Delhi District Court
Smt. Savitri vs Sh. Shree Pal on 20 September, 2018
MACP No. 554/17 FIR No. 248/17.; PS Narela DOD: 20.09.2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIDYA PRAKASH, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 6286/16 (Old MAC Petition No. 133/16)
1. Smt. Savitri
W/o Sh. Ompal
(Mother of deceased)
2. Sh. Ompal
S/o Sh Surti Singh
(Father of deceased)
Both R/o Gali No. 14, Swatantar Nagar,
Narela, Delhi.
................Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Shree Pal
S/o Sh. Chet Ram
R/o VPO Barona District
Sonipat, Haryana.
(Driver)
2. Sh. Mehtab
S/o Sh. Ranbeer
R/o H.No. 101, near Madrasa, Nai Basti,
Village Bakner, Delhi.
(Regd owner)
3. Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Ltd.
Plot No. 6, First Floor, Pusa Road,
Near Metro Pillar No. 81
(Insurer) ...............Respondents
Date of Institution : 11.07.2017 Date of Arguments : 06.09.2018 Date of Decision : 20.09.2018
APPEARANCES: Sh. Ram Kumar Prabhakar Adv for petitioners.
None for respondents no. 1 & 2.
Sh. S.K Tyagi Adv for respondent no. 3.
Sh Om Pal & Anr. Vs. Shree Pal & Ors. Page 1 of 16MACP No. 554/17 FIR No. 248/17.; PS Narela DOD: 20.09.2018 Petition under Section 166 & 140 of M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation AWARD
1. Ms. Kajal had suffered fatal injuries in Motor Vehicular Accident which occurred on 24.03.2017 at 1.50 pm at Narela Lampur Road, near MCD School, Village Lampur, Narela, Delhi, involving Tractor bearing registration no. HR10AB9877 (alleged offending vehicle) allegedly being driven in rash and negligent manner by respondent no. 1. The petitioners who are the parents of deceased, are seeking compensation for the fatal injuries sustained by her in the wake of Detailed Accident Report (DAR) filed by police corresponding to the investigation carried out in FIR no. 248/17 U/s 279/304A IPC registered at PS Narela with regard to the said accident. DAR was treated as claim petition U/s 166(4) of M.V Act.
2. It is averred in the DAR petition that on 24.03.2017 at 1.50 pm, Ms. Kajal (since expired) alongwith her mother (PW1) and brother Sonu was coming from LMG Bhatta, Sonipat, Haryana to Swatantar Nagar, Narela Delhi on motorcycle bearing no. DL11SE5374, which was being driven by Sh Sonu at normal speed. When they reached near Lampur School, all of a sudden, Tractor bearing registration no. HR10AB9877, which was being driven by R1 in rash and negligent manner, came and hit against said motorcycle with great force. As a result thereof, they fell down on the road and said tractor ran over Ms. Kajal. She sustained grievous injuries all over her body. She was removed to SRHC Hospital, Narela Delhi, where her MLC was prepared. Thereafter, she was referred to Saroj Hospital but unfortunately, during her treatment, she succumbed to her injuries on 24.03.17 itself. The aforesaid tractor was found to be owned by respondent no. 2 and it was found to be insured with respondent no. 3 during the period in question.
3. The respondents no. 1 & 2 i.e. driver & regd owner have filed their joint WS, wherein they have disputed the factum of accident as also the Sh Om Pal & Anr. Vs. Shree Pal & Ors. Page 2 of 16 MACP No. 554/17 FIR No. 248/17.; PS Narela DOD: 20.09.2018 factum of involvement of Tractor No. HR10AB9877 in any such accident. They have claimed that the claimants have concealed the material facts and have filed the present claim petition in order to extort money from them. Alternatively, they have claimed that respondent no. 1 was having valid Driving Licence and the aforesaid vehicle was duly insured by respondent no. 3 as on the date of alleged accident. Based on aforesaid pleas, they have prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. The insurance company/R3 has filed its WS, wherein it has raised statutory defence as provided in Section 149(2) M.V Act. It is claimed that as per material filed with DAR, the driver was driving the Tractor No. HR10AB9877 with Trolley being attached with it and same was filled with mud, which shows that the said vehicle was being used for the purpose of transportation and not for agricultural purpose. It has however admitted that Tractor bearing no. HR10AB9877 was insured with it in the name of respondent no. 2 during the period in question, vide Policy No. 3380/01086815/000/00. On the basis of aforesaid averments, prayer has been made to dismiss the claim petition.
5. From pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by this Court vide order dt. 31.08.2017.
1) Whether the deceased Kajal suffered fatal injuries in road traffic accident on 24.03.2017 at about 1.50 pm at Narela road near MCD School Village Lampur, Narela, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Narela due to rashness and negligence on the part of the driver Shripal who was driving vehicle bearing registration no. HR10AB9877, owned by Mehtab and insured with Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Co.
Ltd?OPP.
2) Whether the Lrs of deceased are entitled to any compensation if so to what Sh Om Pal & Anr. Vs. Shree Pal & Ors. Page 3 of 16 MACP No. 554/17 FIR No. 248/17.; PS Narela DOD: 20.09.2018 amount and from whom?OPP
3) Relief.
6. In support of their claim, the petitioners have examined only one witness i.e. PW1 Smt. Savitri (mother of deceased). They closed their evidence through their counsel on 19.02.2018. On the other hand, the respondents no. 1 & 2 did not examine any witness towards their RE and their RE was closed on 06.09.18. Respondent no. 3/insurance co also opted not to lead any evidence and closed its evidence on 06.09.18 itself.
7. I have already heard the arguments addressed by ld counsels for the parties. I have also gone through the record. Both the sides were directed to submit their respective submissions in Form IV A vide order dated 06.09.2018. However, none of the parties submitted the same on record till date. My findings on the issues are as under: Issue No. 1
8. For the purpose of this issue, the testimony of PW1 Smt. Savitri is relevant. She deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that on 24.03.2017 at about 1.50 pm, she alongwith her son Monu and daughter Kajal, was coming from LMG Bhatta, Sonipat, Haryana to Swantanter Nagar, Narela, Delhi on motorcycle bearing registration no. DL11SE5374 which was being driven by her son Sonu at normal speed. She deposed that when said motorcycle reached at Lampur School, all of a sudden, Tractor bearing no. HR10AB9877 which was being driven by respondent no. 1 in rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit against the said motorcycle with great force, due to which they fell down on the road and the offending tractor ran over Ms. Kajal. She had sustained severe injuries due to the accident. She also deposed that Kajal was removed to SRHC Hospital, Narela, where her MLC was prepared. Thereafter, she was referred to Saroj Hospital, where she succumbed to her Sh Om Pal & Anr. Vs. Shree Pal & Ors. Page 4 of 16 MACP No. 554/17 FIR No. 248/17.; PS Narela DOD: 20.09.2018 injuries on 24.03.17. She categorically deposed that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor bearing registration no. HR10AB9877 by its driver and FIR no. 248/17 U/s 279/304A IPC was registered at PS Narela. During her cross examination on behalf of respondents no. 1 & 2, she deposed that the motorcycle in which we were riding, was being driven by her son at a speed of 2022 kmph and the offending tractor was being driven at a speed of 5060 kmph. She also deposed that tractor was being driven on left side. She further deposed that she as well as her daughter Kajal were not wearing helmets at the time of accident. She also deposed that the road where accident took place, was a single road and without having any divider and no other vehicle was going on the said road. She denied the suggestion that her son was trying to overtake the tractor and during that process, the accident had taken place or that there was no fault in the occurrence of accident on the part of driver of the said tractor.
9. It is quite evident from the aforesaid discussion that the respondents have not been able to impeach the testimony of PW1 Smt. Savitri despite the fact that she was cross examined at length. The presence of said witness at the place of accident, stands established from the fact that suggestion has been put to her on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 2 that her son was trying to overtake the tractor and during said process, the accident had taken place, meaning thereby that the said respondents are also not disputing the fact that the accident in question took place between the aforesaid tractor and the motorcycle of the victim and this witness was also riding on the said motorcycle at the time of the accident. Even otherwise, FIR No. 248/17 supra ( which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/1 colly) is shown to have registered on the statement of Sh. Sonu. The contents of said FIR would reveal that complainant of FIR has disclosed therein the same sequence of facts leading to the accident in question, as deposed by PW1 during the Sh Om Pal & Anr. Vs. Shree Pal & Ors. Page 5 of 16 MACP No. 554/17 FIR No. 248/17.; PS Narela DOD: 20.09.2018 course of inquiry. Moreover, no evidence whatsoever has been led by either of the respondents to controvert the testimony of this witness during the course of inquiry. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of this witness made on oath.
10. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no.1/driver was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident had taken place. However, he preferred not to enter into witness box during the course of inquiry. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor bearing registration no. HR10AB9877 by him.
11. Moreover, it is an undisputed fact that FIR no. 248/17 (supra) was registered at PS Narela with regard to accident in question. Copy of said FIR as also the copy of charge sheet arising out of said FIR(which are part of DAR Ex. PW1/1 colly), would show that FIR was registered on 24.03.17 i.e. on the date of accident itself. Thus, FIR is shown to have been registered promptly and without any delay. Hence, there is no possibility of false implication of respondent no. 1 and/or false involvement of Tractor bearing registration no. HR10AB9877 at the instance of petitioners herein. Not only this, the respondent no. 1 namely Shreepal S/o Sh. Chet Ram (accused in State case) has been charge sheeted for offences punishable U/s 279/337/304A IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor bearing registration no. HR10AB9877 by him. Same would also point out towards rash and negligent driving of aforesaid vehicle by respondent no. 1.
12. Not only this, copy of MLC of deceased (which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/1 colly) prepared at SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi would show that she had been removed to said hospital on 24.03.2017 at 2.33 pm with Sh Om Pal & Anr. Vs. Shree Pal & Ors. Page 6 of 16 MACP No. 554/17 FIR No. 248/17.; PS Narela DOD: 20.09.2018 alleged history of RTA. Further, copy of her PM Report prepared at Mortuary of BJRM (which is also part of DAR Ex PW1/1 colly), would show that cause of her death is opined due to hemorrhagic shock, secondary to poly trauma sustained, produced by blunt force impacts. The external injuries as mentioned in the relevant column of Autopsy Report, correspond with the injuries which occur in the Motor Vehicular Accident. Said documents have not been disputed from the side of respondents and corroborate the ocular testimony of PW1 as discussed above.
13. Apart from this, in response to notice U/s 133 M.V Act ( which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/1 colly) served upon respondent no. 2/ regd owner of Tractor bearing registration no. HR10AB9877, written reply was furnished by him that said vehicle was being driven by his driver Shree Pal S/o Sh Chet Ram on 24.03.2017. Same would also corroborate the testimony of PW1 to the extent that the aforesaid vehicle was being driven by R1 at the time of accident.
14. Furthermore, the aforesaid vehicles were shown to have been seized by police from the place of accident itself on 24.03.17 i.e. on the date of accident itself, as per copies of its seizure memos (which are part of DAR Ex PW1/1 colly). Same would show that the accident was caused by Tractor bearing registration no. HR10AB9877 only.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that Ms. Kajal had sustained fatal injuries in road accident which took place on 24.03.2017 at 1.50 pm at Narela road near MCD School, Village Lampur, Narela, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor bearing registration no. HR10AB9877 by respondent no. 1. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
Sh Om Pal & Anr. Vs. Shree Pal & Ors. Page 7 of 16MACP No. 554/17 FIR No. 248/17.; PS Narela DOD: 20.09.2018 ISSUE NO. 2
16. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly.
MEDICAL EXPENSES
17. PW1 Smt. Savitri has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) that her daughter Ms. Kajal had sustained severe injuries due to the accident in question and she had received medical treatment in Saroj Hospital, where she expired during the course of her treatment on 24.03.2017. She deposed to have incurred a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ on medical treatment of deceased. However, it is relevant to note that the claimants have not filed any medical bill whatsoever in order to show any amount was actually incurred on medical treatment of deceased during her lifetime. Hence, no amount is being awarded to them under this head.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
18. As already stated above, the petitioners in this claim petition have claimed that deceased Ms. Kajal was aged 17 years; she was doing tailoring work and was earning Rs. 10,000/ per month at the time of accident in question. The petitioners are parents of deceased.
19. PW1 Smt. Savitri (mother of deceased) has deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that deceased Kajal was aged 17 years and is survived by the petitioners. She further deposed that deceased was doing tailoring work and was earning Rs. 10,000/ per month at the time of accident. She further deposed that deceased was supporting the Sh Om Pal & Anr. Vs. Shree Pal & Ors. Page 8 of 16 MACP No. 554/17 FIR No. 248/17.; PS Narela DOD: 20.09.2018 petitioners by spending her income on the family. She has relied upon the following documents: Sr. No. Description of documents Remarks
1. DAR Ex PW1/1 (colly)
2. Copy of her Aadhar Card Ex. PW1/2
3. Copy of Aadhar Card of her Ex PW1/3 husband
20. During her cross examination, she deposed that her deceased daughter namely Kajal was student of 9th class at the time of accident. She admitted that she has not filed any documentary proof to show that her daughter Kajal was self employed and was doing the tailoring work or that she was earning Rs. 10,000/ per month at the time of accident. She also deposed that her daughter Kajal was not maintaining any bank account. She denied the suggestion that deceased was not earning Rs. 10,000/ per month as claimed by her.
21. Although, the petitioners have claimed that deceased was doing the tailoring work and was earning Rs. 10,000/ per month while studying at the same time in 9th class at the time of accident but said plea could not be substantiated on record. School leaving certificate of deceased Kajal is filed alongwith DAR (Ex. PW1/1 Colly), wherein her date of birth is mentioned as 10.01.2002. The date of accident in question is 24.03.2017. Thus, the age of deceased was more than 15 years at the time of accident on the basis of the aforesaid document.
22. Now, the question arises as to how the compensation has to be calculated in case of death of minor person. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the celebrated judgment delivered in the case titled as " Chetan Malhotra Vs. Lala Ram & Ors." passed in MAC. APP. No. 554/10 decided on 13.05.2016, has held that compensation on account of death of children in Sh Om Pal & Anr. Vs. Shree Pal & Ors. Page 9 of 16 MACP No. 554/17 FIR No. 248/17.; PS Narela DOD: 20.09.2018 Motor Vehicular Accident cases ought to be dealt with by considering the claim towards pecuniary damages (towards loss of estate), in accordance with the age group wise categories as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter titled as " R.K Malik Vs. Kiran Pal" reported at 2009 (14) SCC 1; the first category being of children less than 10 years' in age, the second category being of children more than 10 years' and upto 15 years' in age, and the third category of children more than 15 years' but not having attained the age of majority (18 years).
23. In the above cited decision, Hon'ble Dehi High Court further held in para 68 of the judgment that since in the claims arising out of death of children, generally speaking, (nonearning hands), the income is to be notionally assumed on the basis of Second Schedule of the M.V Act, the general practice of deduction of onehalf (50%) towards personal and living expenses, as applied in case of bachelors above the age of 18 years would be unfair. Pertinently, the notional income specified for nonearning persons in the Second Schedule is very low as compared to the rates of Minimum Wages. Therefore, the deduction of onethird ( 1/3rd ) on this account, as provided by the first note below the Second Schedule would only be appropriate.
24. Now, again turning back to the facts of the present case. As already stated above, Ms. Kajal was aged above 15 years old at the time of accident. By applying the dictum of law laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Chetan Malhotra's case mentioned supra, the value of notional income in respect of deceased would be Rs. 48,988/ (15,000 x 1081 divided by 331)( The date of accident being 24.03.2017). The said amount is rounded off to Rs. 49,000/. After making deduction of one third towards personal and living expenses of deceased, annual loss to estate would come to Rs. 32,667/ (49,000 x 2/3). The total loss of estate would be Rs. 5,88,006/( 32667 x 18). Accordingly, the amount of Rs. 5,88,006/ is Sh Om Pal & Anr. Vs. Shree Pal & Ors. Page 10 of 16 MACP No. 554/17 FIR No. 248/17.; PS Narela DOD: 20.09.2018 awarded as pecuniary damages on account of death of Ms. Kajal. Similarly, amount of Rs. 5,88,006/ is awarded as composite non pecuniary damages on account of death of said child. Thus, the total compensation amount is assessed as Rs. 11,76,012/ for the fatal injuries sustained by Ms. Kajal. The said amount is rounded of to Rs. 11,76,100/.
25. In a recent decision dated 18.09.2018 delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter titled as " Magma General Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors.", Civil Appeal No. 9581 of 2018, it has been held that even in case of death of minor child in Motor Vehicular Accident, the parents are entitled to loss of Filial Consortium to the extent of Rs. 40,000/. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 40,000/ is also awarded in favour of petitioners on account of Filial Consortium. Thus, the petitioners shall be entitled to total compensation amount of Rs. 12,16,100/ in all.
26. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Counsel for insurance company tried to avoid the liability of insurance company on the ground that there was breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy in this case inasmuch as tractor was attached with trolley and same was loaded with mud, which clearly shows that same was being used for commercial purposes. Thus, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured and is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. In support of his aforesaid contention, he heavily relied upon the copy of insurance policy and the relevant documents including charge sheet and seizure memo of offending tractor filed alongwith DAR.
27. Per contra, counsel for claimants vehemently argued that trolley is an essential part and parcel of tractor and one can not effectively use tractor without trolley being attached to it. He further argued that the tractor and trolley was being used for agricultural purposes. Therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount, being Sh Om Pal & Anr. Vs. Shree Pal & Ors. Page 11 of 16 MACP No. 554/17 FIR No. 248/17.; PS Narela DOD: 20.09.2018 contractually and statutorily bound to indemnify the insured.
28. It is an admitted fact on record that the offending tractor was attached with trolley and it had caused the accident in the agricultural field. Same is also writ large from the contents of FIR No. 248/17 (which is part of DAR Ex PW1/1 colly.), wherein it is specifically mentioned that tractor was attached with trolley at the time of accident. Same is also evident from the copy of seizure memo dated 24.03.17 ( which is also part of DAR Ex. PW1/1 colly), wherein it is mentioned that the tractor attached with trolley was seized on 24.03.17 i.e. on the date of accident itself.
29. In order to appreciate the aforesaid submissions, it would be relevant to refer to the relevant documents i.e. the copy of insurance policy ( which is part of DAR Ex. PW1/1 colly) in respect of TractorTrolley in question. The perusal of said insurance policy, which is an undisputed document even from the side of insurance company, would show that same had been issued in respect of Tractor having validity from 07.12.16 till midnight of 06.12.17. No doubt, it is only the offending tractor which is shown to be duly insured with respondent no. 3 for the period in question as per copy of Insurance Policy filed alongwith DAR and no separate premium for trolley has been paid by insured for the period in question. Nevertheless, it was the duty of insurance company to prove that the offending tractor trolley was being used for commercial purpose. However, no evidence whatsoever has been led by insurance company to prove the same. No inference can be drawn from the fact that the offending tractortrolley was loaded with mud at the time of accident, that it was being used for commercial purpose, while keeping in view the fact that mud (mitti) is always required in agricultural field for agricultural purpose. The insurance company has not led any evidence whatsoever in order to show or establish that the offending vehicle was actually being used for commercial purpose at the time of accident in question.
Sh Om Pal & Anr. Vs. Shree Pal & Ors. Page 12 of 16MACP No. 554/17 FIR No. 248/17.; PS Narela DOD: 20.09.2018
30. Now, the next question arises as to whether in a fact situation like the present one, where tractor is attached with trolley being used in agricultural field, it can be said that the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose. The answer to this question, in my opinion, has to be in negative.
31. Similar question came up for consideration before Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of "Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Tarun Kaura & Ors.," FAO No. 2887/08 decided on 02.03.2010. Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana High Court has held in the said decision that a person who has a valid license for driving a tractor, can also drive a trolley attached to it, as a trolley is an agricultural equipment.
32. Our own High Court in the case of "New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Singh & Ors." MAC.APP No. 561/12 decided on 08.05.14, has held that a tractor is a LMV and also that no separate endorsement is required on the DL for driving a tractor which is being used for agricultural purposes and a person having a DL for driving LMV (non transport) can drive a tractor. Similar view has been taken by our own High Court in the matters titled as "Satish Chand Kasana & Anr Vs. Chandra Shekhar Yadav & Anr" in MAC.APP No. 203/14 decided on 25.08.14 and "Rajinder Singh & Anr. Vs. Satnosh Devi & Ors." MAC.APP No.554/12 decided on 31.07.14.
33. Now turning back to the facts of the present case. It is an established position on record that the offending tractortrolley was being used in agricultural field at the time of accident and thus, the purpose of its use cannot be termed as commercial. There is no substance in the argument raised on behalf of insurance company that merely because trolley was not expressly insured in the insurance policy, it can be allowed to avoid its liability. The identical question arose before Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Sh Om Pal & Anr. Vs. Shree Pal & Ors. Page 13 of 16 MACP No. 554/17 FIR No. 248/17.; PS Narela DOD: 20.09.2018 Pradesh in the case titled as "Asari Pothalingam & Ors., Vs. Lambadi Mamji & Anr, 2012 ACJ 2117(A.P). In the said case also, only tractor was insured but the said tractor was attached with trolley at the time of accident which led to death of one labourer travelling therein. Similar contention was made on behalf of insurance company that since trolley was not insured, it is not liable to pay any compensation for damage caused to third party by trolley. While rejecting the said contention, it was held in para 17 of the judgment, after referring to previous decision delivered by Division Bench of A.P. High Court reported at 2009 ACJ 514(A.P) that no separate insurance is contemplated for a trailor and when the trailor is attached to the tractor, which is insured, it becomes a part of the tractor. Similar view has been taken by Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Surender mentioned supra as also by Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported at 2008 (2) Transport and Accidents Cases 582 (A.P). That being so, the insurance company is held liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner. It cannot be allowed to escape from its liability to indemnify the insured so far as payment of compensation amount is concerned. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
34. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 & 2, I award a sum of Rs. 12,16,100/ (including interim award amount if any) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f date of filing the petition i.e. 11.07.2017 till the date of its realization, in favour of Lrs of deceased/petitioners and against the respondents jointly and severally (Reliance placed on judgment "Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Devi & Ors" bearing MAC. APP. 165/2011 decided on 22.02.2016).
APPORTIONMENT
35. Statements of legal heirs of deceased in terms of Clause 27 MCTAP were recorded on 06.09.2018. In view of their said statements and Sh Om Pal & Anr. Vs. Shree Pal & Ors. Page 14 of 16 MACP No. 554/17 FIR No. 248/17.; PS Narela DOD: 20.09.2018 keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, It is hereby ordered that out of the award amount, the petitioner no. 1 namely Smt. Savitri Devi shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 7,00,000/( Rs. Seven Lacs Only) alongwith proportionate interest and the petitioner no. 2 namely Sh Ompal shall be entitled to remaining amount of Rs. 5,16,100/( Rs. Five Lacs Sixteen Thousand & One Hundred Only) alongwith proportionate interest.
36. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 1, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ ( Rs. One Lakh Only) is directed to be immediately released to her through her Saving Bank Account No. 405502010020564 with Union Bank of India, Bankner Branch having IFSC Code No. UBIN0540552 and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 10,000/ each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
37. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 2, a sum of Rs. 75,000/ ( Rs. Seventy Five Thousand Only) is directed to be immediately released to him through his Saving Bank Account No. 405502010020565 with Union Bank of India, Bankner Branch having IFSC Code No. UBIN0540552 and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 10,000/ each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
38. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:
(i) Original fixed deposit receipts be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, a passbook of the FDRs alongwith photocopies of the FDRs be given to the claimants/petitioners. At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be automatically credited in the savings bank accounts of the Claimants/petitioners.
(ii) No cheque book/Debit Card be issued to the claimants/petitioners without permission of the Court.
(iii) No loan, advance or withdrawal be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(iv) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank accounts or fixed deposit account of the victims.
(v) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank before the Tribunal.
Sh Om Pal & Anr. Vs. Shree Pal & Ors. Page 15 of 16MACP No. 554/17 FIR No. 248/17.; PS Narela DOD: 20.09.2018
39. During the course of hearing of final arguments, both the claimants submitted that they are entitled to exemption from deduction of TDS as their annual income do not exceed from the taxable limit prescribed under the law. They have also furnished Form Nos. 15G on record.
40. Respondent no. 3, being insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with SBI, Rohini Courts branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the respective share amounts directed to be released immediately to both the petitioners in their aforesaid saving bank accounts mentioned supra, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He be further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioners and also to counsel for the insurance company for compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbooks and copy of residence proof of both the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance. Form IVA & Form V in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as AnnexureA. Copy of order be also sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP. Announced in open Court on 20.09.2018 (VIDYA PRAKASH) Judge MACT2 (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi Sh Om Pal & Anr. Vs. Shree Pal & Ors. Page 16 of 16