Delhi District Court
Master Ritik vs Shri Devender Kumar on 21 April, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN ASJ/SPECIAL
JUDGE( NDPS)TIS HAZARI COURTS:(WEST) DELHI
Suit no. 118/10
Unique Case ID no : 02401C0072212010
Date of filing of the petition : 22.02.2010
When reserved for judgment : 07.4.2011
Date of Judgment/Award : 21.4.2011
Master Ritik
Through his father
Shiv Nath S/o Shri Hari Ram
R/o H.no. T22 Near Sukhi Nehar
Durga mandir , Prem Nagar
Nangloi, Delhi
And also
9675, Multani Dhanda
Ram Nagar, New Delhi ............. Petitioner
Versus
1 Shri Devender Kumar
S/o Chara Dass
R/o RZ F106 B , Nihal Vihar
Suit no. 118/10 and 117/10 Page 1/25
2
Nangloi, Delhi
2 Shri Ram Kumar
S/o Shri Bharty
R/o B102 , Gali no. 11
Khajopri Khas, Delhi
3 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Oriental House, A25/27 , Asaf Ali Road
New Delhi ............. Respondents
Suit no. 117/10
Unique Case ID no. 02401C0072582010 Date of filing of the petition : 22.2.2010 When reserved for judgment : 07.4.2011 Date of Judgment/Award : 21.4.2011 Smt. Bimla Devi W/o Shri Shiv Nath R/o H.no. T22, Near Sukhi Nehar Durga Mandir, Prem Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi And also at 9675, Multani Dhanda, Ram Nagar New Delhi .......... Petitioner Suit no. 118/10 and 117/10 Page 2/25 3 Versus 1 Shri Devender Kumar S/o Chara Dass R/o RZ F106 B , Nihal Vihar Nangloi, Delhi 2 Shri Ram Kumar S/o Shri Bharty R/o B102 , Gali no. 11 Khajopri Khas, Delhi 3 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Oriental House, A25/27 , Asaf Ali Road
New Delhi ............. Respondents
ORDER / AWARD
Suit no. 118/10 and 117/10 Page 3/25
4
1. Vide this judgment , I shall dispose of two claim petitions U/s 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 bearing (1) Suit no. 118/10 (2) Suit No. 117/10 as these petitions have arisen out of the same accident which had taken place on 21.12.2009 . The petition bearing Suit No. 118/10 titled as Ritik Vs Devender Kumar was treated as leading case.
2. The brief resume of the facts of the cases of the petitioners are that on 21.12.2009 at about 1.00 p.m petitioners Master Ritik alongwith his mother and cousin brother Rahul were standing on the extreme corner of the road near Ghorewal Mandir at Murga Market for taking a rickshaw for going back to their house. Suddenly offending vehicle RTV bearing no. DL IV A 0167 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without blowing any horn hit the petitioners Ritik and his mother Bimla Devi with a great force . As a result, because of the forceful impact of the offending vehicle both the petitioners sustained severe bodily injuries . Both these petitioners were removed to Guru Gobind Singh hospital.
3. The petitioner in Ritik Vs Devender Kumar (Suit No. 118/10) has claimed Rs. 5,00,000/ as compensation for the injuries sustained by him.
4. The petitioner in Bimla Devi Vs Devender Kumar (Suit No. 117/10) Suit no. 118/10 and 117/10 Page 4/25 5 has claimed Rs. 7,00,000/ as compensation for the injuries sustained by her.
5. The respondents are common in both the petitions. The respondent no. 1 , 2 and 3 are the driver , owner and insurer respectively of the offending vehicle.
6. All the respondents have been served and have filed their written statement. Respondent no. 1 and 2 have filed joint written statement and has denied the allegations of rash and negligent driving stating that no accident was caused by the offending vehicle. It is further alleged that the present petition is liable to be dismissed .
7. Respondent no. 3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle RTV bearing no. DL 1VA 0167 and has denied their liability . It is however admitted that offending vehicle was insured with them vide policy no. 271602/31/2010/8827 for the period from 10.12.2009 to 09.12.2010.
8. Vide order dated 27.8.2010, following issues in petition no. 118/10 Ritik Vs Devender Kumar has been framed :
i) Whether petitioner Master Ritik had sustained grievous injuries on 21.12.2009 at about 1.00 p.m in front of Murga Market Road, Raghubir Nagar , Rajouri Garden, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1 while Suit no. 118/10 and 117/10 Page 5/25 6 driving offending vehicle RTV bearing no. DL IV A 0167 ?
ii) Whether petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so to what amount and from whom ?
iii) Relief
9. Vide order dated 27.8.2010, following issues in petition no. 117/10 Bimla Devi Vs Devender Kumar has been framed :
iv)Whether petitioner Smt. Bimla Devi had sustained grievous injuries on 21.12.2009 at about 1.00 p.m in front of Murga Market Road, Raghubir Nagar , Rajouri Garden, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1 while driving offending vehicle RTVbearing no. DL IV A 0167 ?
v) Whether petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so to what amount and from whom ?
iii) Relief ISSUE NO. 1 (In suit no. 118/10 Ritik Vs Devender Kumar )Suit no.
117/10 - Bimla Devi Vs Devender Kumar & ors.
10. The petitioner Bimla Devi in her affidavit Ex. PW1/A that on 21.12.2009 at about 1.00 p.m, she alongwith her minor son Ritik had Suit no. 118/10 and 117/10 Page 6/25 7 gone to her sister's house at B2 Raghubir Nagar and after meeting her she alongwith her minor son and nephew Rahul reached near Gohrewala Mandir , Murga Market for taking the Rickshaw and were returning back to her house ; when they were standing at the side of road for taking rickshaw one RTV bearing no. DL IVA 0167 came at a very fast speed driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and hit her as well as her son and front wheel of the RTV ran over her both legs as a result she fell down on the road and received grievous injuries; the public persons asked the name of the driver and he told his name as Devender Kumar and she alongwith her son were rushed to Guru Gobind Singh hospital by the police . In her cross examination by Ld. counsel for insurance company , she has denied the suggestion that accident has occurred due to their own negligence while standing on the busy road and RTV driver was not at fault . The criminal case record has been placed on record in the from of AIR by SHO, Rajouri Garden wherein case has been registered against respondent no. 1 Devender Singh involving RTV bearing no. DL IV A 0167. The conclusion of the investigation has not been challenged by him in any manner . The testimony of petitioner Bimla Devi regarding accident having been caused by offending vehicle bearing no. DL IV A 0167 while driving in rash and negligent manner by Suit no. 118/10 and 117/10 Page 7/25 8 respondent no. 1 Devender could not be assailed in her cross examination. Thus, petitioner has successfully established that she alongwith her minor son sustained injuries in the accident caused by respondent no. 1 while driving offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner. The issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2 in petition no. 118/10 Ritik Vs Devender Kumar & ors.
11. In petition no. 118/10 Ritik Vs Surender kumar & ors petitioner has claimed Rs. 5,00,000/ as compensation . Let me now assess the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled to under different heads :
Compensation for the expenses incurred on medical treatment
12. The mother of the petitioner Bimla Devi has not filed any proof of expenses incurred on treatment as he was treated in DDU hospital . In the absence of any medical bills , the petitioner is not entitled for any reimbursement under this head. Compensation for conveyance expenses , attendant charges and special diet.
Suit no. 118/10 and 117/10 Page 8/25 9
13. The mother of the petitioner in her affidavit Ex. PW1/A in para no. 7 and 8 has deposed that she had spent Rs. 70/ per day for 6 months for special diet and had also spent on conveyance charges as she used to visit the doctor four times in a week which costed her Rs. 200/ per trip. She has also stated that she has kept an attendant for his son and personal work on a monthly amount of Rs. 1500/ . Though, there is no cogent evidence on record for the money spent by petitioner on conveyance , special diet and attendant charges , however in view of the nature of injuries received by petitioner as enumerated by him in his evidence and her treatment papers on record, I am of the opinion that petitioner must have spent some sum under this head. I therefore , assess the petitioner to be entitled for a sum of Rs 5000/ for conveyance charges, Rs. 10,000/ for special diet and Rs. 5,000/ for attendant charges respectively. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to Rs. 20,000/ as compensation under this head.
Compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life.
14. As per discharge summary Ex. PW1/ A , the petitioner remained admitted in DDU hospital for four days . He has undergone various tests having abdomen pain due to sustaining of injuries in the accident . The Suit no. 118/10 and 117/10 Page 9/25 10 petitioner Smt. Bimla in her affidavit has stated that her son has sustained fracture in his left leg and remained admitted for 4 days . There is no material on record showing fracture in the left leg of the petitioner Ritik . However, considering the nature of injuries sustained by him , he must have suffered pain and suffering due to injuries sustained in the accident and therefore needs to be compensated on that ground. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 15,000/ will meet the end of justice under this head. Compensation on account of loss of studies
15. The petitioner has not placed on record any proof regarding loss of studies due to accident . It is not stated in the affidavit in which school , the petitioner Ritik was reading . Therefore , petitioner is not entitled to be compensated under this head, in the absence of any cogent evidence in that regard.
16. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation to which the petitioner Ritik (in petition no. 118/10) is entitled comes as under :
1 Compensation for the expenses incurred on medical treatment NIL 2 Compensation for conveyance, special diet and attendant charges Rs. 20,000/ Suit no. 118/10 and 117/10 Page 10/25 11 3 Compensation for pain and suffering and for loss of amenities of life Rs. 15,000/ 4 Compensation for loss of studies NIL Total Rs. 35,000/
17. In view of the above discussion, issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. The petitioner ( Ritik in petition no. 118/10 ) is thus entitled to a sum of Rs. 35,000/ as compensation along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization from the respondents , payable by the Insurer i.e Respondent no.3 - The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ISSUE NO. 2 in petition no. 117/10 Bimla Devi Vs Devender Kumar
18. In petition no. 117/10 Bimla Devi Vs Devender Kumar & ors petitioner has claimed Rs. 7,00,000/ as compensation . Let me now assess the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled to under different heads Compensation for the expenses incurred on medical treatment
19. The petitioner in her affidavit Ex PW1/A has stated that she had spent a sum of Rs. 30,000/ on her treatment and her treatment is still Suit no. 118/10 and 117/10 Page 11/25 12 continuing. The petitioner has also placed on record medical bills Ex. PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/2 to the tune of Rs. 273/ . The treatment papers on record shows that petitioner was prescribed various medicines which she might have purchased from her own expenses and the bills may not have been retained by her . Therefore, despite her treatment in government hospital , she must have spent some considerable amount on medicines from outside thereby incurring expenses from her own pocket. The petitioner is ,therefore, entitled to a sum of Rs. 5000/ as compensation for his medical expenses.
Compensation for the expenses incurred on conveyance expenses, special diet and attendant charges.
20. The mother of the petitioner in her affidavit Ex. PW1/A has deposed that she had spent Rs. 70/ per day for special diet and had also spent on conveyance charges as she used to visit the doctor four times in a week which costed her Rs. 200/ per trip. She has also stated that she had kept an attendant for his personal work on a monthly amount of Rs. 1500/ . Though, there is no cogent evidence on record for the money spent by petitioner on conveyance , special diet and attendant charges , however in view of the nature of injuries received by petitioner as enumerated by him in her evidence and her treatment papers on record, I Suit no. 118/10 and 117/10 Page 12/25 13 am of the opinion that petitioner must have spent some sum under this head. I therefore , assess the petitioner to be entitled for a sum of Rs 5000/ for conveyance charges, Rs. 10,000/ for special diet and Rs. 5,000/ for attendant charges respectively. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to Rs. 20,000/ as compensation under this head. Compensation for loss of income
21. The petitioner in her affidavit Ex. PW1/A has stated that she is a housewife and could not do any work due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by her i.e resulting into permanent disability of 5% in relation to his right leg and knee and with post traumatic scarring anteromedial , there is every possibility that she would not have been able to earn for a period of at least 6 months . Hence, she is entitled to loss of income equivalent to the Minimum wages for a period of 6 months for an unskilled labour . As per Delhi Government notification, the minimum wages at the time of accident was Rs. 3953/ for an unskilled workman. Hence, her total loss of income would be Rs. 23,718/ (3953 X 6) as compensation for loss of income. Compensation for Pain and Suffering .
22. One cannot over look the fact that injury elicited above sustained by the petitioner resulting into 5% permanent disability in relation to her Suit no. 118/10 and 117/10 Page 13/25 14 right leg knee , would cause life long pain and suffering to the petitioner It is settled law that no amount of compensation can be adequate for the physical discomfort, mental pain and suffering. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Divisional Controller, KSRTC Vs. Mahadeva Shetty & Anr. reported in AIR 2003 SC 4172, has made the following observations regarding compensation for pain and suffering: "It is true that perfect compensation is hardly possible and money cannot renew a physique frame that has been battered and shattered, as stated by Lord Merries in West Vs. Shepard (1964 AC 326). Justice requires that it should be equal in value, although not alike in kind Object of providing compensation is to place the claimant as far as possible in the same position financially as he was before accident."
23. It is thus, difficult to exactly compensate the injured in terms of money for pain and suffering. In the present case, keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case and fact that petitioner is suffering from 5% permanent disability, I am of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 50,000/ as compensation for pain and suffering will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF AMENITIES OF LIFE
24. Petitioner had suffered permanent disability in relation to right lower Suit no. 118/10 and 117/10 Page 14/25 15 limb . Keeping in mind the permanent disability suffered, the restrictions put on enjoyment of her life due to the suffered permanent disability, I am of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 40,000/ as compensation for loss of amenities of life will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Compensation for loss of earning capacity on account of permanent disability
25. In the present case , keeping in the mind the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner has suffered 5% permanent disability because of injuries sustained in the accident and the disability has been found to be permanent.
26. Let me now asses the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled on the ground of permanent disability of 5% in relation to right lower limb and other physical injuries.
27. The petitioner has proved her disability certificate 'Mark A' showing 5% permanent disability. It is stated that by Ld. counsel for insurance company that there is no need of summoning the member of the board in lieu of 5% disability to prove the same . As per disability certificate Mark A , the petitioner has suffered permanent disability of 5% in relation to right lower lib with post traumatic scarring anteromedial aspect of right leg and knee Suit no. 118/10 and 117/10 Page 15/25 16
28. In terms of the law laid in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Rajinder Kumar & ors. reported in (III 2007) ACC 19, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog had held that when the injured a qualified stenographer suffered permanent disability resulting in 44 % functional disability on left arm crushed under bus, there was no infirmity found in the award recompensating loss of future earning due to disability suffered by injured as a result of accident, even though the petitioner had not suffered any cut in salary and was employed with the same employer. Also was held that if as a result of the accident, human anatomy is shattered or a limb is damaged, as far as possible, loss occasioned in terms of money to the victim of the unfortunate road mishap has to be recompensed. Damages have to be full and adequate. In case of personal injuries, the assessment of damages have to take into consideration the restriction of future earning capacity. The loss of chance of better employment or prospects have also to be examined and assessed. The impairment of the body as a whole has to be considered and its resultant impact on the earning or earning capacity as also future prospects in increasing the earning capacity have to be considered.
29. In the case of S.K. Kattimani Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation & Others reported as 2007 ACJ 2279 wherein the Hon'ble Suit no. 118/10 and 117/10 Page 16/25 17 Apex Court has held in para No.3 and 4 as under:
"After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that the High Court committed gross error in ignoring the fact that the claimant was a coolie doing manual labour for earning his livelihood. As a result of the accident his one arm was amputated which was almost total disability for earning. In such a situation, to reduce the quantum of compensation by treating disability at 50 percent was uncalled for. The tribunal has in fact assessed the disability at 80 percent."
Consequently, we allow his appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and restore the award made by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal."
30. In the present case , the petitioner has suffered 5% permanent disability in relation to right lower limb and other bodily injuries sustained because of the accident resulting into her disability to do work or to earn livelihood . There is no doubt that due to physical disability the prospect of earning of livelihood by petitioner has been adversely effected. The case of S.K. Kattimani referred (Supra) perfectly covers the facts of the present case and the ratio is squarely applicable in the case of the petitioner also.
31. As per law laid down in Patti Ram Vs Kushal Pal Singh reported as 2010 ACJ 1481 by Hon'ble High court of Delhi , in a case of permanent disability in order to assess the loss of earning capacity on the basis of minimum wages , the increase in minimum wages due to inflation and rise in price index has to be taken into consideration. It was also held Suit no. 118/10 and 117/10 Page 17/25 18 that court should take judicial notice of increase in minimum wages to meet the increase in price index and inflation rate . It was also held that in various judgments the Hon'ble High court of Delhi has taken the view that the minimum wages get doubled over the period of 10 years and the increase in minimum wages is not akin to future prospects. Thus, Tribunal has to consider future increase in minimum wages while awarding compensation for loss of earning capacity. Benefit of future increase in the income of the injured is to be given. The mean average income of the injured is to be calculated by adding double amount of minimum wages to the prevailing wages and dividing the total sum by 2(Two) . On the same analogy to be applicable in this case, the loss of monthly income of the petitioner due to permanent disability is concluded as under : (Rs.3953 + Rs.7906) divided by 2 Rs. 11859 / ÷ 2 = Rs. 5,929/
32. In terms of the law laid in the case of Rajinder Kumar (SUPRA) the petitioner is according entitled for loss of earning capacity on account of permanent disability suffered as per multiplier basis. The petitioner has failed to lead any cogent evidence to show that she was doing any job / service and therefore she is to be granted loss of earning Suit no. 118/10 and 117/10 Page 18/25 19 on the basis of minimum wages prevailing at the time of accident for an unskilled workman. According to minimum wages, as per Delhi Government Notification, the monthly income of the petitioner is to be taken as Rs. 3953/ as herein before elicited.
33. In terms of law laid in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma (SUPRA) it was held that in a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier of 14 is to be applied for assessing the compensation for the victim of a road accident ( for the age group of 46 to 50 years ) The age of the petitioner has been shown in Election Voter I Card Ex. PW1/4 is 30 years as on 1.1.1994 . Thus, at the time of accident the petitioner was of age of 45 years. Since the petitioner was of age 45 years as per Election Voter I card Ex. PW1/4 , here also the multiplier of 14 is to be adopted in this case for assessing the compensation for petitioner.
34. In view of the aforesaid , the petitioner has suffered loss of earning capacity to the tune of Rs. 49, 803.60 ( 5% of Rs. 5929 X 12 X 14 ) as compensation for loss of earning capacity.
COMPENSATION FOR PHYSICAL DISFIGUREMENT DUE TO Suit no. 118/10 and 117/10 Page 19/25 20 PERMANENT DISABILITY
35. The petitioner has suffered permanent loss of hearing along with other bodily injury resulting into 5% physical disability 'Mark A' , resultant from the present accident in question. The physical disfigurement cannot be recompensed in terms of money , till one is alive , one cannot face even oneself to the hard realities that one is not able to hear anything due to physical disfigurement / disability . The Tribunal is enjoined to award just compensation for non pecuniary damages under this head as well. I am of the considered opinion that Rs. 40, 000/ as compensation under this head for the petitioner would be just and petitioner is entitled for the same.
36. In view of the above discussions, the total compensation to which the petitioner Bimla is entitled comes as under : 1 Compensation for the expenses incurred on medical treatment Rs. 5,000/ 2 Compensation for special diet , conveyance and attendant charges Rs. 20,000/ 3 Compensation for loss of income Rs. 23, 718/ 4 Compensation for pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/ 5 Compensation for loss of amenities of life Rs. 40,000/ 6 Compensation for loss of earning capacity Rs. 49,803.60 Suit no. 118/10 and 117/10 Page 20/25 21 7 Compensation for physical disfigurement due to permanent disability Rs 40,000 / Total Rs. 2,28,521.60 Rounded off to Rs. 2,28,521/
37. In view of the above discussion, issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. The petitioner is thus entitled to a sum of Rs 2,28,521/ as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization from the respondents , payable by the Insurer i.e respondent no. 3 The oriental Insurance co. Ltd.
RELIEF (in suit no. 118/10 Ritik Vs Devender Kumar & ors.)
38. In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is hereby held that petitioner is thus entitled to Rs. 35,000/ as compensation alongwith interest @7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization from the respondents payable by respondent no.3 insurer The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Suit no. 118/10 and 117/10 Page 21/25 22 RELIEF (in suit no. 117/10 Bimla Devi Vs Devender Kumar & ors.)
39. In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is hereby held that petitioner is thus entitled to Rs. 2,28,521/ as compensation alongwith interest @7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization from the respondents payable by respondent no.3 insurer The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
40. Since the amount awarded should not be frittered away by of India in a case titled 'G.M. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas' reported in 1994(2) SCC 176, has laid guidelines pronouncing that in a case of compensation, it is appropriate that Tribunals do keep in mind the principles enunciated by this court in 'Union Carbide Corporation Vs. Union of India', 1991(4) SCC 584, in the matter of appropriate investments to safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptible to exploitation. Guidelines inter alia included of investment of share of the claimants in FDRs in nationalized banks with conditions that bank will not permit any loan or advance on the fixed deposits and interest on the amount invested is paid monthly/periodically directly to the claimant and such investment may be made in more than one fixed Suit no. 118/10 and 117/10 Page 22/25 23 deposit. In case of any exigency, claimants are at liberty to apply to Tribunal for withdrawal of such investment.
41. In terms thereof, out of the award sum, 70% sum be invested in 14 FDR's of equal (almost) in name of petitioner in State Bank of India. One FDR be invested for a period of one year; One FDR be invested for a period of two years; One FDR be invested for a period of three years; One FDR be invested for a period of four years; One FDR be invested for a period of five years; One FDR be invested for a period of six years; One FDR be invested for a period of seven years; One FDR be invested for a period of eight years; One FDR be invested for a period of nine years; One FDR be invested for a period of ten years; One FDR be invested for a period of eleven years; One FDR be invested for a period of twelve years; One FDR be invested for a period of thirteen years; One FDR be invested for a period of fourteen years The FDRs shall have no facility of loan or advance. Petitioner can withdraw the interest monthly. In case of exigency, petitioner can move application for premature withdrawal before this Tribunal, as per law.
42. Aforesaid fixed deposits are to be made by State Bank of India, Tis Hazari in the following manner: (1) The State Bank of India, Tis Hazari, shall open separate Savings Suit no. 118/10 and 117/10 Page 23/25 24 Account in the name of claimant and the entire interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits be credited in the said accounts. The fixed deposits shall be automatically renewed till the period prescribed by the court. (2) The interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits shall be paid monthly by automatic credit of interest in the Saving Account. Claimant after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity card/pass book with attested photograph to claimant to facilitate his identity. (3) No cheque book be issued to the claimant without the permission of this court.
(4) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this court. (5) The original FDRs shall be retained by the Bank in the Safe custody. However, the original pass book shall be given to the claimant alongwith the photocopy of the FDRs.
(5) The original Fixed Deposit Receipts shall be handed over to the claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period.
(6) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said FDRs without the permission of this court.
(7) On the request of the claimant, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India according to the convenience of the claimant Suit no. 118/10 and 117/10 Page 24/25 25 In terms of directions contained in case of UOI Vs Nanisiri, in MAC Appeal no. 682/2005 , order dated 13.1.2010 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R Midha, Respondent no. 3 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to directly deposit the award sum with State Bank of India (SBI) Tis Hazari within 30 days through its nodal officer , Mr. H.S Rawat, Relationship Manager , Tis Hazari Branch (MB: 09717044322) and the Manager concerned of SBI, Tis Hazari Court to release the balance amount by transferring the same to the Saving Bank Account of the petitioner /claimant. Insurance company to also file proof of deposit of award sum, also within said period , Manager SBI, Tis Hazari to also furnish compliance report within said period , Manager SBI, Tis Hazari to also furnish compliance report within 15 days of deposit of award sum. Claimant to do the necessary formalities in respect of the bank account(s). Nazir to keep the copy of Award in a miscellaneous file for awaiting compliance report from all concerned, which is to be put up on 23.5.2011.File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21st day of April , 2011 (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) ASJ/SPECIALJUDGE(NDPS) (WEST)DELHI Suit no. 118/10 and 117/10 Page 25/25 26 Suit no. 118/10 and 117/10 Page 26/25