Delhi District Court
Prabhu Nath Prasad vs . Sanjeev Kumar on 20 January, 2015
Prabhu Nath Prasad Vs. Sanjeev Kumar
IN THE COURT OF SH. K S MOHI : PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT
SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
Petition No. : 318/13
Unique case ID : 02406C0327752012
Prabhu Nath Prasad
S/o Sh. Gajesh Prasad
R/o H. No. M38, Dharam Vihar,
Khora Colony (Khora),
P.S. Indira Puram,
Teh. & Distt. Ghaziabad, U.P.
..... Petitioner
Versus
1. Laxman Singh
S/o Sh. Lallu Ram
R/o H. No. 190, Kuhar Colony,
Maidan Garhi, New Delhi
and Permanent R/o Ram Bagh Colony,
Aligarh, U.P. ..... Driver
2. Sanjeev Kumar
S/o Sh. Hirday Singh
R/o Vill. Chitla Saroda,
Mayur Vihar PhaseI,
Delhi - 110 091 ..... Owner
2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
B.O. : (311503)19, Shopping Complex,
Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi - 110 057 ..... Insurer
..... Respondents
Petition No. : 318/13 Page No. 1 of 21
Prabhu Nath Prasad Vs. Sanjeev Kumar
Date of Institution : 17.12.2012
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 20.01.2015
Date of pronouncement : 20.01.2015
J U D G M E N T :
1. This claim petition u/s 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the petitioner for claiming compensation for untimely death of Pardeep Kharwar on 15.09.12 at about 1400 hrs. at Mahipal Pur to Andheria More Road near Car market, Kishan Garh, New Delhi.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.09.12 at about 1400 hrs the deceased was going on his motorcycle bearing no. DL 4S BU 5370 from Vasant Kunj to Okhla to his office. When the deceased reached Mahipal Pur to Andheria More road near Car market, Kishan Garh, New Delhi, then all of a sudden a Truck bearing no. DL 1L G 0643 came at a high speed being driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle of the deceased with great force. Due to the impact, he fell down on the road and sustained injuries. He was taken to Fortis Hospital where during the treatment he died on 16.09.12. His postmortem was conducted at AIIMS Hospital. A case vide FIR no. 289/12 was registered at the police station Vasant Kunj. It is stated that the deceased was 21 years of age. He was an Engineer with M/s Indian Surgical Equipment. He was earning Rs. 20,000/ Petition No. : 318/13 Page No. 2 of 21 Prabhu Nath Prasad Vs. Sanjeev Kumar p.m. It was stated that the offending vehicle was owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3.
3. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents. Pursuant to the notice all the respondents have filed the written statements. Respondent no.1 and 2 denied the contention of the petitioner. Respondent no.3 in its written statement has stated that the offending vehicle was insured with it vide policy no. 311503 311101 00003342 for the period from 26.02.12 to 25.02.13. It however, stated that on 15.09.12 while driving the vehicle bearing no. DL 1L G 0643 the driver was holding a fake licence as per the report of the Investigating Officer and the report procured by the insurance company from the concerned issuing authority. Hence, no liability can be imposed against it.
4. Following issues were framed vide order dated 25.02.2013 :
1. Whether victim Pradeep Kumar suffered fatal injuries in an accident which took place on 15.09.12 at about 2.00 PM due to rash and negligent driving involving vehicle bearing no. DL 1L G 0643 by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3? ..... OPP.
2. Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents?
3. Relief.Petition No. : 318/13 Page No. 3 of 21
Prabhu Nath Prasad Vs. Sanjeev Kumar
5. To substantiate his claim, petitioner examined Sh. Ram Nivas Dubey, Delivery boy in Indian Surgical Equipment Co. Pvt. Ltd. as PW1. He proved the salary slip Ex.PW1/1 and the appointment letter Ex.PW1/2. Petitioner examined himself as PW2. He tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PW2/A. He also relied upon the documents Ex.PW2/1 to Ex.PW2/14. Ms. Rita Srivastava, Manager (Administration) Indian Surgical Equipment Co. Pvt. Ltd. was examined as PW3. She proved the salary slip of the deceased Ex.PW3/1. She also proved the appointment letter Ex.PW3/B. Sh. Ganesh Tiwari, Junior Clerk, RTO Office, Farrukhabad, U.P. was examined as CW1. Respondent no.3 examined Sh. Dinesh Ahuja its Administrative officer as R3W1. He tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.R3W1/1. He also relied upon the documents Ex.R3W1/A and Ex.R3W1/B.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. counsel for the parties. My findings on the issues are as follows :
I S S U E No. 1
7. 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 Petition No. : 318/13 Page No. 4 of 21 Prabhu Nath Prasad Vs. Sanjeev Kumar 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 part of the driver as has been held in Kaushumma Begum and others Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2001 ACJ 421 SC.
8. PW2 has stated that on 15.09.12 at about 1400 hrs. his son was going on his motorcycle bearing no. DL 4S BU 5370 from Vasant Kunj to Okhla. When he reached Mahipal Pur to Andheria More road near Car Market, Kishan Garh, New Delhi, then all of a sudden a Truck bearing no. DL 1L G 0643 (Truck) came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit his bike. The impact was so high that the deceased fell down on the road and sustained injuries. He was removed to Fortis Hospital, Vasant Kunj where his MLC bearing no. 1419 was prepared. During the treatment he died and his postmortem was conducted. He stated that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the respondent no.1. During cross examination he stated that his son was going on the motorcycle of his brother. He had a driving licence Ex.PW2/10. In the instant case the petitioner has filed the certified copy of criminal record. Perusal of FIR shows that the case was registered on the statement of the deceased himself. Mechanical inspection report of the vehicles shows fresh damages. As per the postmortem report the cause of death was haemorrhagic shock Petition No. : 318/13 Page No. 5 of 21 Prabhu Nath Prasad Vs. Sanjeev Kumar as a result of multiple injuries in chest and abdomen. All injuries were antemortem in nature and could be possible in a road traffic accident.
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled ''National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pushpa Rana'' reported as 2009 ACJ 287 has held that whenever criminal proceedings are placed on record on completion of investigation by the police, then that in itself is sufficient proof of the negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle involved in the accident.
On considering the testimony of PW1 coupled with the documents filed on record, it is established that Pradeep Kumar suffered fatal injuries in an accident which took place on 15.09.12 at about 2.00 PM due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no. DL 1L G 0643 by respondent no.1. Documents placed on record would show that the offending vehicle was owned by respondent no. 2 and it was insured with respondent no.3. I S S U E No. 2
9. It has been held in a catena of judgments that emphasis in cases of personal injury and fatal accident should be on awarding substantial, just and fair compensation and not a token amount. General principle in calculating such sum of compensation, should be so as to put the injured or legal heirs of a deceased in case of fatal accident, in the same position as he would have been, if accident had not taken place. The amount of compensation no doubt cannot bring back the dead but it certainly helps the LR's and dependents to live life Petition No. : 318/13 Page No. 6 of 21 Prabhu Nath Prasad Vs. Sanjeev Kumar with dignity and comfort as they were living during the lifetime of the deceased. The amount of compensation is awarded on the basis of age, the earning capacity and other liabilities of the deceased. The appropriate method of calculating compensation in fatal cases is multiplier method. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments has laid down that in India, the multiplier method is proper for calculation of compensation. In order to calculate the amount of compensation, the sum is required to be considered under the various heads :
MEDICAL EXPENSES :
10. In the instant case the petitioner has filed medical bills of Rs. 20,000/ of Fortis Hospital, which amount he has incurred on the deceased for his medical treatment before his death. I award Rs. 20,000/ to the petitioner towards medical expenses.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY :
11. PW2 has stated that the deceased was his son. He was aged 21 years at the time of accident. He was doing private service with M/s Indian Surgical Equipment Co. Pvt. Ltd. and was earning Rs. 20,000/ p.m. PW3 has brought the salary slip of the deceased for the month of June, July land August, 2012 Ex.PW3/1. She stated that the deceased was working as a Service Engineer. He was getting Rs. 17,560/ p.m. He was permanent Petition No. : 318/13 Page No. 7 of 21 Prabhu Nath Prasad Vs. Sanjeev Kumar employee of the company. She has also proved the appointment letter of the deceased Ex.PW3/B. In crossexamination she admitted that whatever documents she has produced in the Court are on the letter head of Indian Surgical Equipment Pvt. Ltd. and have been signed by her. She denied that she does not have any knowledge of the present case and she has signed the documents without any authority from the company. She further denied that she has misused the letter heads of the company. As per the salary slip for the month of August the salary of the deceased was Rs. 17,120/ p.m.
12. In Sunil Sharma & Ors. Vs. Bachitar Singh & Ors. 2011 (3) T.A.C. 629 (S.C.) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the deductions made by the Tribunal on account of HRA, CCA and medical allowance are done on an incorrect basis and should have been taken into consideration in calculation of the income of the deceased. Further deduction towards EPF and GIS should also not have been made in calculating the income of the deceased. In Vishakha & Ors. Vs. Shree Pal & Anr. MAC App. 412 and 518/2011 decided on 03.01.2012 Hon'ble High Court has held that the Tribunal erred in excluding the bonus, conveyance allowance and other allowance from the deceased salary. Thus, the annual income of the deceased for calculating loss of dependency comes to Rs. 2,05,440/ (17,120 x 12). In the case of Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. 2013 (6) Scale 563 it was held as under :
Petition No. : 318/13 Page No. 8 of 21
Prabhu Nath Prasad Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Since, the Court in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Manu/SC/0322/2012, actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) Scale 129 and to make it applicable also to the selfemployed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of selfemployed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Additional should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years.
13. In the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angrej Singh & Ors. MAC App. No. 846/2011 the Hon'ble High Court in its judgment dated 30.09.2013 considered the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 (6) Scale 129, Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Manu/SC/0322/2012, Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Ors. 2013 (5) Scale and Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. 2013 (6) Scale 563, Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vohra Community & Anr. (2005) 2 SCC 673 and held as under :
In view of the above, this Court is guided by the legal principles as set out in Reshma Kumari and Rajesh in order to assess the just compensation as it is envisaged in Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In Reshma Kumar, the Apex Court affirmed the findings of Sarla Verma; and in Rajesh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has agreed with the dictum of Santosh Devi. Specifically, for the assessment of future prospects in respect of the persons falling under the category Petition No. : 318/13 Page No. 9 of 21 Prabhu Nath Prasad Vs. Sanjeev Kumar of selfemployment/fixed wages this court is guided by the dictum laid down in Rajesh. In my considered opinion, there is no contradiction in the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Reshma Kumari and Rajesh.
14. The Hon'ble High Court has also referred the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Raja Ram decided by this Court on 25.08.09 in MAC App. 175/2006 and case of Sajha Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. 2010 ACJ 627 whereby it was held that schedule of minimum wages show wages slightly increases from time to time after every six months; and within next 10 years wages would have become double. Therefore, the increase in the wages has to be taken into consideration while assessing the compensation on account of future prospects.
15. In the present case the deceased was unmarried. As per the PAN Card, the date of birth of the deceased was 16.02.1991. The accident occurred on 15.09.2012. So, he was 21 years of age at the time of accident. Following the case law (supra), 50% are to be added to the income of the deceased for computing future prospects. Adding the future prospects, the annual income comes to Rs. 2,05,440 + 1,02,720 (50% of Rs. 2,05,440/) = Rs. 3,08,160/. It was held in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 (6) Scale 129 that with regard to the bachelor, normally 50 per cent is deducted as personal and living expenses because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there was a possibility of him getting Petition No. : 318/13 Page No. 10 of 21 Prabhu Nath Prasad Vs. Sanjeev Kumar married in a short time, in which time the contribution to the parents would be cut drastically. It was also held that even if the deceased is survived by the parents, only the mother/father would be considered as dependent and 50 per cent would be treated as personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50 per cent as the contribution to the family. After deducting onehalf towards personal and living expenses, the net income for calculating the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1,54,080/.
16. In a recent judgment while disposing of a bunch of appeals, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has dealt with the issue as to whether the multiplier to be ascertained on the basis of age of the deceased or on the basis of age of the claimants?
17. The Hon'ble High Court while referring to a number of judgments including the celebrated judgment titled 'Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009(6) Scale 129' came to the conclusion that in all cases the multiplier as per the age of the deceased shall be applied, irrespective of marital status of the deceased,
18. It has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mohd. Hasnain & Ors. Vs. Jagram Meena & Ors. MAC App. 152/2014 decided on 24.03.2014 that :
The maximum value of the multiplier is fixed as '18', which is Petition No. : 318/13 Page No. 11 of 21 Prabhu Nath Prasad Vs. Sanjeev Kumar fairly representing the purchasing capacity of a victim in a stable economy. In the ascertainment of purchasing capacity of the victim, age of the claimant has no relevant because of the fact that it has no nexus with the assessment of the loss of dependency. Significantly, the Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Ors. 2013 (5) Scale has followed the age of the victim as a factor for selecting the multiplier. Specifically, in the selection of multiplier for the age upto '15' the Apex Court never considered the age of the claimants as a relevant factor. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to adopt a different formula for the victim who is above '15' of age, whereas the relevant factors have been adopted by the Apex Court such as (i) age of the deceased (ii) income of the deceased and
(iii) number of dependents. The Apex Court, while formulating the relevant factors for the assessment of loss of dependency, the age of the claimants never considered as a factor. Finally, in the assessment of dependency, the Courts/Tribunals are computing the purchasing capacity of the deceased; not the claimants. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the age of the victim is proper factor for selecting the correct multiplier.
19. Following the case law (supra) for calculating the loss of dependency, the multiplier is to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. Hence, a multiplier of '18' is taken for calculating the loss of dependency. Using the multiplier of '18', the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1,54,080 x 18 = 27,73,440/ which is rounded off to Rs. 27,73,500/. I therefore, award Rs. 27,73,500/ to the petitioner towards "Loss of Dependency". LOVE AND AFFECTION :
20. Petitioner at this stage of his life has lost his son. The love and care which Petition No. : 318/13 Page No. 12 of 21 Prabhu Nath Prasad Vs. Sanjeev Kumar they could have got from him cannot be measured in terms of money. In view of the law laid down in Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. 2013 (6) Scale 563, I award Rs. 1,00,000/ to the petitioner towards "Love and Affection".
FUNERAL EXPENSES :
21. It was held in the case of "Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. 2013 (6) Scale 563" that the funeral expenses does not mean the fee paid in the Crematorium or fee paid for the use of space in the Cemetery. There are many other expenses in connection with the funeral and if the deceased is follower of any particular religion, there are several religious practices and conventions pursuant to death in a family. All those are quite expense. It will be just, fair and equitable under the head of funeral expenses in the absence of evidence to the contrary for higher expenses, to award at least an amount of Rs. 25,000/. Following the case law (Supra), I award Rs. 25,000/ to the petitioner towards "Funeral Expenses".
LOSS OF ESTATE :
22. I award a sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the petitioner towards "Loss of Estate".
23. The total compensation in favour of the petitioner is calculated as under : Petition No. : 318/13 Page No. 13 of 21 Prabhu Nath Prasad Vs. Sanjeev Kumar
1) MEDICAL EXPENSES = Rs. 20,000/
2) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY = Rs. 27,73,500/
3) LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION = Rs. 1,00,000/
4) FUNERAL EXPENSES = Rs. 25,000/
5) LOSS OF ESTATE = Rs. 10,000/ ============ TOTAL = Rs. 29,28,500/ ============ L I A B I L I T Y
24. As the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1 therefore, primary liability to compensate the petitioner remain with that of respondent no. 1. Since the offending vehicle was also owned by respondent no. 2 so, he is 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 liable to compensate the petitioner for the above mentioned amount.
25. Ld. Counsel for the Insurance company, however, in her quest to have the Insurance company exonerated of its contractual obligation contended that the offending vehicle was being driven by the driver using the fake license. She relied on the testimony of CW1 and R3W1.
26. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. Petition No. : 318/13 Page No. 14 of 21
Prabhu Nath Prasad Vs. Sanjeev Kumar
27. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled as Lal Chand Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported as 2006 (3) TAC321 SC that Insurance Company has to show and prove on record that due and adequate care was not taken by the owner or owner had the knowledge that driver was not holding a valid driving license. Only in that eventuality the Insurance Company can be absolved of its contractual obligation, not otherwise.
28. CW1 has brought the record pertaining to driving licence bearing no.
8183/2006 issued in the name of Laxman Singh (Respondent no.1) S/o Lallu Ram which was issued on 04.04.2006 and was valid till 03.04.2026. He stated that the driving licence was to drive motorcycle/car. On 23.05.2011 an endorsement was made for commercial purpose. He proved the same Ex.CW1/A (colly.). He admitted that no photograph of the driver Laxman Singh is existing at the endorsement made for the first time of issuance of driving licence. He further admitted that there is no stamp of RTO office on the endorsement whereby the driver was permitted to drive commercial vehicle. R3W1 has stated that on the date of accident the respondent no.1 was holding a fake licence as per the report filed by the police. He proved the original report of the Authority Ex.R3W1/A (colly.).
29. On going through the testimony of CW1 and R3W1 and report of Transport Authority, Farrukhabad, I find that the respondent no. 1 was driving the Petition No. : 318/13 Page No. 15 of 21 Prabhu Nath Prasad Vs. Sanjeev Kumar offending vehicle using the fake license. No evidence is led on behalf of respondent no. 2 to prove that he had verified the genuineness of the licence allegedly in possession of respondent no. 1 before giving him the truck to drive. As per the terms of the policy, a person must hold an effective driving license and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. This very act on the part of respondent no. 2 amounts to breach of the insurance policy. It was held in the case of Kamala Mangalal Vayani & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others (2010) 12 SCC 488 that once a comprehensive insurance policy is admitted on or so proving any breach of insurance conditions, is on the insurer and not claimants. In the present case, the insurance company i.e. respondent no. 3 has been able to establish that the vehicle was not plying on the road in consonance with the terms of the policy. Thus, the liability to compensate the petitioner would remain with that of respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 i.e. driver /owner of the offending vehicle jointly and severally.
30. Legislature being conscious of the magnitude of the plight of the victims of road accident have introduced the present beneficial provisions to protect the interest of third parties i.e. victims of road accident so as to enable them to claim compensation from the driver/ owner of the vehicle. Legislature in its wisdom has made it a statutory obligation of every owner to have his vehicle insured against third party risks. This has been made mandatory so that Petition No. : 318/13 Page No. 16 of 21 Prabhu Nath Prasad Vs. Sanjeev Kumar victims of road accident even after being granted compensation from the court, should not run from pillar to post to have the orders of the court executed and to facilitate them to get the same from the Insurance Company. It was held in the case of "National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vasdev Kukreja & Ors II (2010) ACC 148" that primary liability to pay the award amount is of insurance company. In that case there was a breach of terms and conditions of the policy as there was violation as to the category of the vehicle which the driver was authorised to drive. The Hon'ble High Court directed the insurance company to pay the award and granted the recovery rights in its favour to recover the award amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.
31. Balancing the "twin interest" of the Insurance Company at one hand and that of the third party i.e. petitioner for whose benefit the present legislation was brought on the statute book, it is directed that the Insurance Company shall pay the compensation awarded to the petitioner within the time given in this award and shall have the right to recover the same from respondent no. 1 and 2 jointly and severally.
32. For the foregoing reasons, the respondent no. 3 is directed to pay compensation awarded to the petitioner and shall have the right to recover the same from respondent no. 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Petition No. : 318/13 Page No. 17 of 21
Prabhu Nath Prasad Vs. Sanjeev Kumar R E L I E F
33. In view of my findings on issues, I award a sum of Rs. 29,28,500/ (Rs.
Twenty Nine Lakh Twenty Eight Thousand Five Hundred only) to the petitioner as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realisation of the amount.
: RELEASE OF THE AWARDED AMOUNT : In the share of petitioner : (Father of the deceased)
34. A sum of Rs. 29,28,500/ alongwith the proportionate interest thereon, is awarded to the petitioner being father of the deceased.
Out of this awarded amount, a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/ is directed to be deposited in the form of FDR in the name of petitioner in the following phased manner :
1. Rs. 5,00,000/ for a period of 02 years.
2. Rs. 5,00,000/ for a period of 04 years.
3. Rs. 5,00,000/ for a period of 06 years.
4. Rs. 5,00,000/ for a period of 08 years.
5. Rs. 5,00,000/ for a period of 10 years.
Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.
35. In terms of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in case titled "Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors." bearing FAO number 842/2003 decided Petition No. : 318/13 Page No. 18 of 21 Prabhu Nath Prasad Vs. Sanjeev Kumar on 08.06.2009, UCO Bank/ State Bank of India has agreed to open a Special Fixed Deposit Account for the victims of road accidents.
36. 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 claimant.
37. In consonance to the idea 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 amount in favour of the petitioner with State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, against account of petitioner.
within a period of 30 days from today, failing which respondent no. 3 Insurance Company shall be liable to pay future interest @ 12% per annum till realization (for the delayed period).
38. 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 petitioner /claimant by Petition No. : 318/13 Page No. 19 of 21 Prabhu Nath Prasad Vs. Sanjeev Kumar 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 petitioner/claimant after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to petitioner / claimant to facilitate identity.
(iii) No cheque book be issued to petitioner /claimant 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 petitioner /claimant alongwith the photocopy of the FDR's .
(v) The original fixed deposit receipts shall be handed over to petitioner /claimant 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 petitioner /claimant, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.
(ix) Petitioner/Claimant shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch, New Delhi.
DIRECTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENT NO. 3
39. 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.
40. The Respondent no.3 shall intimate to the petitioner about its having Petition No. : 318/13 Page No. 20 of 21 Prabhu Nath Prasad Vs. Sanjeev Kumar deposited the cheques in favor of the petitioner in terms of the award, at the address of the petitioner mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate them to withdraw the same.
41. Copy of this award / judgment be given to the petitioner who are directed to furnish the same to the Manager of State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch for necessary compliance after their having received the notice of the deposit of awarded amount from the Insurance company.
42. The case is now fixed for compliance by the insurance company for 20.02.2015.
Announced in the open court
on 20th Day of January, 2015 (K S MOHI)
Presiding Officer : MACT
South Distt. : Saket Courts
New Delhi : 20.01.2015
Petition No. : 318/13 Page No. 21 of 21