Delhi District Court
Ms. Munni Devi W/O Late Sh. Bhagwan Dass vs Sh. Mahesh S/O Sh. Roop Chand on 27 August, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SHRI GURVINDER PAL SINGH
JUDGE,MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL(WEST)
TIS HAZARI COURTS,DELHI
(Suit No. 205/10)
PILOT PROJECT CASE
1. Ms. Munni Devi w/o Late Sh. Bhagwan Dass
2. Sh. Avnish s/o Late Sh. Bhagwan Dass
3. Sh. Rajnish s/o Late Sh. Bhagwan Dass
4. Ms. Upasna d/o Late Sh. Bhagwan Dass
(Petitioner no.4 is minor through her mother and natural guardian
Smt. Munni Devi, petitioner no.1)
All R/o 405A , Parnala, Bahadurgarh, Haryana
nd
2 Address: C/o, Mahavir Malik, Ward No.8, Gali no.1, Line Paar,
Shastri Nagar, Bahadurgarh, Haryana.
........PETITIONERS/CLAIMANTS
Versus
1. Sh. Mahesh s/o Sh. Roop Chand
R/o P4/907, Sultan Puri,
New Delhi (Driver)
2. M/s Dolphine Enterprises
At: A1/133, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi (owner)
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
DO24, 2 & 3 Central Market,
First Floor, Paschimi Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi110026 (Insurer)
.....RESPONDENTS
Date of filing of the petition/D.A.R : 02/06/10 When reserved for judgment : 23/08/10 Date of judgment/ award : 27/08/10 Appearances : For claimants/ petitioners : Sh. Karan Bal Advocate Ch.no. 164165,Western Wing, Tis Hazari Courts Delhi Consolidated cases of Suit no. 205/10 & Suit no. 299/10 Page1/17 For respondent No.2 : Sh.R.K. Kohli Advocate C1, FF, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh(W), New Delhi.
For respondent no.3 : Sh. Vikas Shokeen aDvocate AB18, Mianwali Nagar, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.
(Suit No. 299/10) PILOT PROJECT CASE Unique ID No. 02401C0330422010 Ms. Munni Devi w/o Late Sh. Bhagwan Dass R/o 405A , Plarnala, Bahadurgarh, Haryana nd 2 Address: C/o, Mahavir Malik, Ward No.8, Gali no.1, Line Paar, Shastri Nagar, Bahadurgarh, Haryana.
........PETITIONER/CLAIMANT Versus
1. Sh. Mahesh s/o Sh. Roop Chand R/o P4/907, Sultan Puri, New Delhi (Driver)
2. M/s Dolphine Enterprises At: A1/133, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi (owner)
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
DO24, 2 & 3 Central Market, First Floor, Paschimi Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi110026 (Insurer) .....RESPONDENTS Date of filing of the petition/D.A.R : 02/06/10 When reserved for judgment : 23/08/10 Date of judgment/ award : 27/08/10 Appearances : For claimants/ petitioners : Sh. Karan Bal Advocate Ch.no. 164165,Western Wing, Tis Hazari Courts Delhi Consolidated cases of Suit no. 205/10 & Suit no. 299/10 Page2/17 For respondent No.2 : Sh.R.K. Kohli Advocate C1, FF, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh(W), New Delhi.
For respondent no.3 : Sh. Vikas Shokeen aDvocate AB18, Mianwali Nagar, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.
J U D G M E N T / A W A R D These are the Pilot Project cases. The road accident took place on 02/05/10 at about 9.30 a.m within area of P.S. Nangloi. Detailed Accident Report (DAR) in terms of the law laid in the case of 'Rajesh Tyagi & Ors Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors' as FAO No. 842/2003, orders dated 16/12/09 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha, was filed on 02/06/10. Petitioners also filed claim petition on 02/06/10.
2. Ld. counsel for insurer stated on 02/07/10 with written statement that driver was not having a valid driving license to drive the alleged offending vehicle TATA ACE, so insurer was not liable. On 02/07/10, statement of respondent no.2, the vehicle owner was recorded u/s 165 Evidence Act, wherein he stated that he had employed respondent no.1 as driver and then respondent No.1 had shown him a valid license for driving TATA ACE, whose photocopy he had taken from respondent no.1 and sought few days time for filing the copy of the said driving license. The said copy of driving license of respondent No.1 of Bhind, Madhya Pradesh was filed by respondent no.2 on 05/07/10.
3. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off two claim petitions u/s 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 viz. (1) Smt. Munni Devi & Ors. Vs. Sh. Mahesh & Ors bearing Suit no. 205/10 and Smt. Munni Devi Vs. Sh. Mahesh & Ors bearing Suit no. 299/10, since these two cases were consolidated vide order dated 13/08/10 by this Tribunal, since they had arisen out of the same accident dated 02/05/10. The claim petition bearing Suit No. 205/10 was treated as leading case.
Consolidated cases of Suit no. 205/10 & Suit no. 299/10 Page3/17
4. The petitioners in Suit no. 205/10 have claimed Rs. 50 Lakhs as compensation for fatal injuries received by Sh. Bhagwan Dass and petitioner Smt. Munni Devi in Suit no. 299/10 has claimed Rs. 5 Lakhs, as compensation for injuries sustained in the above said road accident
5. Brief resume of facts of the claim petitions is as follows. On 02/05/10 at about 9.30 the deceased Sh. Bhagwan Dass was on his scooter and his wife Smt. Munni Devi was a pillion rider. When they reached at Ghevra Mor, in front of Main Rohtak Road Gas Plant, Tikri Village, Delhi, then , vehicle TATA ACE bearing no. DL1LK4421, driven by respondent no.1 at high speed rashly and negligently came from behind and hit their scooter. The petitioner Smt. Munni Devi, her husband and scooter fell down and sustained injuries. Petitioner Smt. Munni Devi and her husband were removed to Altius Sonia hospital . From said hospital, the deceased Sh. Bhagwan Dass was shifted to Safdarjang hospital where he succumbed to injuries on the next day of accident.
6. Respondents No. 1,2 & 3 are the driver, owner and insurer respectively of the offending vehicle.
7. Despite opportunity, no written statement was filed by respondent no.1.
8. Written statements were filed by respondent No.2 & 3 denying the claim of the petitioners.
9. Respondent No.3, insurer has however admitted that the vehicle bearing registration No. DL1LK4421 was insured with it vide policy No. 361000/31/09/6300003266 valid from 19/11/09 to 18/11/10.
10. Vide orders dated 31/07/10 in Suit No. 205/10,the petitioner No.1 were awarded interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/ alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. Following Consolidated cases of Suit no. 205/10 & Suit no. 299/10 Page4/17 issues were also framed by this Tribunal.
1.Whether the deceased Sh. Bhagwan Dass had sustained fatal injuries on 02/05/10 at about 09.30 a.m, in front of Main Rohtak Road Gas Plant, Tikri Village, Delhi within the jurisdiction of P.S. Nangloi, due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 Sh. Mahesh while driving vehicle ACE TSR bearing registration no. DL1LK4421?
2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3.Relief.
11. Following issues were framed in case bearing Suit No. 299/10 on 31/07/10 by this Tribunal.
1.Whether the petitioner Smt. Munni Devi had sustained sustained grievous injuries on 02/05/10 at about 09.30 a.m, in front of Main Rohtak Road Gas Plant, Tikri Village, Delhi within the jurisdiction of P.S. Nangloi, due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 Sh. Mahesh while driving vehicle ACE TSR bearing registration no. DL1LK4421?
2.Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3.Relief.
12. Petitioner Smt. Munni Devi as PW1 is the solitary examined petitioner witness.
13. On 13/08/10, Ld. counsel for respondent No.2 gave statement for not leading respondent's evidence.
14. Despite opportunity no respondent evidence was led by insurer, respondent no.3 .
15. I have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties, perused the record and given my thoughts to the rival contentions put forth. My issue wise findings are as under: Consolidated cases of Suit no. 205/10 & Suit no. 299/10 Page5/17 ISSUE NO.1 IN SUIT NO. 205/10 & SUIT NO.299/10
16. Petitioner Smt.Munni Devi as PW1 reiterated the averments of the claim petition. She testified that on the fateful morning, she was going on scooter with her husband. When they reached at Ghevra Mor, in front of Main Rohtak Road Gas Plant, Tikri Village, Delhi, then , vehicle TATA ACE bearing no. DL1LK4421, driven by respondent no.1 at high speed rashly and negligent came from behind and hit their scooter. The petitioner and her husband Sh.Bhagwan Dass and their scooter fell down and sustained injuries. She and her husband were removed to Altius Sonia hospital . From said hospital, the deceased, her husband Sh. Bhagwan Dass was shifted to Safdarjang hospital where he succumbed to injuries on the next day of accident.
17. Neither respondent No.1 has entered in the witness box to testify in contrary to the version of PW1, nor there is anything on record to discard or disbelieve the testimony of PW1 either in toto or in particular.
18. A driver behind wheels of a mechanically propelled vehicle is under bounden duty to observe necessary caution for avoiding striking other vehicles, persons, the users of the road ahead. Having failed to observe such bounden duty and having struck the scooter on which PW1 was pillion rider, causing her grievous injuries on her person and fatal injuries to her husband Sh. Bhagwan Dass, respondent No.1 was berserk locomotion and thus negligent.
19. The version of PW1 is lent corroboration by the version emanating from the attested copy of the chargesheet with Detailed Accident Report (DAR)of case FIR No. 146/10, P.S. Nangloi ,u/s 279/337/304A IPC, in terms of which the investigating agency opined that the respondent No.1 has committed the said offences and was responsible for the death of the deceased Sh. Bhagwan Dass and injuries to Smt. Munni Devi caused by his rash and Consolidated cases of Suit no. 205/10 & Suit no. 299/10 Page6/17 negligent driving of said vehicle in question.
20. In terms of the attested copy of the post mortem on the body of Sh. Bhagwan Dass,the cause of death opined is ' coma due to head injury caused by blunt force which could be possible in RTA'.
21. Aforesaid discussions lead me to the conclusion that the petitioners have been able to prove that deceased Sh. Bhagwan Dass sustained fatal injuries and Smt. Munni Devi sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. Issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents in both claim petitions. ISSUE NO. 2 IN SUIT NO. 205/10
22. The appropriate method of calculating the compensation in fatal cases is multiplier method. In catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held that in India the multiplier method is appropriate for calculation of compensation. It was so enunciated by their Lordship Wright in "Davies Vs. Powell Duffregn Associated Collieries Ltd" reported in 1942 AC601, that the appropriate method to calculate compensation is the multiplier method. In the cases of 'General Manager, Kerela State Road Transport Corporation, Trivendram Vs Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) & Ors', (1994) 2 SCC 176; ( 2 ) 'Managing Director, TNSTC Ltd. Vs K.I. Bindu & Ors'. (2005) 8SCC 473; (3) 'Gobald Motor Service Ltd. & Anr Vs RMK Veluswami & Ors', AIR 1962 SC 1, (4)Syed Basheer Ahamad & Ors. V Mohd Jameel and Anr'. in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2009, decided by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06/01/2009 and (5) Smt. Sarla Verma & ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr, reported in III (2009) ACC 708 (SC), decided by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15/04/09, the payment of compensation in lump sum to legal representatives of deceased by multiplier method has been approved.
Consolidated cases of Suit no. 205/10 & Suit no. 299/10 Page7/17
23. Starting point for calculating amount of compensation to be paid to dependents of deceased in a motor accident claim is the amount of monthly income which the deceased was earning; then there is an estimate of what was required for his personal and living expenses. The balance will generally be turned into lump sum by taking certain number of years of purchase. The choice of multiplier is ascertained by the age of the deceased or that of the claimant whichever is higher.
THE MULTIPLICAND
24. PW1 testified that her husband was doing private job work of tie and belts monograms, earning Rs. 12,000/ per month. Alongwith Detailed Accident Report(DAR) at page 93, the copy of driving license of deceased Sh Bhagwan Dass had been filed by the investigating officer. The date of birth of deceased mentioned in his driving license is 18/09/1965. In terms thereof, the deceased was of age 44 years plus as on the date of accident. I take the age of the deceased as 44 years accordingly.
25. No cogent evidence has been collected during the course of investigation nor placed with DAR nor proved on record regarding the monthly earnings of the deceased. Also on record, the petitioner have not placed on record any document regarding any education qualification of the deceased nor proved the same.
26. In absence of any cogent evidence, documentary or otherwise, to establish the earnings of the deceased, the monthly income of the deceased is determined on the basis of the minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act by the Delhi Government in the category of an unskilled workman, which were Rs. 5278/ as on the day of accident.
27. Noting that to neutralize increase in cost of living and price index, minimum wages are increased from time totime. Minimum wages tend to Consolidated cases of Suit no. 205/10 & Suit no. 299/10 Page8/17 increase by 100% every 10 years.
28. It is now well settled that while estimating future loss of income, the Court has to take into account future prospects of the injured/deceased. [ See (1) K. Narsimha Murthi V. The Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.,reported in 2004 ACJ 1109; (2)Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal, reported in III(2007)ACC 676].
29. Thus, Tribunal has to consider future increase in minimum wage while awarding compensation to the dependents of deceased.
30. Benefit of future increase in the income of the deceased is to be given. Thus mean average income of the deceased is determined as Rs. 7917/ per month [{minimum wage+ double the minimum wage} divided by 2] for purpose of computation of compensation in this case.
31. Petitioner Smt. Munni Devi in her statement dated 31/07/10 for interim compensation stated that her son, petitioner no.2 was doing private service and earning Rs. 3000/ per month while her other son, petitioner no.3 was learning watch repair work only earning stipend Rs. 800/ per month.
32. As per ration card, copy Ex. PW1/1, petitioners no. 1,2, 3 & 4 were of respective ages of 45 years; 23 years ; 20 years and 13 years respectively. Accordingly in view of the aforesaid, petitioner no.1, petitioner no.3 and petitioner no.4 were the three dependents on the earnings of the deceased.
33. In terms of law laid by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors (Supra), since there were three dependents abovesaid on the earnings of the deceased, as on the date of accident, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, would be one third (1/3rd ), out of his monthly earnings. The deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased out of his said monthly income would be Rs. 2639/ (Rs. 7917/ divided by 3). The loss of monthly dependency to the dependents of Consolidated cases of Suit no. 205/10 & Suit no. 299/10 Page9/17 the deceased accordingly would be Rs. 5278/.(Rs. 7917/minus Rs. 2639/). MULTIPLIER
34. In terms of the law laid by the Apex Court in case of ' Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors (Supra), as per the age of the deceased of 44 years plus and 45 years of petitioner no.1 as on the date of accident, the multiplier of 14( for the age group of 41 to 45 years)) is to be applied in this case. Accordingly the total loss of dependency to petitioners would be Rs. 8,86,704/(Rs. 5278/ x12x14). COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
35. In terms of law laid by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors (Supra), the claimant/ petitioner no.1, the wife of deceased is entitled to sum of Rs. 10,000/ under the head of loss of consortium. COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF ESTATE
36. In terms of law laid by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors (Supra), the claimants are entitled to sum of Rs. 10,000/ under the head of loss of estate.
COMPENSATION TOWARDS FUNERAL EXPENSES
37. In view of the law laid by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors (Supra) , the claimants are entitled to Rs. 5,000/ under this head. COMPENSATION FOR LOVE AND AFFECTION.
38. No amount would suffice to compensate the loss of love and affection to petitioners. Yet, relying upon the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. R. Midha in case of ' Rajesh Tyagi & ors Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors as FAO No. 842/2003, orders dated 08/05/09, the claimants, four in number, are entitled to sum of Rs. 10,000/ each i.e., totalling Rs. 40,000/ as loss of love and affection.
Compensation for medical expenses incurred on deceased before his expiry
39. On record are the medical bills/ copies of expenses incurred on Consolidated cases of Suit no. 205/10 & Suit no. 299/10 Page10/17 deceased for his treatment before his expiry, amongst pages 55 to 76 of Detailed Accident Report (DAR). Total of these bills comes to Rs. 18,095/ . The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to sum of Rs. 18,095/as compensation for medical expenses incurred on deceased before his expiry.
40. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation to which the petitioners are entitled to comes as under:
1.Compensation for Loss of dependency Rs. 8,86,704/
2.Compensation for loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/
3.Compensation for loss of estate Rs. 10,000/
4.Compensation for funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/
5.Compensation for loss of love and affection Rs. 40,000/
6.Compensation for medical expenses incurred on deceased before his expiry Rs. 18,095/ _______________ Rs. 9,69,799/ Less Interim Compensation Rs. 50,000/ Balance payable sum _______________ Rs. 9,19,799/ ______________
41. In view of the above discussions, Issue No.2 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. Petitioners are, thus, entitled to Rs. 9,19,799/ as compensation alongwith interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization from the respondents. ISSUE NO. 2 IN SUIT NO. 299/10
42. The petitioner has claimed Rs.5 Lakh as compensation for the injuries sustained by her. Let me now assess the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled to under different heads? COMPENSATION FOR THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON MEDICAL TREATEMENT
43. On record are the medical bills / copies amongst, pages 77 to 86 of Detailed Accident Report (DAR) for expenses incurred on treatment of Smt. Munni Devi. Total of these bills comes to Rs. Consolidated cases of Suit no. 205/10 & Suit no. 299/10 Page11/17 1261/. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to sum of Rs. 1261/as compensation for his medical expenses.
Compensation for conveyance & special diet
44. In terms of the copy of MLC at page 19 of DAR , the doctor who had examined the patient Smt. Munni Devi at Altius Sonia Hospital opined the injury to be simple and injuries were (1)abrasions + CLW (Rt) elbow; (2) abrasions (Lt) elbow; (3)multiple abrasions (Rt)hand; (4) abrasions(Lt) knee; (5) abrasions(Rt.) shoulder.
45. Though there is no cogent evidence on record for the money spent by the petitioner for conveyance and special diet, yet considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner elicited above,I am of the considered opinion that petitioner must have spent some sum under this head. Petitioner is accordingly entitled for sum of Rs. 3,000/ for expenses incurred on conveyance and special diet charges.
Compensation for loss of income
46. There is no cogent evidence on record that due to such injuries on the person of petitioner, a house wife, she suffered any loss of notional income and as such any loss of earnings. She is ,therefore, not entitled to any sum under this head.
Compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life
47. In the present case, keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries elicited above, I am of the opinion that sum of Rs. 4000/ as compensation for pain and sufferings and loss of amenities of life will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
48. In view of the above discussion, the total compensation to which the petitioner is entitled to comes as under: Consolidated cases of Suit no. 205/10 & Suit no. 299/10 Page12/17
1. Compensation for medical expenses Rs. 1,261/
2. Compensation for conveyance and special diet expenses Rs. 3,000/
3. Compensation for loss of income ........Nil.......
4. Compensation for pain and suffering & loss of amenities of life Rs. 4,000/ ____________ Rs 8,261/
49. In view of the above discussions, Issue No.2 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. Petitioner is thus, entitled to Rs. 8,261/ as compensation alongwith interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of notice of deposit to the claimant with a copy to her counsel against receipt from the respondents. LIABILITY
50. In terms of law laid in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd Vs Swaran Singh & Ors reported in 2004 A CJ 1, it is trite that where the insurers relying upon the violations of the provisions of law by the assured takes an exception to pay the assured or third party , they must prove a willful violation of the law by the assured.
51. In terms of law laid in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lehru & Ors, reported in I (2003) ACC 611 (SC), it was enjoined upon insurer to prove that necessary care was not taken by the vehicle owner, respondent no.2 before handing over the vehicle to driver having valid driving license and insured committed the breach of any term and condition of policy.
52. On 02/07/10, when respondent no.2 was examined u/s 165 Evidence Act, he stated on oath that he had employed respondent no.1 as driver, after he had shown him license valid for driving the TATA ACE, vehicle in question whose photocopy he had taken and said photocopy, respondent no.2 through counsel had filed on record on 05/07/10. Insurer was having ample man power and financial power for ascertaining, bringing on record and proving any breach Consolidated cases of Suit no. 205/10 & Suit no. 299/10 Page13/17 of any term and condition committed by the vehicle owner/ insured. On 24/07/10, Ld. counsel for petitioner even submitted that he had supplied the copy of driving license of respondent no.1 given by counsel for respondent no.2, to the counsel for insurer, respondent no.3. This is a Pilot Project Case, a time bound matter. Diligence was expected from all concerned, including officials of insurer for proving the breach, if any committed by the insured, vehicle owner. Despite opportunity, no respondent evidence was led by insurer to prove any, breach of policy committed by respondent no.2. In this back drop of the facts, insurer is liable to pay the compensation sum. RELIEF IN SUIT NO. 205/10
53. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that petitioners are entitled to Rs. 9,19,799/ as compensation alongwith interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of notice of deposit to the claimants with a copy to their counsel against receipt from the respondents, payable by respondent no.3 insurer. RELIEF IN SUIT NO. 299/10
54. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the Petitioner is thus, entitled to Rs. 8,261/ as compensation alongwith interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of notice of deposit to the claimant with a copy to her counsel against receipt from the respondents, payable by respondent no.3,insurer
55. APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION IN SUIT NO. 205/10
1. Smt. Munni Devi Rs. 4,31,049/
2. Sh. Avinash (son) Rs. 13,750/ (compensation towards share of estate, funeral expenses and loss of love & affection)
3. Sh. Rajnish (son) Rs. 1,75,000/
4. Ms. Upasna(minor daughter) Rs. 3,00,000/ Consolidated cases of Suit no. 205/10 & Suit no. 299/10 Page14/17
56. Since the amount awarded should not be frittered away by beneficiaries owing to the ignorance, illiteracy etc., the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 for death, 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 deposit. In case of any exigency, claimants are at liberty to apply to Tribunal for withdrawal of such investment.
57. In terms thereof, out of the award amount, 50% amount of petitioner no.1 be invested in shape of four FDRs of equal (almost) in the name of the said claimants/ petitioners for a period of 7 years in State Bank of India. 50% amount of petitioner 3 be invested in shape of two FDRs of equal (almost) in the name of the said claimant/ petitioner for a period of 5 years in State Bank of India. The award amount of petitioner No.4 ( minor daughter of deceased) be invested in shape of FDR in the name of the said claimant/ petitioner till she attains the age of majority in State Bank of India. Petitioners can withdraw the interest monthly. Minor petitioner can so withdraw interest through her guardian mother, petitioner No.1. However, petitioners/claimants are at liberty to take steps for premature encashment in case of exigency, as per law laid before this Tribunal.
Consolidated cases of Suit no. 205/10 & Suit no. 299/10 Page15/17
58. State Bank of India,Tis Hazari, has agreed to open Special Fixed Deposit Account for the victims of road accidents.
59. 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 Accounts in the names of claimants 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 Accounts. (3) Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to the claimants after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card /Pass Books with attested photographs to claim to facilitate their identity.
(4) No cheque book be issued to the claimants without the permission of this Court.
(5) Half yearly statement of account be filed by the Bank in this Court.
(6) The original FDRs shall be retained by the Bank in the Safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the claimants alongwith the photocopy of the FDRs. (7) The original Fixed Deposit Receipts shall be handed over to the claimants at the end of the fixed deposit period. (8) No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said FDRs without the permission of this Court.
(9) On the request of the claimants, the Bank shall transfer the Saving Consolidated cases of Suit no. 205/10 & Suit no. 299/10 Page16/17 Account to any other branch of State Bank of India according to the convenience of the claimants.
60. In terms of directions contained in case of UOI Vs. Nanisiri, in MAC Appeal No. 682/2005, order dated 13/01/2010, of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. R. Midha,Respondent No.3 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 keep the specified amount aforesaid in fixed deposits in terms of the award and release the balance amount by transferring the same to the Saving Bank Accounts of the petitioners/ claimants. 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 15 days of deposit of award sum. . Claimants to do the necessary formalities in respect of the bank account(s). Ahlmad to keep the copy of Award in a miscellaneous file for awaiting compliance report from all concerned, which be put up on 08/10/10.
Inquiry file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court (Gurvinder Pal Singh)
today i.e. 27/08/10 Judge, MACT(West)
Delhi
Consolidated cases of Suit no. 205/10 & Suit no. 299/10 Page17/17