Ex. PW2/1, copy of marks obtained in first terminal Consolidated cases bearing : (Suit No. 150/08 (New) and Suit no. 139/08(New)) Page10/16 test of September,2006 with the mention of the deceased being student of th class 5 . I take the age of the deceased as 14 years as mentioned in the post mortem report.
38. As per copy of identity cards of Election Commission of India, the father of the deceased was of age 39 years and petitioner no.2, the mother of the deceased was of age 32 years as on the date of accident.
39. Relying upon the cases of (1) National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Farzana, MAC Appeal No. 13/2007, decided on 14/07/09; (2)Manju Devi Vs. Musafir Paswan, reported in VII(2005) SLT 257;(3) Sobhagya Devi Vs. Sukhvir Singh, reported in II (2006) ACC 1997; (4)Syam Narayan Vs. Kitty Tours & Travels, reported in 2006 ACJ 320;(5) R. K. Malik Vs. Kiran Pal, reported in II(2006) ACC 261 and (6) R. K. Malik Vs. Kiran Pal, reported in 2009(8) Scale 451 (Supreme Court); it was held by Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.R. Midha in the cases of (1)Jitender Kumar & Anr Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd & Anr, MAC Appeal No. 68/2009, decided on 31/07/09 and (2) Sri Ram & Anr. Vs. Surender Yadav & Ors, MAC Appeal No. 627/08, decided on 04/09/09 that the parents of the minor deceased are entitled for Rs.2,25,000/ towards pecuniary damages(as loss of dependency) following the Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act,1988(after taking notional income of nonearning minor deceased as Rs. 15,000/ per annum and applying the multiplier of 15); Rs. 75,000/ towards non pecuniary damages (stated non pecuniary damages include such immeasurable elements as pain and suffering and loss of amenity and enjoyment of life) and Rs. 75,000/ towards future prospects.
40. The deceased in the present case was minor boy of age 14 years of age. This case is also squarely covered by the ratio decisis of the judgments Consolidated cases bearing : (Suit No. 150/08 (New) and Suit no. 139/08(New)) Page11/16 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. R. Midha, elicited above, which in the case of Jitender Kumar & Anr (supra) related to the death of road accident victim who was 3 years old child. In the case of Sri Ram & Anr(supra), the age of the claimant, father of the deceased minor, was 58 years at the time of accident. Therein the Tribunal had applied the multiplier of 8 which was enhanced to 15 by the Appellate Court.
41. In terms of above said law laid, the petitioners/ claimants viz., parents of the deceased minor boy in this case are also accordingly entitled for Rs. 2,25,000/ as pecuniary damages( as loss of dependency) following the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act(after taking notional income of non earning minor deceased as Rs. 15,000/ per annum and applying the multiplier of 15); Rs. 75,000/ towards non pecuniary damages and Rs. 75,000/ towards future prospects of the deceased child. The total compensation for which the petitioners/claimants are entitled, comes to Rs. 3,75,000/ accordingly. Out of the same, interim award sum of Rs. 50,000/ has to be reduced. Balance payable compensation sum is Rs. 3,25,000/.
42. In view of the above discussions, issue No.2 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. Petitioners are thus, entitled to Rs. 3,25,000/,as compensation alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of notice of deposit to the claimants with a copy to their counsel against receipt, from the respondents, payable by the insurer.
RELIEF IN SUIT NO. 150/08(New) & 65/07(Old)
43. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that petitioners are entitled to Rs. 2,79,000/ as compensation alongwith interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of notice of deposit to Consolidated cases bearing : (Suit No. 150/08 (New) and Suit no. 139/08(New)) Page12/16 the claimants with a copy to their counsel against receipt from the respondents, payable by respondent no.2 insurer. RELIEF IN SUIT NO. 139/08(New) & 66/07(Old)
44. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,25,000/, as compensation with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of notice of deposit to the claimants with a copy to their counsel against receipt from the respondents, payable by respondent no.2,insurer APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION IN SUIT NO. 150/08(New)&65/07 (Old)
45. Since the interim award has been equally shared by the parents of the deceased, the petitioner no.2, the mother of the deceased , sole dependent on earnings of deceased is entitled for the entire balance award sum. APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION IN SUIT NO. 139/08(New)&66/07 (Old)
46. The award sum is apportioned in equal shares between the claimants/ petitioners.
47. Since the amount awarded should not be frittered away by beneficiaries owing to the ignorance, illiteracy etc., the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled 'G. M. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas' reported in 1994(2) SCC 176, has laid guidelines pronouncing that in a case of compensation for death, it is appropriate that Tribunals do keep in mind the principles enunciated by this court in 'Union Carbide Corporation Vs. Union of India', 1991(4) SCC 584, in the matter of appropriate investments to safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptible to exploitation. Guidelines inter alia included of investment of share of the claimants in FDRs in Consolidated cases bearing : (Suit No. 150/08 (New) and Suit no. 139/08(New)) Page13/16 nationalized banks with conditions that bank will not permit any loan or advance on the fixed deposits and interest on the amount invested is paid monthly / periodically directly to the claimant and such investment may be made in more than one fixed deposit. In case of any exigency, claimants are at liberty to apply to Tribunal for withdrawal of such investment. INVESTMENT OF AWARD SUM IN SUIT NO. 150/08(new) & 65/07(Old)
48. In terms thereof, out of the award amount, 50% amount of petitioner No. 2, mother of the deceased be invested in shape of three FDRs of equal (almost) in the name of the said claimant/ petitioner for a period of 7years in State Bank of India. However, petitioner/claimant is at liberty to take steps for premature encashment in case of exigency, as per law laid before this Tribunal.
INVESTMENT OF AWARD SUM IN SUIT NO. 139/08(new) & 66/07(Old)
49. In terms thereof, out of the award amount, 50% payable to petitioners be invested in shape of two FDRs of equal (almost) sum in the name of the said claimants / petitioners for a period of seven years in State Bank of India.
50. State Bank of India,Tis Hazari, has agreed to open Special Fixed Deposit Account for the victims of road accidents.
51. Aforesaid fixed deposits are to be made by State Bank of India, Tis Hazari in the following manner: (1) The State Bank of India,Tis Hazari, shall open separate Savings Accounts in the name of claimants and the entire interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits be credited in the said accounts. The fixed deposits shall be automatically renewed till the period prescribed by the court. Consolidated cases bearing : (Suit No. 150/08 (New) and Suit no. 139/08(New)) Page14/16 (2) The interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits shall be paid monthly by automatic credit of interest in the Saving Accounts. (3) Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to the claimants after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card /Pass Books with attested photographs to claim to facilitate their identity.
(4) No cheque book be issued to the claimant without the permission of this Court.
(5) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
(6) The original FDRs shall be retained by the Bank in the Safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the claimants alongwith the photocopy of the FDRs. (7) The original Fixed Deposit Receipts shall be handed over to the claimants at the end of the fixed deposit period. (8) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said FDRs without the permission of this Court.
(9) On the request of the claimants, the Bank shall transfer the Saving Account to any other branch of State Bank of India according to the convenience of the claimants.
52. In terms of directions contained in case of UOI Vs. Nanisiri, in MAC Appeal No. 682/2005, order dated 13/01/2010, of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. R. Midha, Respondents No.2, Insurance Company is directed to directly deposit the award sum with ,State Bank of India (SBI), Tis Hazari within 30 days through its nodal officer Mr. H.S. Rawat, Relationship Manager, Tis Hazari Branch (Mb: 09717044322) and the Manager concerned of SBI, Tis Hazari Consolidated cases bearing : (Suit No. 150/08 (New) and Suit no. 139/08(New)) Page15/16 Court to release the said amount by transferring the same to the Saving Bank Account of the victims /claimants. Insurance Company to also file proof of deposit of award sum, also within said period. Manager SBI, Tis Hazari to also furnish compliance report within 15 days of deposit of award sum. Claimants to do the necessary formalities in respect of the bank account(s). Ahlmad to keep the copy of Award in a miscellaneous file for awaiting compliance report from all concerned, which be put up on 19/07/10.
Inquiry file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court (Gurvinder Pal Singh)
today i.e.04/06/10 Judge, MACT(West)
Delhi.
Consolidated cases bearing :
(Suit No. 150/08 (New) and Suit no. 139/08(New)) Page16/16