Delhi District Court
Sn vs Maman Singh & Ors. Decided By on 6 January, 2018
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA, JUDGE,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL02, WEST DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Petition Nos.: 77080/2016 and 77122/2016
FIR No.233/14
PS Pilkhwa, U.P.
U/s 279/337/338/304A/427 IPC
CLAIM PETITION NO.77080/2016
SN Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)
1. Smt.Shakunlta Devi Hycent G.Chand
W/o Late Sh.Shiv Hari S/o Sh.Beni Prakash
(Mother of Deceased Dal Chand @ R/o 144, Christian Nagar, Bagoo,
Vijay Kumar) Vijay Nagar, Distt.Ghaziabad, U.P.
Owner of offending vehicle bearing
temporary registration No. UP16
CT0434 (EECO Car)
2. Master Gaurav S/o Late Sh.Dal National Insurance Company Ltd.
Chand (Insurer)
(Son of Deceased Dal Chand)
Both R/o: Policy No.35101031146134882235
D526, Camp No.2, Nangloi, J.J. valid from 28.04.2014 till
Colony, Delhi110041 27.04.2015
CLAIM PETITION NO. 77122/2016
SN Name of Petitioner Name of respondents
Master Gaurav S/o Late Sh.Dal Hycent G.Chand
Chand S/o Sh.Beni Prakash
(Son of Deceased Rinki) R/o 144, Christian Nagar, Bagoo,
Through his grandmother/guardian Vijay Nagar, Distt.Ghaziabad, U.P.
Smt.Shakuntla Devi
R/o: Owner of offending vehicle bearing
temporary registration No. UP16
D526, Camp No.2, Nangloi, J.J.
Colony, Delhi110041 CT0434 (EECO Car)
National Insurance Company Ltd.
(Insurer)
Policy No.35101031146134882235
valid from 28.04.2014 till
27.04.2015
Date of Institution : 07.07.2014
Date of conclusion of arguments : 15.12.2017
Date of pronouncement of judgment/award : 06.01.2018
2
AWARD
1. By this common award, I shall dispose of two claim petitions bearing Nos.77080/2016 and 77122/2016 filed under the provisions of 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act) since they arise from the same vehicular accident that took place at about 5:00 AM on 28.05.2014 opposite police post Sajarsi, PS Pilkhwa, Distt.Hapur, U.P. in which deceased Dal Chand and his wife Rinki sustained fatal injuries. An FIR No.233/14, under Sections 279/337/338/304A/427 IPC was registered at Police Station Pilkhwa, Distt.Hapur, U.P. against Hycent G.Chand, Respondent No.1 (owner) of EECO car bearing registration No.UP16CT 0434 (offending vehicle).
2. Brief facts of the vehicular accident as averred in the Claim Petitions are that at about 5:00 am on 28.05.2014, deceased persons along with their relatives were coming to Delhi from Garh Shanker in the offending vehicle i.e. ECCO car bearing registration No.UP16CT0434. When the offending vehicle reached opposite Police Post Sagarsi, PS Pilkhwa, Distt.Hapur, U.P., the driver of the offending vehicle could not control the car due to high speed and rash and negligent driving and hit it behind a truck with force. Resultantly, the car got crushed and deceased Dal Chand received serious injuries and Rinki received fatal injuries. They were initially removed to Rama Medical College, Ghaziabad, U.P. where Rinki was declared "brought dead" and Dal Chand was shifted to Safdarjung Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries on 01.06.2014. Even the driver died in the accident.
3. In the Written statement filed by respondent No.1/owner, it was admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2/National Insurance Co.
4. In the Written Statement filed by respondent No.2/National Insurance Company, it was claimed that the offending vehicle was plying on the 3 road against the terms and conditions of the policy. The seating capacity of the vehicle was seven whereas, as per the contents of the FIR, 14 people were travelling in the vehicle. Hence, respondent No.2 was not liable to indemnify the insured as he had violated the terms and conditions of the policy.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, contentions raised and material on record, in Claim Petition No.77080/2016, the following issues were framed by Learned Predecessor vide order dated 22.11.2014:
ISSUES (1) Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 28.05.2014 at about 5 am involving car bearing No.UP16CT0434 driven by Sh.Harveer (died in the accident), owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2/Insurance Company?OPP (2)Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
(3)Relief.
6. In Claim Petition No.77122/2016, the following issues were framed by Learned Predecessor vide order dated 22.11.2014:
ISSUES (1) Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 28.05.2014 at about 5 am involving car bearing No.UP16CT0434 driven by Sh.Harveer (died in the accident), owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2/Insurance Company?OPP (2)Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
(3)Relief.
7. In order to establish their claim, Shakuntla Devi, petitioner No.1 in claim petition No.77080/16 and legal guardian of petitioner Master Gaurav in claim petition No.77122/16 examined herself as PW1.
8. No witness was examined by the respondents despite being given opportunity.
9. I have heard the arguments addressed by learned Counsels for the parties 4 and have meticulously gone through the testimonies of the witnesses as well as the court record.
10. My issuewise findings are as follows:
CLAIM PETITION NO.77122/2016 Issue No.1 Whether the deceased (Dal Chand @ Vijay) suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 28.05.2014 at about 5 am involving car bearing No.UP16CT0434 driven by Sh.Harveer (died in the accident), owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2/Insurance Company?OPP CLAIM PETITION NO.77080/2016 Issue No.1 Whether the deceased (Rinki) suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 28.05.2014 at about 5 am involving car bearing No.UP16CT0434 driven by Sh.Harveer (died in the accident), owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2/Insurance Company?OPP
11. In claim petition filed by LRs of deceased for compensation u/s 163A of M.V. Act, the petitioners are not required to plead or establish that the death in respect of which claim has been made, was due to any wrongful act or negligence of the driver/owner of the vehicle or for any other reason. They need to prove only the involvement/use of the vehicle in the accident to claim compensation against the owner and insurer, according to the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act.
12. Smt.Shakuntla Devi examined herself as PW1 and in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW1/A), she narrated the entire sequence of events which led to the accident and consequent death of Dal Chand and Rinki. Since the accident took place outside Delhi, PW1/Shakuntla Devi placed on record certified copies of FIR, chargesheet, postmortem report, site plan etc. As FIR No.233/14 was registered at PS Pilkhwa, U.P. regarding the present accident, the same establishes the use of offending vehicle i.e. 5 ECCO car bearing No. UP16CT0434 in the vehicular accident dated 28.05.2014. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO.2 In Claim Petition No.77080/16 Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
In Claim Petition No.77122/16 Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
13. Since the Issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners in both the claim petitions, they are held entitled for compensation.
14. In the present claim petitions, the compensation is to be assessed on the basis of structured formula given in second schedule of M.V. Act depending upon the following parameters: COMPENSATION IN CLAIM PETITION NO.77080/16 Age of deceased Dal Chand
15. PW1/Shakuntla Devi in her affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) has placed on record Aadhaar card (Ex.PW1/1) of deceased Dal Chand. As per Ex.PW1/1, deceased Lal Chand was aged 35 years at the time of accident. This document has neither been challanged nor controverted by the respondents. Accident took place on 28.05.2014. Accordingly, the age of the deceased Dal Chand was 35 years at the time of accident. Income of deceased Dal Chand
16. It was claimed by PW1/Shakuntla Devi in her affidavit (Ex.PW1/A1) that at the time of the accident, her son deceased Dal Chand @ Vijay Kumar was earning Rs.40,000/ per annum. Since in the claim under section 163A M.V. Act, the annual income of deceased should not exceed Rs.40,000/ per annum, I hereby treat the annual income of the deceased as Rs.40,000/ per annum.
6Number of Dependants
17. Petitioner No.1 Shakuntla Devi is the mother deceased Dal Chand and petitioner No.2 is the minor son of deceased Dal Chand. It is not in dispute that in vehicular accident dated 28.05.2014, petitioner No.2 lost both his parents i.e. father/Dal Chand and mother/Rinki. Hence, petitioner No.1 is not only the grandmother of petitioner No.2 Master Gaurav but also his natural guardian. On the date of the accident, as per the Aadhaar Cards of petitioners, petitioner No.1 was aged about 54 years and the minor son i.e. Master Gaurav was aged about one year. Considering the age of the petitioners, both the petitioners are held dependant LRs of the deceased. Addition in the income towards future prospects
18. In ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD VS. MAMAN SINGH & ORS. decided by HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.K. GAUBA ON 06.11.2017 , the Hon'ble high Court relied upon the judgment of the CONSTITUTION BENCH OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT which was rendered on 31.10.2017 in SLP (C) 25590/2014, TITLED AS NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. VS. PRANAY SETHI & ORS. with respect to computing future prospects in a case under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act. The Hon'ble High Court observed as under:
"The claimants had not been able to prove the regular income of the deceased and, therefore, the tribunal was constrained to go by the minimum wages (Rs.2579 p.m.). The decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) makes no distinction between a claim under Section 166 or one under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act for assessing the income. Since the element of future prospects of increase would deserve to be added to the extent of 40% in view of the ruling in Pranay Sethi (supra), and suitable corrections also needs to be made on the issue of multiplier, per the ruling in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 and the dispensation in second schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier (17) requiring to be chosen according to the age of the deceased, the loss of dependency has to be recomputed. In terms of the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the deduction of onethird is to be made on account of the personal and living expenses. Therefore, the loss of dependency is recomputed as [Rs.2,579/ x 140/100 x 2/3 x 12 x17] Rs.4,91,041.60, rounded off to Rs.4,91,042/ (Rupees Four Lakh ninty one thousand and forty two only). Following the dispensation in Pranay Sethi (supra), the awards under the nonpecuniary heads of funeral expenses and loss to estate at Rs.15,000/ are added."
19. In view of the ratio of aforecited judgments, an addition of 40% of Rs.40,000/ per annum shall be added towards future prospects in the 7 income of the deceased Dal Cahnd.
Deduction towards personal living expenses of deceased
20. According to the Second Schedule u/s 163 A of M.V. Act, irrespective of number of dependants and other factors, onethird (1/3) income of the deceased is required to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Selection of multiplier
21. Age of deceased Dal Chand was 35 years at the time of accident. Therefore, as per the second schedule u/s 163A of M.V. Act, multiplier applicable to the present claim petition would be 17. Loss of financial dependency
22. Considering the facts of the petition and the evidence on record, total loss of financial dependency of the petitioners would be as follows:
Rs.40,000 + (40% of 40,000) x 2/3 x 17 = Rs. 6,34,666.67 (rounded off to Rs.6,34,700/) Compensation under Nonpecuniary (General Damages)
23. In accordance with the aforecited judgments, the petitioners are also entitled to Rs.40,000/ (Rupees Forty Thousand) towards Love and Affection; Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred) towards loss of estate.
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION IN CLAIM PETITION NO.77080/16
24. The total compensation is assessed as under:
SN Heads Amount (Rs.)
1 Loss of Financial Dependency 6,34,700
2 Love and affection 40,000
3 Funeral Expenses 15,000
4 Loss of Estate 15,000
TOTAL 7,04,700
Hence, a total compensation is assessed as Rs.7,04,700/ (rounded off to 8 Rs.7,05,000/) (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Five Thousand).
COMPENSATION IN CLAIM PETITION NO.77122/16 Age of deceased Rinki
25. PW1/Shakuntla Devi in her affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) has deposed that her deceased daughterinlaw and wife of deceased Dal Chand was aged about 23 years at the time of accident. In her crossexamination, PW1/Shakuntla Devi has admitted that she has not placed on record any documentary proof regarding the age of her deceased daughterinlaw Rinki. However, certified copy of postmortem report filed on record on 02.09.2016, shows that the deceased Rinki was aged about 23 years.
Income of deceased Rinki
26. It was claimed by PW1/Shakuntla Devi in her affidavit (Ex.PW1/A1) that at the time of the accident, her daughterinlaw deceased Rinki was earning Rs.40,000/ per annum. Since in a claim under section 163A M.V. Act, the annual income of deceased should not exceed Rs.40,000/ per annum, the annual income of the deceased is treated as Rs.40,000/ per annum.
Number of Dependants
27. As already discussed in preceding paragraph (in claim petition No.77080/16) that petitioner Master Gaurav lost both his parents i.e. father/Dal Chand and mother/Rinki in vehicular accident dated 28.05.2014 and that he was the only child of the deceased persons. Hence, petitioner Master Gaurav is held to be the only dependant LR of deceased Rinki.
Addition in the income towards future prospects
28. In ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD VS. MAMAN SINGH & ORS. decided by HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.K. GAUBA ON 06.11.2017 , the Hon'ble high Court relied upon the judgment of the CONSTITUTION BENCH OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT which was rendered on 31.10.2017 in SLP (C) 25590/2014, 9 TITLED AS NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. VS. PRANAY SETHI & ORS. with respect to computing future prospects in a case under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act. The Hon'ble High Court observed as under:
"The claimants had not been able to prove the regular income of the deceased and, therefore, the tribunal was constrained to go by the minimum wages (Rs.2579 p.m.). The decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) makes no distinction between a claim under Section 166 or one under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act for assessing the income. Since the element of future prospects of increase would deserve to be added to the extent of 40% in view of the ruling in Pranay Sethi (supra), and suitable corrections also needs to be made on the issue of multiplier, per the ruling in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 and the dispensation in second schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier (17) requiring to be chosen according to the age of the deceased, the loss of dependency has to be recomputed. In terms of the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the deduction of onethird is to be made on account of the personal and living expenses. Therefore, the loss of dependency is recomputed as [Rs.2,579/ x 140/100 x 2/3 x 12 x17] Rs.4,91,041.60, rounded off to Rs.4,91,042/ (Rupees Four Lakh ninty one thousand and forty two only). Following the dispensation in Pranay Sethi (supra), the awards under the nonpecuniary heads of funeral expenses and loss to estate at Rs.15,000/ are added."
29. In view of the ratio of aforecited judgments, an addition of 40% of Rs.40,000/ per annum shall be added towards future prospects in the income of the deceased Rinki.
Deduction towards personal living expenses of deceased
30. According to the Second Schedule u/s 163 A of M.V. Act, irrespective of number of dependants and other factors, onethird (1/3) income of the deceased is required to be deducted towards her personal expenses. Selection of multiplier
31. As already discussed, age of deceased Rinki was 23 years at the time of the accident, therefore, according to second schedule u/s 163A of M.V. Act, multiplier applicable to the present claim petition would be 17. Loss of financial dependency
32. Considering the facts of the petition and the evidence on record, total loss of financial dependency of the petitioners would be as follows:
Rs.40,000 + (40% of 40,000) x 2/3 x 17 = Rs. 6,34,666.67 (rounded off to Rs.6,34,700/) 10 Compensation under Nonpecuniary (General Damages)
33. In accordance with the aforecited judgments, the petitioner is also entitled to Rs.40,000/ (Rupees Forty Thousand) towards Love and Affection; Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred) towards loss of estate. COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION IN CLAIM PETITION NO.77080/16
34. The total compensation is assessed as under:
SN Heads Amount (Rs.)
1 Loss of Financial Dependency 6,34,700
2 Love and affection 40,000
3 Funeral Expenses 15,000
4 Loss of Estate 15,000
TOTAL 7,04,700
Hence, a total compensation is assessed as Rs.7,04,700/ (rounded off to Rs.7,05,000/) (Rupees Seven Lakhs and Five Thousand).
LIABILITY
35. It was argued on behalf of respondent No.2/National Insurance Company that the offending vehicle was plying on the road against the terms and conditions of the policy. The seating capacity of the vehicle was seven whereas, as per the contents of the FIR, 14 people were travelling in the vehicle. Hence, respondent No.2 was not liable to indemnify the insured in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.
36. Admittedly, respondent No.2/Insurance Co. has not led any evidence to prove that the overloading was the cause of accident. In order to avoid liability, the Insurer was under legal obligation to prove that the cause of accident was overloading. In B.V. NAGARAJU VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. reported as 1996 ACJ 1178, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that mere carrying more passengers in a vehicle cannot be said to be a fundamental breach and the insurer cannot use the same as a 11 weapon for avoiding liability. Similarly, in STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. NANDED PARBHANI, Z.I.B.M.V.OPERATOR SANGH reported as 2000 (I) ACC 290, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that carrying of more passengers is not a violation and cannot be said that the vehicle came to be used for different purpose other than permitted by the Route Permit and Registration Certificate. The ratio of the aforesaid judgments was further followed by various High Courts. In a case titled as NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. VS. REENA DEVI AND ORS. reported as 2006 (I) ACJR 571, the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh held as follows:
"Whether carrying of passengers more than the prescribed or permitted seating capacity is a ground, which can be taken by an insurer to absolve itself of its liability to pay has to be decided only with reference to the conditions finding a mention in Clauses (a) and (b) of Subsection (2) of Section 149 of the Act. The legislature has very advisedly limited the grounds of defences only to such breaches of specified conditions of the policy which the legislature itself has mentioned in Clause (a) and (b) of Subsection (2) of Section 149 of the Act. In Clause (a), there are as many as four situations which are related to a condition excluding the use of vehicle as well as the condition excluding the driving of the vehicle by an unauthorized person or a condition excluding liability for the injury caused or contributed by conditions of war, civil war, riot or civil commotion. Similarly, in Clause (b), the legislature has advisedly laid down and prescribed that an insurer is entitled to defend the action if the policy of insurance is void on the ground that it was obtained by nondisclosure of a material fact or by representation of a fact which was false in any material particular. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that the overloading of Bus even though it might be a breach of a condition of the registration certificate or the route permit, yet cannot be made the basis of a defence by an insurer because such a breach does not find any mention in either Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Subsection (2) of Section 149 of the Act. By now, through a catena of pronouncements of law by various judgments of the Apex Court it has conclusively been established that an insurer is entitled to avoid its liability to pay only if its defence fall within the ambit of Subsection (2) of Section 149 of the Act and that an insurer, otherwise then by Section 170 of the Act, cannot be permitted to traverse beyond these limited defences available to it under Section 149(2) of the Act."
37. In view of the ratios of the aforesaid judgments, I am of the considered view that the offending vehicle was used as passenger vehicle at the relevant point of time and not for different use other than specified and permitted, therefore, merely because the offending vehicle was allegedly carrying more passengers than permitted, the insurer cannot escape from its liability.
1238. Since, it is admitted by respondent No.2/National Insurance Company that the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.UP16CT0434 was duly insured vide Policy No.35101031146134882235 valid from 28.04.2014 till 27.04.2015, including the date of accident i.e. 28.05.2014, therefore, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner(s) in claim petitions bearing numbers 77080/16 and 77122/16. However, since the offending vehicle was insured to cover the third party risk, respondent No.2/Insurance Co. is under the statutory liability to pay the award amount to the petitioner(s).
RELIEF In Claim petition No.77080/16
39. In view of my above findings on Issue Nos. 1 & 2, I award an amount of Rs.7,05,000/(Rupees Seven Lakhs and Five Thousand) as compensation to both the petitioners. Petitioners are also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 07.07.2014 till realisation. Amount of Interim Award, if paid any, be deducted from the compensation amount.
Apportionment
40. Share of petitioners in the award amount shall be as under:
SN Name of petitioners Relationship with deceased Share in the award amount 1 Smt.Shakuntla Devi Mother 60% 2 Master Gaurav Son 40% In Claim petition No.77122/16
41. In view of my above findings on Issue Nos. 1 & 2, I award an amount of Rs.7,05,000/(Rupees Seven Lakhs and Five Thousand) as 13 compensation to the petitioner Master Gaurav. Petitioner is also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e. 07.07.2014 till realisation. Amount of Interim Award, if paid any, be deducted from the compensation amount.
MODE OF PAYMENT AND DISBURSEMENT In Claim Petition No .77080/16
42. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall deposit the award amount within 30 days from the date of Award in the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch, Delhi in the name of the petitioner(s) under intimation to the petitioner(s) and the Tribunal. In default of payment within the prescribed period, respondent/Insurance Company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. for the period of delay till its realisation.
43. While making the deposit, Insurance Company shall mention the particulars of this case, name of the Tribunal and the date of decision on the back side of the cheque. Insurance Company shall also file copy of the award attested by its responsible officer in the bank at the time of deposit. Insurance Company is further directed to place on record proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice to the petitioners in respect of deposit of the award amount and complete details in respect of calculation of interest etc. in the Tribunal within 30 days with effect from today.
44. Out of total award amount of Rs.7,05,000/, deposited by Respondent No.2/Insurance company, a sum of Rs.1,05,000/ (Rupees One Lakh Five Thousand only), shall be released to petitioner Shakuntla Devi immediately in the savings bank account to be opened by her with SBI, Tis Hazari Branch.
45. Manager of the Bank shall comply and release the award amount to the 14 petitioners in terms of the Award.
46. In order to avoid the compensation money being frittered away, balance amount of Rs.6,00,000/ (Rupees Six Lakhs only) share of money mentioned above would be kept in FDRs in the following manner in accordance with the order dt. 13.02.2017 passed by Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.R. Midha in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jasbir Singh & Ors. :
(i) Rs.3,60,000/ be kept in 36 FDRs of Rs.10,000/ each in the name petitioner No.1/Shakuntla Devi (mother of the deceased) for the periods 1 month to 36 months respectively with cumulative interest.
(ii) Entire share money of the petitioner No.2/Master Gaurav (minor son of the deceased) amounting to Rs.2,40,000/, would be kept in one FDR which shall be released to him after three years of his attaining the age of majority.
47. No loan, advance or premature discharge shall be permitted without the permission of this Court. The minor petitioner can, however, withdraw the interest quarterly through his natural guardian/grandmother. The interest amount be released to the minor petitioner as per aforesaid direction accordingly.
48. All the original FDRs shall remain with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch. However, the statement containing FDR numbers, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by State Bank of India to the petitioner(s).
49. No Cheque book and debit card will be issued by the SBI qua the account(s) opened by the petitioner(s). The petitioner(s) shall be entitled to withdraw the money through withdrawal slips only.
50. The maturity amounts of the FDRs be released to the petitioner Shakuntla Devi in her savings bank accounts in State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch.
15In Claim Petition No.77122/2016
51. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall deposit the award amount within 30 days from the date of Award in the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch, Delhi in the name of the petitioner under intimation to the petitioner and the Tribunal. In default of payment within the prescribed period, Respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall be liable to pay a penal interest @ 12% p.a. for the period of delay till its realisation.
52. While making the deposit, Insurance Company shall mention the particulars of this case, name of the Tribunal and the date of decision on the back side of the cheque. Insurance Company shall also file copy of the award attested by its responsible officer in the bank at the time of deposit. Insurance Company is further directed to place on record proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice to the natural guardian/grandmother of Master Gaurav/petitioner in respect of deposit of the award amount and complete details in respect of calculation of interest etc. in the Tribunal within 30 days with effect from today.
53. In order to avoid the compensation money being frittered away, the entire amount awarded to minor petitioner Master Gaurav shall be kept in a FDR in State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch and to be released to him three years after his attaining the age of majority.
54. No loan, advance or premature discharge shall be permitted without the permission of this Court. The minor petitioner can, however, withdraw the interest quarterly through his natural guardian/grandmother. The interest 0amount be released to the minor petitioner as per aforesaid direction accordingly.
55. All the original FDRs shall remain with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch. However, the statement containing FDR numbers, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by State Bank of India to the petitioner.
56. No Cheque book and debit card will be issued by the SBI qua the 16 account(s) opened by the petitioners. The petitioners shall be entitled to withdraw the money through withdrawal slips only.
57. The maturity amounts of the FDRs be released to the petitioner in the savings bank accounts opened by through his grandmother in State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch.
58. Copy of the Award be given to the parties free of cost.
59. Nazir is directed to prepare a separate file for compliance and be put up on 08.02.2018.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court on 6th January, 2018 (Hemani Malhotra) Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi