Delhi District Court
Sh. Mohan Choudhary vs Santosh Kumar @ Pandey S/O Sh. Devtadeen on 30 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. RAVINDER BEDI : PRESIDING
OFFICER MACT : KARKARDOOMA COURTS (EAST) :
DELHI.
MAC No. : 61 OF 2012
Unique Case I.D. No. : 02402C0063272012
Sh. Mohan Choudhary
S/o Sh. Dukhi Choudhary
R/o C234, J.J. Colony,
Sabda, Nangloi, Delhi81. ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Santosh Kumar @ Pandey S/o Sh. Devtadeen
R/o K43, Amar Colony, Rohtak Road,
Nangloi, Delhi110041. ... DRIVER
2. Sh. Satya Narain S/o Sh. Baru Ram
R/o 74, Rajendra Park, Nangloi, Delhi41. ... OWNER
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
A1/172, Janakpuri, New Delhi110058. ... INSURER
... RESPONDENTS
SUIT NO. 118 OF 2012 UNIQUE CASE I.D. NO. : 02402C0126312012 Sh. Piyush Kumar S/o Sh. Gyan Chand R/o H.No. 8A/4, Geeta Colony, Delhi. ... PETITIONER VERSUS MACs No. 61/12, 118/12, 151/12, 117/12 Page No. 1/21
1. Santosh Kumar @ Pandey S/o Sh. Devtadeen R/o K43, Amar Colony, Rohtak Road, Nangloi, Delhi110041. ... DRIVER
2. Sh. Satya Narain S/o Sh. Baru Ram R/o 74, Rajendra Park, Nangloi, Delhi41. ... OWNER
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
A1/172, Janakpuri, New Delhi110058. ... INSURER ... RESPONDENTS SUIT NO. 151 OF 2012 UNIQUE CASE I.D. NO. : 02402C0186642012 Sh. Puneet Kumar S/o Sh. Gyan Chand R/o H.No. 8A/4, Geeta Colony, Delhi. ... PETITIONER VERSUS
1. Santosh Kumar @ Pandey S/o Sh. Devtadeen R/o K43, Amar Colony, Rohtak Road, Nangloi, Delhi110041. ... DRIVER
2. Sh. Satya Narain S/o Sh. Baru Ram R/o 74, Rajendra Park, Nangloi, Delhi110041. ... OWNER
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
A1/172, Janakpuri, New Delhi110058. ... INSURER ... RESPONDENTS MACs No. 61/12, 118/12, 151/12, 117/12 Page No. 2/21 SUIT NO. 117 OF 2012 UNIQUE CASE I.D. NO. : 02402C0126282012 Ms. Tanu Vijhani D/o Sh. Gyan Chand R/o H.No. 8A/4, Geeta Colony, Delhi. ... PETITIONER VERSUS
1. Santosh Kumar @ Pandey S/o Sh. Devtadeen R/o K43, Amar Colony, Rohtak Road, Nangloi, Delhi110041. ... DRIVER
2. Sh. Satya Narain S/o Sh. Baru Ram R/o 74, Rajendra Park, Nangloi, Delhi41. ... OWNER
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
A1/172, Janakpuri, New Delhi110058. ... INSURER ... RESPONDENTS Represented by : Ms. Pooja Goel, Counsel for all petitioners.
Mr. S.P. Singh, Counsel for respondents no.1 and 2. Mr. Upender Kumar, Counsel for respondent no.3.
Presented on : 18.02.2012
Reserved for Order on : 26.03.2015
Date of Award : 30.03.2015
A W A R D
1. By this common judgment, I shall dispose off these four MAC Petitions No.61/12, 118/12, 151/12 and 117/12 filed by petitioners MACs No. 61/12, 118/12, 151/12, 117/12 Page No. 3/21 Mohan Choudhary, Piyush Kumar, Puneet Kumar and Ms. Tanu Vijhani respectively in a road accident which occurred on 21.01.2012. In the said accident, petitioner Piyush Kumar and Mohan Chaudhary suffered grievous injuries whereas petitioner Ms. Tanu Vijhani and Puneet Kumar suffered Simple injuries. Petitioner Piyush Kumar suffered permanent disability of 16% in relation to both lower limbs.
2. The FIR was registered on the complaint of petitioner Puneet Kumar who stated that on 21.01.2012 at about 5.00 AM, he alongwith his brother Piyush Kumar and sister Ms. Tanu Vijhani was returning in a car from IGI Airport, suddenly a vehicle i.e. Tata Tempo bearing registration No. DLILG2339 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle) driven by respondent no.1 in high speed and reckless manner, coming from old bridge side, hit the car of petitioners. It then hit a Water Rehri nearby and as a result, injured Mohan Choudhary who was sleeping on the said Rehri. The driver of the Tata Tempo then fled away alongwith Tempo from the spot. They all were taken to S.D.N. Hospital and then referred to different hospitals later. A case FIR No. 22/12, u/sec. 279/337/338 IPC was registered at Police Station Geeta Colony against respondent no.1.
MACs No. 61/12, 118/12, 151/12, 117/12 Page No. 4/21
3. The respondent no.1 is the driver; respondent no.2 is the owner; respondent no.3 is the Insurer of the offending vehicle, they all are jointly and severally liable to make the payment of compensation to the all petitioners.
4. The respondents no.1 and 2 have filed their joint written statement stating that respondent no.1 was falsely implicated in the present case.
5. The respondent no.3 filed written statement in which it has admitted that the vehicle was insured with respondent no.3 vide policy valid from 06.11.2011 to 05.11.2012 in the name of Satya Narain/respondent no.2.
6. Vide order dated 05.02.2013, on the basis of the pleadings, following common issues were framed in all the MAC petitions :
1.Whether petitioner has suffered injuries in road side accident on 21.01.2012 involving vehicle i.e. Tempo bearing registration no. DL1LG2339 being driven allegedly in a rash and negligent manner by R1?
2. To what amount of compensation, if any, the petitioner is entitled to and from whom?
3. Relief.
7. In Suit No.61/13, petitioner Mohan Choudhary has examined Sh. MACs No. 61/12, 118/12, 151/12, 117/12 Page No. 5/21
Om Parkash, LDC, from Sanjay Gandhi Hospital who has proved medical record as Ex.PW1/1 (colly.). PW2 Sh. Pawan Sharma, Record Clerk from Surgicentre Nursing Home has proved medical treatment record and medical bills amounting to Rs.44,000/ of Mohan Chaudhary as Ex.PW2/1 (colly.). Petitioner Mohan Chaudhary has examined himself as PW1 and filed his affidavit Ex.PW3/A. He relied upon documents i.e. discharge summary record as Ex.PW3/1, medical bills as Ex.PW3/2, his Election I card as Ex.PW3/3 and Ration Card as Ex.PW3/4. PW4 Sh. Hardeep Singh, Medical Record Technician from Safdarjung Hospital has proved the original case sheet of Mohan Chaudhary as Ex.PW4/A (colly.).
8. In Suit No.118/12, petitioner Piyush Kumar has examined Dr. Brijesh Kumar Jain as PW1 who has proved the Disability Certificate as Ex.PW1/1. PW2 Sh. Rajat Kaushik, Medical Record Technician from Max Superspeciality Hospital has proved medical bills amounting to Rs.10,442/ paid by patient as Ex.PW2/A, treatment record and discharge summary as Ex.PW2/B (colly.). Petitioner examined himself as PW1 and filed his affidavit Ex.PW3/A. He relied upon documents i.e. his PAN Card and ration card as Ex.PW3/1 and PW3/2, his Marksheet of Bachelor of MACs No. 61/12, 118/12, 151/12, 117/12 Page No. 6/21 Technology as Ex.PW3/3, DAR as Ex.PW3/4 and his pay slip as Mark A.
9. In MAC No.151/12, petitioner Puneet Kumar has examined himself as PW1 and filed his affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon documents i.e. Criminal Case Record as Ex.PW1/1, medical bills amounting to Rs.10,165/ as Ex.PW1/2, his DL as Ex.PW1/3, treatment record as Mark A, his PAN Card as Mark B and his Income Tax Return as Mark C.
10.In MAC No.117/12, petitioner Ms. Tanu Vijhani has examined herself as PW1 and filed her affidavit Ex.PW1/A. She relied upon documents i.e. medical bills amounting to Rs.3,364/, her I.D. Proof/College Card as Ex.PW1/2, Criminal Case Record as Ex.PW1/3 and treatment record as Mark A.
11.In all cases, the respondents have not examined any witness in support of their case.
12.I have heard Ld. Counsel for parties, perused the entire material carefully in the light of relevant statutory provisions of law and my findings on the issues are as follows : ISSUE NO.1 (IN ALL CASES) :
Whether petitioner has suffered injuries in road side accident on 21.01.2012 involving vehicle i.e. Tempo MACs No. 61/12, 118/12, 151/12, 117/12 Page No. 7/21 bearing registration no. DL1LG2339 being driven allegedly in a rash and negligent manner by R1?
13.For succeeding in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, it is for the petitioners to prove that the vehicle which caused the accident was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver.
14.The petitioners stated in their affidavits that on 21.01.2012 at about 5.00 AM, they all sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 as he was driving the offending vehicle in a negligent manner and came perpendicularly from old Bridge side and after hitting them, struck against a Water Rehri, thus injuring Mohan Choudhary also. Police after investigation has filed charge sheet against respondent no.1 under Sections 279/338 IPC in case FIR No.22/12 Police Station Geeta Colony which is prima facie suggestive of negligence of respondent no.1 in driving the vehicle at the time of accident. The location of the vehicles in site plan and their positioning would suggest the reckless manner in which the Tata Tempo had hit the car and then the Rehri. In Bimla Devi and Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors., (2009) 13 SC 530, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held :
"8. .... In a petition under Section 166 of the Act, the petitioners were merely to establish their case on the MACs No. 61/12, 118/12, 151/12, 117/12 Page No. 8/21 touchstone of preponderance of probability and holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition under the Motor Vehicles Act. Para 15 of the report is extracted hereunder :
"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the petitioners. The petitioners were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
15.The report in Bimla Devi (Supra) was relied on by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its latest judgments in Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand (2011) 11 SCC 635 and Kusum Lata v. Satbir, (2011) 3 SCC 646."
16.In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana & Ors. : 2009 ACJ 287, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held :
"..... On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced: (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No.955 of 2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle; (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of chargesheet under Sections 279/304A, Indian Penal Code against the driver;
(iii) certified copy of F.I.R., wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient MACs No. 61/12, 118/12, 151/12, 117/12 Page No. 9/21 proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not requires to be followed in this regard.
Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of the driver".
17.In a recent judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goel & Ors., 2014 (2), T.A.C. 846 (Del.), it was held that in a case, where FIR is lodged, chargesheet is filed and particularly the driver fled from the spot, then the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in causing the accident particularly when there was no defence available from his side.
18.In case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamlesh : 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310, an adverse inference was drawn because the driver of the offending vehicle had not appeared in the witness box to corroborate his defence taken in the written statement. It was noted that there was nothing on record to show that the petitioners had any enmity with the driver of the offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate him in the case.
19.The issue thus stands decided in favour of all petitioners holding MACs No. 61/12, 118/12, 151/12, 117/12 Page No. 10/21 that the accident happened as a result of negligent driving by respondent no.1, in which all petitioners received injuries. ISSUE NO.2 :
To what amount of compensation, if any, the petitioner is entitled to and from whom?
In MAC No.118/12 :
20.Soon after the accident, all petitioners were taken to SDN Hospital. Petitioner Piyush Kumar stated that he suffered fracture of bones of upper limbs, fracture of clavicle and was later taken to Max Health Care. Ex.PW2/B shows he remained admitted in the hospital till 25.01.2012. He suffered permanent disability of 16% in relation to his both upper limbs as per Disability Certificate Ex. PW1/1.
21.In the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr., MANU/SC/1018/2010, Civil Appeal No. 8981/2010 decided on 18.10.2010, following principles were laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for determining compensation payable to road traffic accident victims :
i) The compensation payable to the petitioner who is a victim of road accident should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the petitioner to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equatable MACs No. 61/12, 118/12, 151/12, 117/12 Page No. 11/21 manner.
ii) Compensation payable in injury cases is payable under two heads. They are pecuniary damages (special damages) and non pecuniary damages. Pecuniary damages have three sub heads which are : (i) expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) (a) Loss of earning (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising of loss of earning during the period of treatment and (b) loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability (iii) Future medical expenses. Nonpecuniary damages (General Damage) are (iv) damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of injuries (v) loss of amenities and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and (vi) loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
iii) In routine personal injury cases compensation is awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the petitioner, that compensation is granted under any of the heads (ii) (b),
(iii) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospectus of marriage) and loss of expectation of life".
22.Petitioner Piyush Kumar is entitled for the compensation on account of pain and suffering. In "Division Controller, Karnataka SRTC V/s. Mahadeva Shetty, 2003 ACJ 1775 (SC)", Hon'ble Apex Court observed that while fixing compensation for pain and sufferings, as also for loss of amenities of life, the features like the MACs No. 61/12, 118/12, 151/12, 117/12 Page No. 12/21 age, marital status and unusual deprivation undertaken by a person in his life are to be reckoned. From the overall assessment of nature of injuries and the fact that disability shall remain for his remaining life, I assess Rs.60,000/ as compensation towards Pain, Shock and Suffering to the petitioner.
23.Petitioner is entitled for the compensation on account of future loss due to disability. While assessing such future loss, his functional disability has to be assessed, which is to be judged with reference to the nature of work being performed by him. Petitioner/PW3 testified that he was working as an Engineer in M/s. Accenture Pvt. Ltd. and was earning Rs.30,000/ p.m. The accident has largely curtailed his working capacity. He testified that he though resumed his work in March 2012 but then, left the firm. He testified that he is now working in some other company and is still unable to do writing work. He is unable to lift even a little weight and cannot type at a stretch or write continuously. He is given a sitting job as a Coder and the accident has marred his future promotional avenues. It was held in "Vijay Kumar Babulal Modi vs. Gujarat SRTC 11 (2013) ACC 486 (DB) (Guj)" that 'loss of future income' as a head of compensation applies to all persons, whether earning or not at the time of accident. Considering the facts and circumstances, the MACs No. 61/12, 118/12, 151/12, 117/12 Page No. 13/21 functional disability is taken as 8% in relation to his whole body, in view of dictum of "Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343".
24.From the documents Ex.PW3/3, date of birth of petitioner is shown as 27.05.1988. He was aged 24 years at the relevant time. Petitioner is a B.Tech. in Computer Science and Engineering as per Ex.PW3/5 having completed in the year 2010 but in the absence of any material on record in respect of his job or avocation, he is entitled to the salary as applicable to a Graduate as per minimum wages Chart. These were Rs.8,814/ as on the date of accident. Thus, the monthly salary is taken as Rs.8,814/ per month. In a recent judgment in HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lalta Devi & Ors., (Decided on 12.1.2015), it was observed that in view of the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65 and further in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. S.K. Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC 589, the three Judge Bench Decision in Reshma Kumari & Ors. (Supra) was held to be taken as a binding precedent. Therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in HDFC Ergo General Insurance MACs No. 61/12, 118/12, 151/12, 117/12 Page No. 14/21 Co. Ltd. Vs. Lalta Devi & Ors., this court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any future prospects. Thus the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.1,52,306/ (Rs.8,814.00 x 12 x 18 x 0.08) under the head Future loss of Income.
25.It can be safely assumed that he would have suffered loss of earning capacity for at least six months. I grant Rs.52,884/ (Rs. 8,814.00 x 6) as loss of wages to the petitioner.
26.Petitioner has suffered loss of expectation of life i.e., his normal life span is shortened due to the injuries, which has caused him disappointment and stress. This further has reduced the scope of his future prospects including his marriage prospects substantially. For the purpose of studying or writing throughout his life and particularly at the advance age, it has affected his capacity greatly. Therefore, keeping in mind this fact, he is awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/ towards Loss of Amenities & Enjoyment of Life and Rs.50,000/ towards Loss of marital prospects.
27.Ex.PW2/A shows the medical expenses of Rs.10,442/ incurred by the petitioner. He is awarded an amount of Rs.10,442/ for Cost of Treatment.
28.The petitioner is also awarded a compensation of Rs.20,000/ for Special Diet and Rs.20,000/ for Conveyance Charges. MACs No. 61/12, 118/12, 151/12, 117/12 Page No. 15/21
29.On a lump sum basis, the petitioner is awarded a compensation of Rs.30,000/ for six months as Attendant's Charges.
30.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, I consider the following amount to be the just compensation to the petitioner :
1 Towards Pain & Sufferings Rs. 60,000.00 2 Towards Loss of Amenities Rs. 50,000.00 3 Towards future loss of income Rs.1,52,306.00 3 Towards servant/attendant for 6 months Rs. 30,000.00 4 Towards conveyance and special diet Rs. 40,000.00 5 Towards medical bills Rs. 10,442.00 6 Towards loss of earning for 6 months Rs. 52,884.00 Total = Rs.3,95,632.00 Therefore, petitioner Piyush Kumar is entitled to Rs.3,95,632/ which shall be the just compensation to him.
IN MAC NO.61/12 :
31.The petitioner Mohan Choudhary was taken to SDN Hospital. He suffered fracture of right clavicle and other injuries. Ex.PW3/1 shows he remained admitted in the hospital from 23.1.2012 to 24.02.2012 and readmitted to Surgicentre Nursing Home from 20.02.2012 till 24.02.2012. Considering the grievous injuries and the period of treatment undergone by him, he is awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/ under the head pain and sufferings. MACs No. 61/12, 118/12, 151/12, 117/12 Page No. 16/21
32.The petitioner has filed medical bills amounting to Rs.44,000/ as Ex.PW2/1. He is thus awarded a compensation of Rs.44,000/ for Cost of Treatment.
33.With the kind of injuries, I guess he would have remained without work at least for a period of three months. He deposed that he was selling water on Rehri. However, in the absence of any evidence of such earnings or avocation, he is only entitled to minimum wages of unskilled workman. These were Rs.7,020/ per month and I grant Rs.21,060/ (Rs.7,020.00 x 3) as loss of wages to him.
34.On a lumpsum basis, the petitioner is awarded a compensation of Rs.15,000/ for three months as Attendant's Charges.
35.The petitioner is also awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/ towards Special Diet and Rs.10,000/ for Conveyance Charges. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, I consider the following amount to be the just compensation to him :
1 Towards pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000.00 2 Towards servant/attendant for three months Rs. 15,000.00 3 Towards conveyance and special diet (without bills) Rs. 20,000.00 4 Towards medical bills Rs. 44,000.00 5 Towards loss of earning for three months Rs. 21,060.00 Total = Rs.1,50,060.00 MACs No. 61/12, 118/12, 151/12, 117/12 Page No. 17/21 Therefore, in my opinion the petitioner Mohan Choudhary is entitled to Rs.1,50,060/ which shall be the just compensation to him.
IN SUIT NO. 151/12 & 117/12 :
36.The petitioner Puneet Kumar and Ms. Tanu Vijhani stated that they suffered simple injuries. Petitioner Puneet Kumar stated that he was running a Book Store in the name and style of M/s. Brother Book Store at 8A/4, Geeta Colony, Delhi and was earning Rs. 2,76,181/ per annum. Petitioner Ms. Tanu Vijhani stated that she was taking home tuitions and was earning Rs.8,000/ per month. There is no document placed on record in support of their business or avocation. However, it can be assumed that the injuries would have taken some time to heal up. Petitioner Puneet Kumar has spent Rs.10,165/ and petitioner Tanu Vijhani has spent Rs.3,364/ towards their treatment/medical expenses. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances, I consider that Rs.20,165/ to petitioner Puneet Kumar and Rs.13,364/ to petitioner Ms. Tanu Vijhani would be the just compensation under all allowable heads to them.
LIABILITY
37.Since the Insurance company has not denied the policy as on date of accident, therefore it is liable to pay the compensation amount. MACs No. 61/12, 118/12, 151/12, 117/12 Page No. 18/21 There being no evidence of violation of the policy conditions and there being nothing to support the permitted defence U/s 149(2) of the M.V. Act, I am unable to grant the recovery rights. It is the insurance company, which shall make good the compensation in terms of the accepted policy.
RELIEF
38.All the petitions stand allowed. In MAC No.61/12, the respondent No.3/Insurance company is directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,50,060/ to the petitioner Mohan Choudhary, in MAC No. 118/12, Rs.3,95,362/ to petitioner Piyush Kumar, in MAC No. 151/12, Rs.20,165/ to petitioner Puneet Kumar and in MAC No. 117/12, Rs.13,364/ to petitioner Ms. Tanu Vijhani within a month. Following the judgment of Smt. Bishekha Devi & Anr. Vs. Mohd. Afsar & Ors. MAC. APP. 1087/2012 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the insurance company shall also pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to all the petitioners.
, an amount of Rs.55,362/ shall be released to 39.In MAC No.118/12 the petitioner Piyush Kumar forthwith and the remaining amount shall be kept in the form of one FDR for a period of three years MACs No. 61/12, 118/12, 151/12, 117/12 Page No. 19/21 with the release of monthly periodical interest to him.
, an amount of Rs.50,060/ shall be released to 40.In MAC No.61/12 the petitioner Mohan Choudhary forthwith and the remaining amount shall be kept in the form of one FDR for a period of two years with the release of monthly periodical interest to him.
41.The interest on the aforesaid Fixed Deposit shall be paid monthly by Automatic Credit of Interest in the Savings Account of petitioners.
42.Withdrawal from the said Account shall be permitted to petitioners after due verification and Bank shall issue Photo Identity Card to petitioners to facilitate Identity.
43.The original Fixed Deposit Receipt shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, original Passbook shall be given to the petitioners with photocopy of FDR. On expiry of period of each FDR, the Bank shall automatically credit the maturity amount in Savings Account of beneficiary.
44.No loan, advance, withdrawal shall be allowed on the said FDR without permission of this court.
45.Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this court.
46.On request of petitioners, Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch.
MACs No. 61/12, 118/12, 151/12, 117/12 Page No. 20/21
47.The award amount alongwith interest be deposited by respondent no. 3/Insurance Company, within 30 days in the court. In case, the Insurance Company fails to deposit this compensation with proportionate interest, in that event, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal, 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of the Insurance Company with a cost of Rs.10,000/. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court Dated : 30th March, 2015 (MS. RAVINDER BEDI) PRESIDING OFFICER MACT (EAST) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
MACs No. 61/12, 118/12, 151/12, 117/12 Page No. 21/21 MACs NO. : 61/12, 118/12, 151/12, 117/12 30.03.2015 Present : Ld. Counsels for parties.
Vide separate order announced in the open court today, all the petitions stand allowed.
In MAC No.61/12, the respondent No.3/Insurance company is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.1,50,060/ to the petitioner Mohan Choudhary in MAC No. 118/12, Rs.3,95,362/ to petitioner Piyush Kumar, in MAC No.151/12, Rs.20,165/ to petitioner Puneet Kumar and in MAC No.117/12, Rs.13,364/ to petitioner Ms. Tanu Vijhani within a month. Following the judgment of Smt. Bishekha Devi & Anr. Vs. Mohd. Afsar & Ors. MAC. APP. 1087/2012 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the insurance company shall also pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the total compensation amount from the date of petition till realization to all the petitioners.
In MAC No.118/12, an amount of Rs.55,362/ shall be released to the petitioner Piyush Kumar forthwith and the remaining amount shall be kept in the form of one FDR for a period of three years with release of monthly periodical interest to him.
In MAC No.61/12, an amount of Rs.50,060/ shall be released to the petitioner Mohan Choudhary forthwith and the remaining amount shall be kept in the form of one FDR for a period of two years with the release of monthly periodical interest to him.
The interest on the aforesaid Fixed Deposit shall be paid monthly by Automatic Credit of Interest in the Savings Account of petitioners.
Withdrawal from the said Account shall be permitted to MACs No. 61/12, 118/12, 151/12, 117/12 Page No. 22/21 petitioners after due verification and Bank shall issue Photo Identity Card to petitioners to facilitate Identity.
The original Fixed Deposit Receipts shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, original Passbook shall be given to the petitioners with photocopy of FDR. On expiry of period of each FDR, the Bank shall automatically credit the maturity amount in Savings Account of beneficiary.
No loan, advance, withdrawal shall be allowed on the said FDR without permission of this court.
Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this court.
On request of petitioners, Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch.
The award amount alongwith interest be deposited by respondent no. 3/Insurance Company, within 30 days in the court. In case, the Insurance Company fails to deposit this compensation with proportionate interest, in that event, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal, 2007 ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching the bank account of the Insurance Company with a cost of Rs.10,000/.
List for reporting compliance on 08.05.2015.
(MS. RAVINDER BEDI) P.O. MACT (EAST)/KKD./DELHI/30.03.2015 MACs No. 61/12, 118/12, 151/12, 117/12 Page No. 23/21