Delhi District Court
Seema Singh (Wife Of The Deceased) vs Des Raj S/O Ram Phal on 10 June, 2016
...1.....
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ PAUL SINGH TEJI:
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL :
(WEST-01):DELHI
MACT Case No. : 335/13
1. Seema Singh (wife of the deceased)
2. Dakshant Singh (son of the deceased)
3. Yashasvi Singh (daughter of the deceased)
R/o GH-5 & 7, Flat No. 51, Gate No. 2,
near St. Marks Girls School, Paschim Vihar,
Delhi-87
4. Munia Devi W/o L.Sh. Fateh Singh ( mother of deceased)
R/o B-30, Indra Enclave, Neb Sarai,
New Delhi-68.
.........Petitioners
Versus
1. Des Raj S/o Ram Phal,
R/o Village Bhandwari,
Tehsil- Sohna, Disst. Gurgaon,
(Haryana) PIN-122001 (Driver & Owner)
2. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd.
Off-A-2, 2nd floor, Main Nazafgarh Road,
Near Kalra Hospital,
Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015 ( Insurer)
................. Respondents
...2...
Date of Institution: : 18/05/2013 Date of reserving order/judgment : 06/06/2016 Date of pronouncement: : 10/06/2016 AWARD
1. This judgment-cum- award shall decide the petition under Section 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 as amended up to date (hereinafter referred as Act) filed by petitioners for grant of compensation for the death of Late Sh. Anant Singh s/o Late Sh. Fateh Singh in the road vehicular accident.
2. Brief facts of the present case is that on 02/04/2013 at about 1.15 a.m when the deceased was driving his Indica Car and when he reached near Govt. School Badshah Pur at Gurgaon Sohna Road (Haryana), a Truck bearing No. HR-55-J-7989 which was moving ahead of the deceased car, applied its brakes suddenly due to which the deceased had to apply the brakes to stop his car but he could not manage and the car got rammed into the truck from behind . Resultantly, deceased sustained fatal injuries. In total, L.Rs of deceased/ petitioners have claimed a total sum of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- ( Five Crores Only) on account of compensation.
3. Written statement has been filed by respondent No.1 / driver-cum-owner wherein he has categorically denied the rash and negligent aspect and denied the contents of the petitions.
4. Written statement has been filed by respondent no.2, insurance company wherein it has been admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with it as on the date of accident vide policy No. 0140091445 valid w.e.f 0/01/2013 to 03/01/2014, but has denied the other contents of the petition. The insurance company has taken the defence that deceased himself was solely rash and negligent at the time of accident. The insurance company has not taken any statutory defence in the present case.
...3...
5. After hearing the arguments and going through the pleading of the parties, following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal on 08/10/2013.
1.Whether the deceased Sh. Anant Singh suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 02/04/2013 at about 01.15 A.M. involving Truck bearing No. HR-55J-7989 driven and owned by the Respondent No.1 and insured with the Respondent No.2? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner/ petitioners is entitled for compensation ? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
6. In order to establish its claim, petitioner No.1 (wife of deceased) examined herself as PW-1. The petitioners have also examined Sh.Rajinder Kumar as PW-2, the eye witness to the accident. The petitioners have filed the certified copy of the criminal case record i.e the copy of FIR etc. bearing No. 96/13; P S. Badsahpur u/s 279/304A/427/283 IPC ; copy of driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle; post mortem report of the deceased; site plan; copy of the insurance policy; fitness certificate etc.
7. In order to prove salary of the deceased, the petitioners have also examined Sh. Jagpal Singh Dagar as PW-3. They have examined another witness Sh. Rajveev Prasad Dubey as PW-4 to prove the salary record of deceased. They have also examined Sh Sunil Kumar Sahoo, Inspector, Income Tax Department as PW-5 to prove the income tax return for the assessment year 2012-2013.
8. The respondent No. 1 / driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle has not examined any witness despite opportunities being granted to him.
9. The respondent No. 2/ insurance company has examined the witnesses in his defence i.e. Sh. Israr Babu as R2W1; Mr. Raghuvansh B. Mathur as R2W2; Sh. Anil Bansal as R2W3; Mr. Sanjay Bhagat as R2W4; Sh. Navjot Khanna, Manager Operations, The Royal Bank of Scotland as R2W5; & Sh. Dr. S. R. Singh as R2W6.
...4...
10. I have thoroughly gone through the testimony of the witnesses by the petitioners and respondent No.2. I have carefully gone through the record. I have also given thoughtful consideration to the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the insurance company.
My findings on various issues are as under :-
ISSUE NO. 111 The onus to prove this issue that the respondent No.1 was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle at the time of accident, was on the petitioners.
12. The petitioners have examined Sh. Rajinder Kumar, the eye witness to the accident in the present case. He has deposed that on 02/04/2013 the deceased was driving his car on Gurgaon Sohna Road. He has further deposed that when he reached near Govt. School Badshah Pur Gurgaon( Haryana), a truck No. HR -55-J-7989 which was moving ahead of the deceased, applied its brakes suddenly due to which an Indica car, moving just behind the truck at a normal speed, had also to apply its brakes in order to avoid the accident but the car got rammed into the said truck from behind. He has further deposed that due to heavy impact, the driver of the Indica car got seriously injured in the accident. He has further deposed that after the accident the driver of the offending truck fled away from the spot. He has further deposed that the accident took place due to the sole rash and negligent act of the driver of the truck No. HR 55J-7989. This witness was cross-examined by the respondent No.1 as well as Ld. Counsel for respondent No. 2/ insurance company but they failed to shatter the testimony of the witness and nothing could be elicited in the cross-examination to show that the driver of the offending vehicle was not rash and negligent at the time of accident.
13. Insurance company/ respondent No.2 has examined six witnesses in support of its defence i.e. R2W1 to R2W6.
14. Insurance company has examined R2W1 who has filed the record of mobile No. 9811586587 and 9873668787 as Ex. R2W1/1 and R2W1/2 respectively.
...5....
15. R2W2 Mr. Raghvansh is the private investigator deputed by the insurance company who has proved the complete investigation report vide Ex. R2W2/2. He has further deposed that the neither offending vehicle was mechanically inspected by the police nor eye witnesses Sh. Rajinder Singh and complainant Sh. Anurag Mishra were found to be residing at the given addresses .
16. R2W3 Sh. Anil Bansal is the IRDA Approved Surveyor who has filed his report in respect of the offending vehicle alongth with 25 photographs and one C.D. vide Ex. R2W3 (colly.).
17. R2W4 Sh. Sanjay Bhagat has deposed that he has approved the claim of the offending vehicle bearing no. HR -55J-7989 on the basis of inspection / survey report and proved the same vide Ex R2W4/2(colly.) and R2W4/3 (colly.). He has filed the certified and uncertified copies of the criminal case record vide Ex. R2W4/5 (colly).
18. R2W5 Sh. Navjot Khanna, Manager (Operations) has proved the bank statement of deceased for the period w.e.f 01/09/2012 to 01/04/2013 vide Ex. R2W5/1.
19. R2W6 Dr. S. R. Singh, Forensic Science Consultant has proved his report vide Ex. R2W6/2. In cross-examination, he has admitted it to be correct that he has not examined the vehicles . He has given his report on the basis of photographs of the vehicles involved in the accident which were provided by the insurance company to him.
20. Ld. Counsel for insurer has argued that in the present case, the mechanical inspection of the vehicles were not conducted by the police. He has further argued that the deceased has also contributed to the accident as he was himself rash and negligent in driving at the time of accident.
21. Ld. Counsel for petitioners has argued that since the charge sheet has been filed against the respondent No.1 for the offence u/s 279/304-A /427/283 IPC, no contributory is made out on the part of deceased.
22. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
...6....
23. On the aspect of negligence, I am being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 2009 ACJ 287, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana wherein in the Hon'ble High Court held that in case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under section 279/304 A IPC or the certified copy of the FIR or in addition the recovery memo on the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent.
It was further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard.
Further, in Kaushnumma Beum and others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to a secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death to a human being or damage to property would made the petition maintainable under section 166 and 140 of the Act.
It is also settled law that the rashness and negligence has to be construed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as finds mention in the Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one.
Further the Hon'ble High of Delhi in MAC App. No.200/2012 in case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vd. Smt. Rinki @ Rinku & Ors decided on 23/07/2012 had held as under:
...7...
"The Claims Tribunal was conscious of the fact that negligence is a sine qua non to a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act). It is also true that the proceedings for grant of compensation under the Act are neither governed by the criminal procedures nor are a civil suit. A reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court Bimla Devi and Ors. V Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors, (2009) 13 SC 530 where it was held as under:
"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of any accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimant. The claimants 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."
24. I would like to discuss the plea of contributory negligence raised by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company firstly. The question of contributory negligence arises when there has been some act or omission on the part of the claimant which has materially contributed to the damage caused and is of such a nature that it may properly be described as' negligence'. Negligence ordinarily means breach of a 'legal duty to care' but when it is used in the expression " contributory negligence", it does not mean breach of any duty. It only means the failure by a person to use reasonable care for the safety of either himself or his property, so that he becomes blameworthy in part as an authority of his own wrong"
25. A driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle is under bounden duty to observe necessary caution for avoiding striking other vehicles, persons, the users of the road. Having failed to observe such necessary care and caution, being oblivious of said duty, respondent No.1 was berserk locomotion since he applied a sudden brakes without taking care and caution and caused the fatal injuries to the deceased in the present case. Thus, the driver of the offending vehicle cannot escape culpable negligence on his part as he was primarily responsible for the accident.
26. Now coming to the aspect of contributory negligence in this case, it is pertinent to mention here that the vehicle of the deceased hit the offending vehicle from behind. I have seen the photographs placed on record which reveals that the vehicle of ...8...
deceased was badly damaged . This shows that the deceased was also driving at a very high speed without maintaining the required distance at the time of accident and he had failed to control his vehicle when respondent No.1 applied the brakes suddenly. He was also under bounden duty to observe necessary caution and maintain a distance between his vehicle and the vehicle ahead. Had the deceased been cautious, he could have averted the gravity of the accident.
27. After hearing the parties as well as perusing the record, I hold that deceased died due to negligent driving of respondent No.1 in causing the accident to the extent of 75% and deceased himself contributed to the extent of 25% in the present case.
Hence, the issue no. 1 ,therefore, stands decided accordingly.
COMPENSATION / ISSUE No.2.
28. Petitioner No. 1 (wife of the deceased ) in her affidavit Ex. PW1/1 has proved the copy of death certificate of deceased Ex. PW1/1; copy of driving license of deceased as Ex. PW1/6; Delhi Secondary School Examination Certificate Ex. PW1/9. All the documents proved on record suggests the date of birth of deceased as 04/05/1974. The date of accident in the present case is 02/04/2013. Accordingly the deceased was about 39 years as on date of accident.
29. As per the petition and testimony of PW-1, the deceased was posted as Deputy General Manager with M/s Business Park Town Planners (BPTP) and was stated to be earning Rs. 1,55,977/- per month at the time of accident. The petitioners have proved the educational certificate of deceased i.e. provisional certificate of 10th class ; certificate of 12th class ; BCA certificate/ mark-sheet issued by IGNOU; National Trade Certificate issued by Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India regarding trade of Draftsman (Civil); Diploma provisional certificate issued by Govind Ballabh Pant Polytechnic vidE Ex. PW1/8 to PW1/12 respectively. In order to prove the service and salary record of the deceased, the petitioners have examined two witnesses i.e. PW-3 and PW-4.
....9....
30. PW-3 Sh. Jagpal Singh Dagar is Junior Engineer with BPTP who has proved the attested computer generated salary record of the deceased as Ex PW3/1 u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act. He has produced the copy of appointment letter of deceased dated 14/12/2010. He has also proved the confirmation letter of the deceased as Ex. PW3/2.
31. PW-4 Mr. Rajeev Prasad Dubey has proved the salary record of the deceased. He has produced the attested copies of Form -16 of deceased for the assessment year 2010-2011; 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 as Ex. PW4/3(colly). He has also proved the attested salary certificates of deceased for the year 2010 to 2013 vide Ex. PW4/4(colly.). He has proved the attested copies of pay slips of deceased as Ex. PW4/5(colly. He has proved the copy of the increment promotion letter / Annexure w.e.f. 01/04/2012 vide Ex. PW4/7. He has proved the attested copy of the appointment letter as Ex. PW4/8. In cross-examination, this witness was not able to explain the difference of the salaries vide Ex. PW 4/8 and PW4/9.Testimony of this witness reveals discrepancies in the salary of the deceased.
32. In order to further substantiate the income of the deceased, the petitioners have also examined PW-5 Sh. Sunil Kumar Sahoo, Inspector, Income Tax Department who has proved the income tax return filed by the deceased for the assessment year 2012-2013 vide Ex PW5/1(colly.). He has deposed that deceased was having annual income of Rs. 10.,14,364/- which also includes a Tax of Rs. 1 Lacs under Chapter VI-A of Income Tax Act 1961. He has further deposed that the net income after deduction of tax comes out to be Rs. 9,14, 360/- for the assessment year 2012-2013. which shows that Gross Salary of deceased Anant Singh for the Assessment year 2011-2012, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 was Rs.3,35,995/-, Rs.12,04,613/ and Rs.14,43,385/- respectively.
...10...
33. As per the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners, the deceased Anant Singh was stated to be earning Rs.1,55,997/-per month as on date of accident.
34. In order to prove the salary of the deceased Anant Singh, the petitioners have examined PW-4, who has proved on record Form-16 of deceased which shows that Gross Salary of deceased Anant Singh for the Assessment year 2011-2012, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 was Rs.3,35,995/-, Rs.12,04,613/ and Rs.14,43,385/- respectively. In cross- examination this witness has failed to identify the name and signatures of the authority of the employer who has attested the documents being proved by him. The witness was even unable to explain the discrepancies in the salary record of the deceased.
35. PW -5 who was called from the Income Tax department to prove the yearly income of the deceased Anant Singh had brought only one Income Tax return for the assessment year 2012-2013 and assessment, Ex. PW-5/1 wherein the income for this period was shown to be Rs.9,14,360 in which income tax refund of Rs.25,000/- was claimed. This witness has not brought any other income tax return for any period nor any effort was made by the petitioner to bring the same on record. Moreover no explanation has come on record for the income shown in Income Tax return being on lower side than that was shown in the Form-16 for the same period. There is nothing on record to show as on what basis the income tax return was filed and how the lesser yearly income was entered in the return for the same period when the yearly income was higher in the Form-
16. In cross- examination, he has stated that he had taken out the print out of the income tax return. A specific question with regard to certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act was asked to this witness to which he has stated that he has not brought the certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act to prove the genuineness of the record produced by him. Further he has even failed to explain as to who had authorised him to appear and depose before the court. .
...11...
36. It is thus clear that record produced on record by the petitioners with regard to the income of deceased is contrary to each other and no reliance can be placed on the same. In these circumstances, the tribunal is left with no option except to take the income on the basis of minimum wages. The petitioners have proved the educational certificate of deceased i.e. provisional certificate of 10th class ; certificate of 12th class ; BCA certificate/ mark-sheet issued by IGNOU; National Trade Certificate issued by Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India regarding trade of Draftsman (Civil); Diploma provisional certificate issued by Govind Ballabh Pant Polytechnic vide Ex. PW1/8 to PW1/12 respectively. The date of accident was 02/04/2013 on which the minimum wages for Graduate person were Rs. 10,218/-. Considering the aforesaid qualifications of the deceased, I take the potential income of the deceased as Rs. 20,000/- per month .
37. Ld. Counsel for petitioner requested for balancing the income of the victim on the basis of inflation trends and requested that 50% increase be made in the income of the victim on the basis of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors 2013(6) Scale 563. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the insurer objected to same as the deceased failed to prove his income in the present case and drawn the attention towards the reliance of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 'Taslim Parvin & Anr Vs. Jugendra Singh & Ors' in MAC. APP No.88/16 & CM No. 3172/2016 decided on 29/01/2016 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Gauba wherein it has been held as under:
"5. The law is well settled that in case of compensation on account of death, loss of dependency is to be computed by adopting the multiplier having regard to the age of the deceased or the claim whichever is higher[ U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors vs. Trilok Chandra and Ors, (1996) 4 SCC 362 and General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas & ors,(1994) 2SCC 176]
6. In the case reported as Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr, (2009) 6SCC 121, Supreme Court, inter-alia, ruled that the element of future prospects of increase in income will not be granted in cases where the deceased was " self employed" or was ...12....
working on a "fixed salary". Though this view as affirmed by a bench of three Hon'ble Judges in Reshma Kumari & Ors Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr, (2013) 9SCC 65, on account of divergence of views, as arising from the ruling in Rajesh & Ors vs. Rajbir & Ors, (2013)9 SCC 54 the issue was later referred to a larger bench, inter alia by order dated 02/07/2014 in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pushpa & ors, (2015) 9 SCC 166.
7. Against the above back drop by judgment dated 22/01/2016 passed in MAC Appeal No. 956/2012(Sunil Kumar Vs. Pyar Mohd. ), the court has found it proper to follow the view taken earlier by a learned single judge in MAC Apeal no. 189/2014 (HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. ltd. v.
Smt. Lalta Devi & ors) decided on 12.01.2015, presently taking the decision in Reshma Kumari (supra) as the binding precedent, till such time the law on the subject of future prospects for those who are " self
-employed" or engaged in gainful employment at a " fixed- salary" is clarified by a larger bench of the Supreme Court"
38. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its recent decision in ' MAC APP. 698/2014 and CM No. 121316/2014 & 11695/2015 in the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Khursheed & Ors decided on 13/05/2016 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Gauba wherein it has been held as under:
"6. In the case reported as Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121, Supreme Court, inter -alia, ruled that the element of future prospects of increase in income will not be granted in cases where the deceased was " self employed" or was working on a " fixed salary". Though this view was affirmed by a bench of three Hon'ble Judges in Reshma Kumari & Ors vs. Madan Mohan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 65, on account of divergence of views, as arising from the ruling in Rajesh & Ors (2013) 9 SCC 54, the issue was later referred to a larger bench, inter -alia , by order dated 02.07.2014 in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pushpa & ors,(2015) 9SCC 166.
7. Against the above backdrop by judgment dated 22.01.2016 passed in MAC Appeal No. 956/2012(Sunil Kumar v. Pyar Mohd), this court has found it proper to follow the view taken earlier by learned single judge in MAC Appeal No. 189/204(HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. ltd. Vs. Smt. Lalta Devi & ors.) decided on 12.01.2015, presently taking the decision in Reshma Kumar(supra) as the binding precedent, till such time the law on the subject of future prospects of those who are " self-employed" or engaged in gainful employment at a "
fixed salary" is clarified by a larger bench of the Supreme Court."
After going through the facts and circumstances of the present case and the aforesaid case laws laid down, I am not inclined to grant future prospects on the income of the deceased in this case.
...13...
39. It can very well be presumed in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'Sarla Verma Vs. DTC decided on 15.4.2009 in C.A. No. 3483/08' that the deceased might have been spending one- forth of Rs. 20,000/- on his personal expenses as he had left behind four dependents. Therefore, after deducting one- forth towards personal expenses, the loss of dependency per month comes out to be Rs. 15,000/- p.=( Rs. 20,000/- less Rs. 5000/- .) As discussed above, deceased was 39 years of age as on the date of accident. The appropriate multiplier applicable is '15' ( for the age group of 36 to 40 years) as mentioned in Sarla Verma's judgment (Supra). Hence, the total loss of dependency comes out to be Rs. 27,00,000/- = (Rs. 15,000/- x 12 x 15).
40. In terms of the aforesaid judgment in Rajesh's case(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has granted Rs. 25000/- towards funeral charges, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children, accordingly, I award Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium ; Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children and Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral charges. I also award Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of estate in terms of the aforesaid judgment Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Khursheed & Ors(supra). Therefore, in total, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 29,50,000/- in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents
41. As already discussed above, the respondent No.1 is liable for causing the accident and causing fatal injuries to the deceased, to the extent of 75% and the deceased himself had contributed to this accident to the extent of 25%. Therefore, the petitioners are hereby granted compensation for a sum of Rs. 22,12,500/- = (Rs. 29,50,000/- x 75%) RELIEF
42. I award Rs. 22,12,500/- ( Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Twelve Thousand Five Hundred Only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum including interim award, if any from the date of filing the petition i.e. 18/05/2013 in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent. The petitioner No. 1 shall have 60% share in the award amount; petitioners No. 2 to 3 shall have 15% each share in the award amount and petitioner No. 4 shall have 10 % share in the award amount.
...14...
43. As per the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India G.M Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v/s S. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176 in order to avoid the money being frittered away, seventy five percent (75%) of the amount awarded to petitioner No.1 shall be kept in 10 FDRs of almost equal amount in a Nationalized Bank for a period of 1 to 10 years. Fifty percent (50%) of the amount awarded to petitioner No.4 shall be kept in 5 FDRs of almost equal amount in a Nationalized Bank for a period of 1 to 5 years. In case any petitioner/petitioners is/ are minor/minors, the entire amount awarded to petitioner/ petitioners shall be kept in FDRs in a nationalized bank till he/she attain/ attains the age of majority or for a period of five years whichever is later. No loan or advance shall be allowed against the said fixed deposit. Petitioner No.1 & 4 can withdraw the interest quarterly from the said FDRs. The minor petitioners, if any can withdraw the interest quarterly through their mother/ petitioners No.1.
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY:
44. The respondent No: 2 being the insurer, its liability is joint and several with other respondents. Accordingly, respondent No. 2 is directed to deposit the award amount within a period of 30 days under the intimation to this court. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at a rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
45. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its latest judgment in MACA 682/05 dated 13.1.2010 'Union of India Vs. Nanisiri' have laid certain guidelines regarding depositing of award amount. In terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi the insurance company shall deposit the award amount in the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch in the name of the petitioner/ petitioners in terms of the award and shall file the compliance report. It is made clear that at the time of the deposit of the award amount with the bank, the insurance company shall specifically mention the suit no. of the case, title of the case as well as date of decision with the name of court on the back side of the cheque. The insurance company shall also file the attested copy of the award attested by its own officer to the bank at the time of deposit of the amount with the bank. The copy of this award be given to the insurance company as well as to the petitioner free of cost. The petitioners shall approach the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch for opening the account.
...15...
46. The Manager of the Bank is directed to comply the award. The Bank Manager is directed to release the award amount to the petitioner. However, in case the amount is ordered to be kept in the FDR, the said amount should not be released unless the FDR is matured.
47. The parties are at liberty to contact in State Bank of India through its nodal officer Sh. Naresh Kumar Garg, Deputy Manger, Tis Hazari Branch,Delhi (Mb No:
9560191924 and Tel. No. 011-23917910) for their convenience.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 10/08/2016.
Announced in the open court
On of 10th of June, 2016 ( RAJ PAUL SINGH TEJI )
Judge, MACT (WEST-01)
Delhi (10/06/2016)
Suit No. 335/13
19/05/2016
Present: None
Orders not ready as clarification is required in this case. . Put up for orders on 06/06/2016.
( RAJ PAUL SINGH TEJI )
Judge, MACT (WEST-01)
Delhi 19/05/2016
06/06/2016
Present: Sh. Gaurav Sood, Ld. Counsel for petitioner
Clarification sought.
Put up for orders on 10/06/2016.
( RAJ PAUL SINGH TEJI )
Judge, MACT (WEST-01)
Delhi 06/06/2016
10/06/2016
Present None
Judgment is announced separately.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the same on 10/08/2016.
( RAJ PAUL SINGH TEJI ) Judge, MACT (WEST-01) Delhi 10/06/2016.