Delhi District Court
Sunil Kumar vs . Bindu Singh on 14 March, 2012
Sunil Kumar Vs. Bindu Singh
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJIV JAIN : PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT 02
SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
In Suit No. 360/10
Sunil Kumar
S/o Nanak Chand
R/o H. No. 631, Sector2,
R. K. Puram, New Delhi.
Also at :
A453, Jhuggi Dr. Ambedkar Basti
Sector1, R. K. Puram, New Delhi.
( through his wife Mrs Rekha
Since Injured/petitioner went in coma after the accident).
...Petitioner
Versus
1. Bindu Singh
S/o Sh. Mohan Singh
R/o Village Devda P.S Kutumba
District Aurangabad, State Bihar.
Also at
C/o Sh. Krishan Dutt Rana
H. No. 860, House Near Post Office,
Bijaswan, New Delhi. (Driver)
Suit No. : 360/10 1/24
Sunil Kumar Vs. Bindu Singh
2
2. Kishori Lal
S/o Shiv Charan
C/o Sh. Krishan Dutt Rana
H. No. 860, House Near Post Office,
Bijwasan, New Delhi. (Owner)
3. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Branch office 311502
2nd Floor, Mother House, Yusuf Sarai
Commercial Complex, Gulmohar Enclave,
New Delhi49. (Insurer)
...Respondents
Date of Institution : 09.11.05
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 21.02.12
Date of pronouncement : 14.03.12.
J U D G M E N T :
1. This petition U/s 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by Sunil Kumar through his wife Mrs. Rekha claiming a compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/ for the injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 15.08.05 at about 5.30 p.m. at Vivekanand Marg T Point, Church Road, Sector1, R. K. Puram, New Delhi.
Suit No. : 360/10 2/24
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that on 15.08.2005 at about 5.30 p.m he was going to R. K. Puram from Church Road. When he reached Viveknand Marg T Point, Sector1, R. K. Puram, a Canter Eicher bearing no. HR38 BG6624 came from the side of Hyatt Hotel and hit him. It was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Due to the forceful impact, he sustained head injuries. He became unconscious. He was taken to Safdarjung hospital by one Mam Chand . He went in 'Coma'. A case was registered vide FIR No. 432/05 at the P.S. R. K. Puram. It was stated that the offending vehicle was owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no.3 . It was stated that the petitioner is not able to take food of his own. He was given liquid diet through the pipe passing from his nose. The doctors have not been able to decide whether he will survive or not. It is stated that the petitioner has a family comprising of his wife, two daughters, old age parents,unmarried sister and brother. It is stated that the petitioner has incurred heavy expenditure on his treatment.
3. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. Respondent no.1 and 2 chose not to appear and they are proceeded exparte. Respondent no. 3 filed its written statement wherein it denied the averments made in the petition. However, it admitted that the vehicle was insured with it vide policy Suit No. : 360/10 3/24 Sunil Kumar Vs. Bindu Singh 4 no. 311502/31/05/03595 and it was valid from 08.08.05 to 07.08.06 in the name of respondent no. 2.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 17.10.07 :
1. Whether injured Sunil Kumar had received injuries in motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no.
HR38BG6624 by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no. 3 on 15.08.05? ....OPP
2. If Issue no. 1 is proved in affirmative whether petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if yes from whom and to what amount?....OPP
3. Relief.
5. Parties were thereafter, called upon to substantiate their case by leading their evidence.
6. The petitioner Sunil Kumar appeared in witness box as PW1. He filed his affidavit Ex. PW1/X and the documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/252. He reiterated the facts as stated in the petition. He also examined Manoj Kumar, Suit No. : 360/10 4/24 Sunil Kumar Vs. Bindu Singh 5 Record Clerk, Safdarjung Hospital as PW2, Sh. Mam Chand, an eye witness as PW3, HC Mohd Mehboob Alam as PW4, Sh. Madan as PW5, Dr. Sidarth Diwan as PW6, Sh. Nanak Chand as PW7, Inspector Jagdish Chand as PW8, Smt. Rekha as PW9, Dr. Gul Motwani as PW10, Dr. D. R. Tripathi as PW11 and HC Vijender Singh as PW12. Respondent no. 3 also examined Sh. Vijay Prakash Bara as R3W1. Dr. Rohit Kumar was also examined as court witness.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. counsel Sh. Partap Singh for the petitioner and Sh. Santosh Tiwari for respondent No. 3.
8. It was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was 35 years of age at the time of accident. He had been working in BSF and drawing a salary of Rs. 13,147/ per month plus HRA but after the accident he was removed from service and now he is on pension. Ld. Counsel stated that the petitioner has a permanent disability of 98%. He cannot move from one place to another. He has been on diapers and using the pot. He has incurred heavy expenditure on his treatment, special diet and conveyance.
9. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 argued that driving licence allegedly Suit No. : 360/10 5/24 Sunil Kumar Vs. Bindu Singh 6 produced by respondent no.1 was not valid. He was issued notice U/o 12 Rule 8 CPC. His licence was for light motor vehicle only and vehicle involved in the present case was a commercial vehicle. Ld. Counsel stated that since it is the case of violation of terms and conditions of the policy, the petitioner is not entitled to compensation from respondent no. 3.
10. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. My findings on the issues are as follows :
I S S U E N O. 1
11. 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 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 has simply to quantify the compensation which is just rational and reasonable on the basis of enquiry. 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 Suit No. : 360/10 6/24 Sunil Kumar Vs. Bindu Singh 7 part of the driver as has been held in Kaushumma Begum and others Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2001 ACJ 421 SC.
12. PW1 has stated that on 15.08.05 at about 5.30 p.m he was coming from Church Road and going towards West Block, R. K. Puram. When he reached the middle of the road, a Canter Eicher bearing no. HR38BG6624 came from the side of Hyatt Hotel being driven by respondent no. 1 in rash and negligent manner and hit him. He fell down and sustained head injuries. He became unconscious. A case was registered vide FIR no. 432/05 at PS R. K. Puram. He was removed to Safdarjung Hospital by Mam Chand where his MLC was prepared. The doctor of Safdarjung Hospital declared him in coma and his condition remained critical for long. He was attended by four persons day and night. He placed on record the copy of FIR Ex. PW1/255, charge sheet Ex. PW1/254, site plan Ex. PW1/256, recovery memo of Canter Eicher Ex. PW1/257, cycle Ex. PW1/258, Driving Licence Ex. PW1/259 and arrest memo Ex. PW1/260. PW3 was the eye witness of the case. He stated that on 15.08.05 at about 5.30 p.m, he was standing at the Red Light T point Church Gate, Vivekanand Marg, PW1 was coming from Church Road. He was going toward West Block, R. K. Puram. When he reached the middle of the road, a Canter bearing no. HR38BG6624 came Suit No. : 360/10 7/24 Sunil Kumar Vs. Bindu Singh 8 from the side of Hyatt Hotel being driven in rash and negligent manner and hit him. He sustained head injuries. He was removed to Safdarjung Hospital . He denied that there was no zebra crossing or the signal near the place of accident. He denied that PW1 was trying to cross the road when signal for the passing traffic was green.
On perusal of Charge Sheet Ex. PW1/254, I find that the case was registered on the statement of Mam Chand wherein he had reiterated the facts as deposed by him . Both PW1 and PW3 was crossexamined at length . Nothing came in their crossexamination to draw any inference that the accident did not occur due to the negligent driving by respondent no. 1. Site plan Ex. PW1/256 also corroborates their testimony. The offending vehicle had hit the petitioner at T Point, where he should have slowed down his vehicle in order to rule out the possibility of accident. As the per the discharge summary, there were multiple laceration over occipital region on the person of the petitioner.
13. It is therefore established that respondent no. 1 was driving the offending vehicle i.e a Canter Eicher bearing no. HR38BG6624 on the day of accident in the manner so rash and negligent manner. It is admitted position on record that the offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2 Suit No. : 360/10 8/24 Sunil Kumar Vs. Bindu Singh 9 and insured with respondent No. 3. The issue no. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. I S S U E No. 2
14. The petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/ towards the injuries sustained by him. It is true that when a person is injured in a road accident, he is entitled to the compensation for the pecuniary and non pecuniary damages.
15. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in R.O. Hattangadi V/s Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755 that: "Broadly speaking, while fixing the amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas nonpecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; Suit No. : 360/10 9/24
Sunil Kumar Vs. Bindu Singh 10
(ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as nonpecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters ie. on account of injury, the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit ; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, ie. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
COMPENSATION FOR EXPENSES INCURRED ON MEDICAL TREATMENT :
16. PW1 has stated that due to head injuries sustained in the accident,he became unconscious. The doctor declared him in coma. His condition remained critical for long . He was attended by four persons day and night when he was in coma. After 16 hours, doctor made a hole to give an access to the pipe to be fitted in his wind pipe so that he could breathe properly. He was given liquid diets through his nose. He remained in Safdarjung Hospital till 18.10.05 . Since his condition did not improve, he was shifted to BSF Hospital, R. K. Puram where he remained till 27.04.06. He placed on record discharge summary issued by Safdarjung Hospital Ex. PW1/1 and BSF Hospital Ex. PW1/2. He stated that since his condition was critical, he was Suit No. : 360/10 10/24 Sunil Kumar Vs. Bindu Singh 11 constrained to use diapers and urinal bags. Because of no movement of body, he was not able to cough out and doctor had advised him to use suction pipe to extract the cough from the wind pipe. After discharge, he used to visit Safdarjung hospital for physiotherapy . He again developed throat problem and was admitted in Safdarjung Hospital on 25.04.07. He was discharged on 27.04.07. He placed on record the discharge report Ex. PW1/4. He stated that since he was unable to breathe properly, he was again admitted in Safdarjung Hospital on 02.06.07 and discharged on 22.06.07. He proved the discharge summary Ex. PW1/5. He stated that again he developed problem in his throat and was admitted in Safdarjung Hospital on 10.12.07 and discharged on 15.12.07 vide discharge summary Ex. PW1/6. He developed cataract in his both eyes and was operated on his left eye on 15.10.08 . He also took treatment from Baba Ram Dev Hospital and incurred a sum of Rs. 20,000/ but it resulted in vain. Now he can move from one place to another on wheel chair. He became sexually incapacitated because of accident. He has 98% permanent disability and become unfit to work. He placed on record the medical treatment record Ex. PW1/10 to Ex. PW1/82 and the medical bills Ex. PW1/83 to Ex. PW1/247 and stated that he is confined to bed and cannot move of his own.
PW2 brought the MLC record of the petitioner and stated that he was Suit No. : 360/10 11/24 Sunil Kumar Vs. Bindu Singh 12 admitted in Safdarjung Hospital on 15.08.05. He filed the MLC Ex. PW2/1 and the case sheet Ex. PW2/2 collectively. PW4 brought the discharge summary of the petitioner and stated that he was admitted in BSF Hospital on 18.10.05 and discharged on 27.04.06 vide discharge summary Ex. PW1/2. PW6 Dr. Siddarth Diwan Senior Resident , Department of Ophthomology, Safdarjang Hospital stated that he had examined the petitioner and observed that the petitioner has been suffering from Cataract in both eyes. He operated on the left eye of the petitioner. He stated that other eye also needs operation. He stated that medicines were prescribed by him vide prescription slips Ex. PW1/7. PW10 Senior Specialist, ENT, Safdarjung Hospital proved the discharge summary of the petitioner Ex. PW1/6 , Ex. PW1/5, Ex. PW1/4 and Ex. PW1/20. He stated that petitioner had difficulty in breathing for which a hole was made on the neck for the air pipe. He stated that petitioner was admitted three times and he has been continuing his follow up treatment in the hospital. PW11 proved the disability certificate Ex. PW11/A of the petitioner issued by the Medical Board. CW Dr. Rohit Kumar, Chief Medical Officer is from BSF Hospital. He stated that petitioner has 98% disability. He was breathing through Tracheotomy Tube and neck. He can speak in slurring voice by closing the Tracheotomy Tube. He can now walk with help of walker with difficulty in Suit No. : 360/10 12/24 Sunil Kumar Vs. Bindu Singh 13 coordination of limbs. He stated that it is a case of vegetative existence only.
17. From testimony of above witnesses and medical record , I find that due to injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner has become 98% permanent disabled in relation to his whole body. It is a case of mere vegetative existence. Petitioner has filed bills of Rs.34,359.67/ . Looking into the injuries and day to day need of the petitioner, I am of the view that he might have spent much more. I therefore award Rs. 50,000/ to the petitioner for the expenses incurred on medical treatment and day to day needs i.e on diapers and other items.
COMPENSATION FOR PAIN AND SUFFERINGS AND ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
18. From the testimony of PW 1 and the medical record I find that the petitioner sustained head injury. He remained in 'Coma'. His condition remained critical for a long time. He has 98 % disability in relation to his whole body and his existence is mere vegetative . He cannot move of his own and needs attendant even for using toilet . He used to take breathe through Tracheotomy Tube. He was given liquid diet through the nose . He needs full time attendant. He cannot work independently. Taking into consideration the Suit No. : 360/10 13/24 Sunil Kumar Vs. Bindu Singh 14 injuries and the all the facts, I award a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ towards pain and suffering and enjoyment of life.
COMPENSATION FOR SPECIAL DIET, ATTENDANT CHARGES AND CONVEYANCE CHARGES :
19. The petitioner has sustained head injuries. He has become permanent disabled. His life is now merely a vegetative existence. He needs full time attendant. He cannot walk independently. He was constrained to use diapers and urinal bags. He cannot stand and do work. He remained admitted in hospital for long and number of times. He also went to the hospital for physiotherapy. He took medical treatment from Baba Ram Dev Hosptial. Special diet was advised to him for recovery. Taking into consideration the injuries on his person and his follow up treatment, I award a sum of Rs. 50,000/ towards special diet and conveyance.
The MLC of the petitioner and his physical condition show that he needs full time attendant for his day to day needs and even for performing ordinary pursuits. The petitioner is 35 years of age. Following the ratio of the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 (6) Scale 129, taking the minimum wages as per schedule as Rs. 3165.90 per month the amount towards attendant charges is calculated as Rs. 3165.90 x 12 x 16 = Rs. 6,07,853.00/. Suit No. : 360/10 14/24
Sunil Kumar Vs. Bindu Singh 15 Considering the fact the petitioner has his wife to look after him, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ is awarded to the petitioner towards attendant charges. COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF INCOME/FUTURE INCOME :
20. Testimony of PW1 reveals that at the time of accident, he had been working as Sweeper in BSF. He placed on record his certificate of discharge and recommendation for civil employment Ex. PW1/253. He also examined PW8. He brought the record and stated that the petitioner was ClassIV Staff in the trade of Sweeper in BSF vide certificate of appointment Ex. PW8/1. He has placed the salary slip of the petitioner of June 2005 as per which his gross salary was 6302/ per month . PW8 also brought the service record and the statement of fixation of pay under CCS ( revised pay Rule 2008) Ex. PW8/7. He also filed the pay slip of September 2008 as per which his gross salary was Rs. 13,167/ per month. PW12 has stated that due to physical unfitness, the petitioner was retired from service and is on pension. He placed on record the documents and pension record Ex. PW12/A collectively.
21. On perusal of documents, I find that the petitioner was a permanent employee working in BSF as sweeper since 30.06.96 He had been drawing a salary of Rs. 6,302/ per month plus HRA as on date of accident. He was Suit No. : 360/10 15/24 Sunil Kumar Vs. Bindu Singh 16 35 years of age. He had good future prospects. His salary would have been doubled had he continued in service. Seeing his age, future prospects 50% are taken for calculating loss of income. He has 98% permanent disability in relation to his whole body and he is now a case of mere vegetative existence. Thus, the compensation on account of loss of income due to permanent disability (taking the functional disability as 100% ) is calculated as Rs. 6,302/+50% 6,302 x12x16 which comes to Rs.18,14,976/ which is rounded off to Rs. 18,15,000/. Although his case has been considered for life time pension at the rate of 7400/ per month vide order dated 04.02.11 by the department but it is well settled law that the pension amount is not to be deducted while commutating loss of income on account of permanent disability. Had he been remained in service, he would have prospered and got promotion in due course. His salary would have been revised with the implementation of pay commission report.
22. I, therefore award a sum of Rs. 18,15,000/ to the petitioner towards Loss of Income.
Suit No. : 360/10 16/24
Sunil Kumar Vs. Bindu Singh 17 COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF AMENITIES/ ENJOYMENT OF MARRIED LIFE :
23. The petitioner was 35 years of age at the time of accident. Due to the permanent disability,he would not be able to participate in the normal activities of his daily life to pursue his talents, recreation interest, hobbies and evocations. The injuries would also have an affect on his married life. Looking into his age, injuries and facts and circumstances of the case, I award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ towards loss of amenities.
24. Thus, the total compensation awarded in favour of the petitioners is assessed as under : MEDICAL EXPENSES : Rs. 50,000 / PAIN & SUFFERINGS & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE : Rs. 2,00,000/ SPEICAL DIET, ATTENDANT & CONVEYANCE CHARGES : Rs. 3,50,000/ LOSS OF INCOME /FUTURE INCOME : Rs. 18,15,000/ LOSS OF AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF MARRIED LIFE : Rs. 1,00,000/ ============ TOTAL : Rs. 25,15,000/ Suit No. : 360/10 17/24 Sunil Kumar Vs. Bindu Singh 18 L I A B I L I T Y
25. As the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 1, therefore primary liability to compensate the petitioner is that of respondent No. 1. As the offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2, therefore, he becomes vicariously liable to compensate the petitioner. 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 the petitioner for the above mentioned awarded amount to the extent of liability of the insured.
26. 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 respondent no. 1 using the licence which was valid for LMV however the vehicle involved in the present case is HTV. In support of his contention, he relied on the testimony R3W1.
27. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
28. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled as Lal Chand Vs. Suit No. : 360/10 18/24 Sunil Kumar Vs. Bindu Singh 19 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.
In the instant case respondent No. 3 has examined R3W1, Sh. Vijay Kumar Senior Assistant. He brought the policy Ex. R3W1/1 and the report of the licencing authority R3W1/2 and that of the investigator R3W1/2 and stated that the licence as well as permit was not valid at the time of accident.
As per the policy, the person driving must hold an effective driving licence at the time of accident. As per the report of District Transport Officer, Aurungabad, Bihar the licence of respondent no. 1 was valid for LMV for the period from 29.04.05 to 28.04.08. The offending vehicle in the present case as per the certificate of registration is LTV i.e Light Traffic Vehicle . Thus , the licence possessed by respondent no. 1 at the time of accident was valid for driving this type of vehicle. Even on the policy it is not mentioned that it was in respect of HTV and not for LMV. I do not find any evidence to indicate that after the report of the investigator was received, respondent no. 1 and 2 were given notice U/o 12 Rule 8 CPC to produce the valid and effective licence. I am of the view that the offending vehicle was being driven in Suit No. : 360/10 19/24 Sunil Kumar Vs. Bindu Singh 20 consonance with the terms and conditions of policy and thus the liability is of the respondent no. 3 to compensate the petitioner.
For the foregoing reasons, the respondent no. 3 is directed to pay compensation awarded to the petitioner within the time given in the award.
29. Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent no. 3.
R E L I E F
30. In view of my findings on issues, I award a sum of Rs. 25,15,000/ to the petitioner as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of the amount.
31. Respondent No.2, Insurance Company is directed to pay the awarded amount by way of cheque in favour of the petitioner, to be deposited in this Tribunal, within a period of 45 days of this order failing which Insurance Company shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum on the awarded amount till its realization (for the delayed period).
32. In terms of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in case titled " Rajesh Suit No. : 360/10 20/24 Sunil Kumar Vs. Bindu Singh 21 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.
33. 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.
34. Out of this awarded amount, a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/ be kept by the State Bank of India, Saket Courts, New Delhi in the form of "Fixed Deposit" for a period of five years in the following manner :
(a) A sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ for a period of 2 years.
(b) A sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ for a period of 4 years.
(c) A sum of Rs. 5,00,000./ for a period of 6 years.
(d) A sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ for a period of 8 years.
(i) The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioner / claimant by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank accounts with State Bank Suit No. : 360/10 21/24 Sunil Kumar Vs. Bindu Singh 22 of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
(ii) Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to claimants / petitioner after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to claimant / petitioner to facilitate identity.
(iii) No cheque book be issued to claimant / petitioner 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 claimant / petitioner alongwith the photocopy of the FDR's .
(v) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to claimant / petitioner 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 claimant / petitioner, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
(ix) Claimant / petitioner 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.
35. Copy of this Judgment be given to the parties for compliance. Suit No. : 360/10 22/24
Sunil Kumar Vs. Bindu Singh 23
36. Nazir attached to the Tribunal of undersigned is directed to issue notice to the petitioner immediately on deposit of the cheque of the awarded amount by the Insurance Company in this Tribunal so as to facilitate him to get the same released.
37. File be consigned to Record Room after giving the cheque to the petitioner. Announced in the open court On 14th March 2012.
(SANJIV JAIN ) PO : MACTII : SOUTH DISTT.
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI :
14.03.12.Suit No. : 360/10 23/24
Sunil Kumar Vs. Bindu Singh 24 In Suit No. 360/10 14.03.2012 Present: None.
Vide separate order of even date a compensation of Rs.25,15,000/ with interest @9% 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 14.03.2012 Suit No. : 360/10 24/24