Delhi District Court
Sh. Ravi Makhija vs Captain Nrusingh Parshad Patnaik on 3 December, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF AMAR NATH
PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL :
DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI.
In the matter of:
MACP No. 256/2011/2010.
Sh. Ravi Makhija
S/o Sh. Satish Chander
R/o 4/175, Block No. 4,
Subhash Nagar, New Delhi. ... ... ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. Captain Nrusingh Parshad Patnaik
S/o Sh. D.C. Patnaik
R/o Indian Overseas Bank, Neel Kanth Nagar1,
Ambika Nagar, Bijipur, Berhampur,
District Ganjan, Orissa (permanent)
and also at:
R/o 503/15, Defence Officer Enclave,
S.P. Marg, Chanakya Puri,
New Delhi (Driver & Owner).
2. National Insurance Company Ltd.
DO13, 105, Palika Bhawan, 1st, Floor,
Sector 13, R.K. Puram, New Delhi66
Police No. 360/600/31/08/61/0000/4119.
Certificate No. 360600.
Valid from 2.2.2009 to 1.2.2010. ... ... ... Respondents.
MACP No. 256/11/10.
Ravi Makhija Vs. Capt. Nrusingh Prashad Patnaik. Page 1 of 222
Date of Institution. : 30.4.2010.
Date of Framing of Issues. : 20.10.2010.
Date of Hearing Arguments. : 03.12.2012
Date of Decision. : 03.12.2012
:: AWARD/JUDGMENT ::
1. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.11.2009 Sh. Ravi Makhija (hereinafter refer as petitioner) was proceeding via Maitri Collage towards Ring Road by driving his car bearing no. DL2CAD8393 at a normal speed by observing the traffic rules and norms. At about 2.15 PM on that day when he reached near St. Martin Marg, Paryavaran Park then all of a sudden a car bearing no. KL7Y6049 (hereinafter refer as offending vehicle), being driven and owned by the respondent no. 1 (in short R1) in rash and negligent manner in the contravention of the traffic rules and norms and hit his car front side after coming wrong side. Due to the forceful impact of the hit, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries on his body. He was removed from the place of accident to RML Hospital where his MLC bearing no. 171492/09 was prepared.
2. Pursuant to the service of the notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and filed their respective written statements. R1 in its written statement had denied the factum and manner of the accident pleading that the accident in fact, was occurred due to negligent driving of the petitioner. An exorbitant amount of MACP No. 256/11/10.
Ravi Makhija Vs. Capt. Nrusingh Prashad Patnaik. Page 2 of 223
compensation is claimed without any justification.
3. A separate written statement was filed by the respondent no. 2 pleading therein that accident was solely caused by the petitioner himself while driving the car bearing no. DL2CAD8393 and hence, he is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. It is further pleaded that the alleged offending vehicle was fully insured with the respondent no. 2 covering the date of accident, therefore, insurer is liable to pay the amount of compensation.
4. This petition was resisted by the insurance company after filing the separate written statement wherein admitted the fact that the vehicle was insured with it vide police no.
360600/31/08/6100004119 in the name of Com. N.P. Patnaik during the period 2.2.2009 to 1.2.2010 subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It is further pleaded that DL of the offending vehicle was also found valid at the time of accident.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the then Presiding Officer vide order dated 20.10.2010.
6. Having heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides and after perusal of material including the evidence on record, my issuewise findings are as under: MACP No. 256/11/10.
Ravi Makhija Vs. Capt. Nrusingh Prashad Patnaik. Page 3 of 224
7. Issue No. 1: Whether petitioner received injuries in an accident on 14.11.2009 at about 2.15 PM due to rash and negligent driving of car bearing registration no. KL7Y6049 by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 1 and insured with respondent no. 2? ... ... ... OPP.
The onus to prove the issue was on the petitioner. In support of the claim, Sh. Ravi Makhija, petitioner had averred the details of the accident through the affidavit Ex PW4/A and narrated the manner of accident in para no. 4 of his affidavit. His deposition has not been controverted by the R1 as he chose to stay away from the proceedings and did not put any question on the aspect of negligence. However, he was cross examined by the insurance company but nothing adverse came out so as to discredit him. Furthermore, he was the natural eye witness being the injured of the accident and thus, I do not find any reason to disbelieve his testimony.
8. Besides this, the petitioner has proved the criminal record i.e. charge sheet Ex PA, FIR Ex PB, mechanical inspection report Ex PC, arrest memo Ex PD, MLC Ex PG and site plan being forming part of the AIR to establish the factum of accident.
9. The standard of proof in a claim petition is not as rigid and as high, as in a criminal case. In a criminal case, proof beyond MACP No. 256/11/10.
Ravi Makhija Vs. Capt. Nrusingh Prashad Patnaik. Page 4 of 225
reasonable doubt is required, however, in a criminal petition, it is not so.
10. In Bimla Devi & Others Vs. Himachal Raod Transport Corporation & Others, (2009) 13 SC 513, it has been observed that in a road accident, the strict principles of poof as in a criminal case are not attracted. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under: "15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties." The aforesaid proposition of law has again upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand & Others, 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No. 1082 of 2011).
11. From the evidence available on record, it stands established that the accident had taken place on the given time, date and place due to the negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle and hence, issue no. 1 is decided accordingly in favour of the petitioner. MACP No. 256/11/10.
Ravi Makhija Vs. Capt. Nrusingh Prashad Patnaik. Page 5 of 226
12. Issue No. 2: If yes, whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, from whom and to what amount? ... ... ... OPP.
As issue no. 1 is decided in favor of the petitioner in affirmative and thus, petitioner is entitled for the compensation. Quantum of the compensation, however, is required to be calculated.
13. It has been held in a catena of judgments by Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts that emphasis in cases of personal injury and fatal accident should be on awarding substantial, just and fair compensation and not a token amount. It has been held in a number of judgments that general principle in calculating such sum of compensation, should be so as to put the injured or legal heirs of a deceased in case of fatal accident, in the same position as he would have been, if accident had not taken place. In examining the question of damages for personal injury, pecuniary or nonpecuniary damages are required to be taken into account.
14. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755 that: "In injury cases it is not easy to assess the amount of damages. The same can however be based on some element of guess work and some amount of sympathy MACP No. 256/11/10.
Ravi Makhija Vs. Capt. Nrusingh Prashad Patnaik. Page 6 of 227
linked with the nature of disability. However all such elements are required to be viewed with objective standard. While assessing the damages the court can not base its opinion merely on speculation or fancy though conjectures to some extent are inevitable.
Broadly speaking, while fixing the amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas nonpecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as nonpecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters ie. on account of injury, the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit ; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
15. In view of above, in order to calculate the amount of compensation, the sum is required to be considered under the various heads as delineated above by Hon'ble Apex Court.
MEDICINES AND TREATMENT
16. Petitioner in his affidavit Ex PW4/A had averred that after the MACP No. 256/11/10.
Ravi Makhija Vs. Capt. Nrusingh Prashad Patnaik. Page 7 of 228
accident, he was removed to RML Hospital, Delhi where his MLC bearing no. 171492 Ex PG was prepared. PW1 Sh. Pyara Singh, Medical Record Officer, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi produced the treatment record of patient Sh. Ravi Makhija and deposed that he took the treatment as indoor patient during the period 14.11.2009 to 26.11.2009 in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi. During that period he was treated for closed fracture, shaft femur right leg and fracture of right ulna right hand and his operation was also conducted on 16.11.2009. The entire medical record including the discharge summary & medical bills of Rs.2,19,343/ (running into 44 sheets) are collectively proved as Ex PW1/A.
17. PW2 Sh. Charan Singh, Medical Record Clerk, Fortis Jassa Ram Hospital, Delhi produced the treatment record of petitioner Sh. Ravi Makhija and deposed that he was initially admitted in hospital on 21.1.2010 and discharged on 27.1.2010 (7 days). He further deposed that during that period, he was treated by the Ortho Department vide CR No. 22186. He was again admitted on 28.5.2010 in Fortis Jassa Ram Hospital, Delhi and discharged on 29.5.2010. He was treated by the Ortho Department vide CR No. 23722. He was readmitted on 4.10.2010 vide CR No. 25636 and discharged on 14.10.2010. The entire treatment record including discharge summary is proved as Ex PW2/A for Rs. 15,175/, PW2/B for Rs. 88,596/, PW2/D for Rs. 1,30,328/, Ex PW5/A for Rs. 30,723/ and Ex PW5/B for Rs. 15,179/ towards medicines and treatment.
MACP No. 256/11/10.
Ravi Makhija Vs. Capt. Nrusingh Prashad Patnaik. Page 8 of 229
18. Since he was not fully recovered from the injuries sustained in an accident, thus, he himself got admitted on 4.10.2010 in Fortis Jassa Ram Hospital, Delhi and he remained under treatment till 14.10.2010 (11 days).
19. PW5 Sh. Nand Kishore, Record Clerk, Sant Permanand Hospital, Delhi produced the medical treatment record concerning the petitioner Sh. Ravi Makhija and deposed that he was admitted in the hospital on 3.3.2011 and discharged on 4.3.2011. He was treated for nonunion fracture right femur with nail operation interlock of nail plus bone marrow infiltration. The entire medical record running into 34 pages is proved as Ex PW5/A. He proved the medical bills amounting to Rs. 30,723/ which was received from the patient by the hospital vide bill dated 4.3.2011. He was also admitted for one day on 6.5.2011 and discharged on the same date. A sum of Rs. 15,179/ was received from the patient towards the medical expenses and the entire medical treatment record running into 22 pages is proved as Ex PW5/B. A sum of Rs. 2,09,731/ is proved as Ex. PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/144 relating to his treatment.
20. Petitioner during the course of his evidence averred that a sum of Rs. 2,55,633/ towards medicines and treatment is due and recoverable from the respondents.
MACP No. 256/11/10.
Ravi Makhija Vs. Capt. Nrusingh Prashad Patnaik. Page 9 of 2210
21. Perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner did spent over and above the amount on his treatment which he has been able to prove on record. Considering the nature of injuries and medical bills, the petitioner is entitled unpaid amount of Rs. 2,55,633/ towards medicines and treatment.
LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF LEAVES
22. PW4 had averred through the affidavit Ex PW4/A that after the accident, he was taken to RML Hospital, Delhi where his MLC Ex PG was prepared and thereafter he was discharged. He was admitted in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi on the same day and remained under treatment till 26.11.2009. He was operated upon 16.11.2009.
23. PW4 during the course of his deposition had stated that he was working in Cheil India Pvt. Ltd., Second Floor, Block C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector 43, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon as Client Servicing Director. His earning was Rs. 13.80 lakh per annum including perks which comes to Rs. 68,390/ (basic plus HRA) per month excluding perks.
24. PW3 Sh. Awanish Kumar, Finance Manager, Cheil India Pvt. Ltd., Second Floor, Block C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector 43, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon was examined to prove the salary slip for the month MACP No. 256/11/10.
Ravi Makhija Vs. Capt. Nrusingh Prashad Patnaik. Page 10 of 2211
of October 2009 as Ex PW3/A. The salary breakup on the yearly basis is Ex PW3/B. He has proved the appointment letter of the petitioner as Ex PW3/C vide which was appointed on the post of Client Servicing Director on 25.4.2005. On being cross examined, he categorically stated that he could not get the promotion because of the accident which was due in the year 2010. He further stated that he was promoted in the year 2008 earlier he was holding the post of Accounts Director. As per the policy of the company, the promotion is given to the eligible employees. He deposed that Sh. Ravi Makhija, petitioner joined his duty on 2.7.2010 and remained on duty till 1.10.2010. Thereafter, he proceeded on leave till 23.1.2011 and resumed his duty on 24.1.2011. He was given the salary for the first period because of earned leaves but subsequently he was not paid salary. He could not get the increments due to the accident. I do not find any reason to disbelieve his testimony as he deposed in the official capacity.
25. In so far the selection of the multiplier is concerned, the petitioner has relied upon the passport Ex PW4/2 wherein his date of birth has been mentioned as 26.8.1973. If the age of the petitioner is calculated on that basis then it came to 36+ years on the date of accident. An operative multiplier shall be '15' as per the Sarla Verma Vs. DTC & Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121.
26. Considering the facts and circumstances and coupled with the MACP No. 256/11/10.
Ravi Makhija Vs. Capt. Nrusingh Prashad Patnaik. Page 11 of 2212
nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that he must not have been in a position to attend his working pattern at least for a period of 14 months plus 4 days (425 days) as the said part of testimony remained unchallenged and uncontroverted.
27. I, therefore, award a sum of Rs. 9,66,578.67/ (rounded off to Rs. 9,66,579/) to the petitioner towards 'loss of income' after relying upon the judgment of our own Hon'ble High Court passed on 2.12.2011 in MAC Appeal No. 719/10 titled Jagdish Prashad Singh Vs. Umed & Others wherein observed that applicant would be entitled to be compensated for the loss of leaves also even if he was paid salary. Similar view was reitereated by our Hon'ble High Court in FAO 572/2002 titled Rajinder Singh Vs. RM Soni & Others dated 2.5.2012 and in MAC Appeal No. 1103/2011 titled as Ashwani Kumar Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others decided on 6.8.2012.
LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF PERMANENT DISABILITY.
28. Now the question remains to be decided with regard the earning of the deceased. Principle has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering amount of compensation, future prospective income must have to be taken into account on the basis of age and income of the deceased.
MACP No. 256/11/10.
Ravi Makhija Vs. Capt. Nrusingh Prashad Patnaik. Page 12 of 2213
29. Before proceedings further, let me quote couple of relevant judgments: In Pati Ram Vs. Kushal Pal Singh reported in 2010 ACJ 1481 it has been held that: Quantum - Injury Leg Amputation of both legs resulting in permanent disability of 85 % in relation to left lower limb and 70 per cent in relation to right lower limb Tribunal assessed loss of earning capacity at 85 per cent and taking income on the basis of minimum wages awarded Rs 5,59,062 towards loss of income due to permanent disability , Rs 10,000/ towards medical expenses , Rs 15,000/ conveyance and speical diet and Rs 1,00,000/ for pain and suffering Appellate court fixed loss of earning capacity at 100 per cent and observing that minimum wages is not akin to future prospects computed loss of income due to permanent disability at Rs 9,86, 580/ plus awarded Rs 1,08,000/ towards conveyance , Rs 1,50,000/ towards pain and suffering Rs 1,00,000/ towards loss of amenities and Rs 50,000/ towards disfiguration Award enhanced from Rs 6,84,062 to Rs 13,94,580/.
Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Yadav, 2011 ACJ (SC) wherein their Lordships have pleased to make the following observations: The provision of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position MACP No. 256/11/10.
Ravi Makhija Vs. Capt. Nrusingh Prashad Patnaik. Page 13 of 2214
prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequence, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensation for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned.
In 2012 ACJ 583 (SC) titled Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar & Others', their lordships were pleased to make the following observations: "The loss of one of the legs either to the marginal farmer or the cyclerickshawpuller would be the end of the road insofar as their earning capacity is concerned. But in case of a person engaged in some kind of desk work in an office, the loss of a leg may not have the same effect. The loss of a leg (or for that matter the loss of any limb) to anyone is bound to have very traumatic effect on one's personal, family or social life but the loss of any of the legs to a person working in the office would not interfere with his work/earning capacity in the same degree as in the case of a marginal farmer or a cyclerickshawpuller".
In Gulam Nabi Bhat Vs. Md. Arman Ali & Others, MAC. Appeal MACP No. 256/11/10.
Ravi Makhija Vs. Capt. Nrusingh Prashad Patnaik. Page 14 of 2215
No. 335/2009 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi decided on 07/08/2012, his Lordship was pleased to make following observations:
14. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical of functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as inn the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of 'loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity." In case United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rama Swami & Others, 2012 (2) TAC 34 (Delhi), it was held as under: MACP No. 256/11/10.
Ravi Makhija Vs. Capt. Nrusingh Prashad Patnaik. Page 15 of 2216
"Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Sections 168 and 173 - Quantum of CompensationAppeal for reduction Claimant suffered permanent disability in respect of right upper limb and right lower limb to the extent of 28% Claimant employed as a Beldar and aged about 54 yearsHe was not paid salary for November 2006 to March 2007 - No material produced to show that thre was loss of any salary till date of his retirement - Government employees carry out their profession even after date of superannuation provided he / she possess good health - Permanent disability in left upper and lower limb to extent of 28 % would definitely affect his earning capacity - Absence of any expert evidenceLoss of earning capacity reduced to 14% in respect of whole body - Award modified and reduced from Rs. 4,35,779/ to Rs.2,82,595/"
30. PW6 Dr. Himanshu Kataria, Prof. (Orthopadics), RML Hospital, Delhi was examined to prove the disability certificate Ex PW6/A concerning the petitioner. According to the doctor, he was found to have an operated fracture of the right femur and right olecranon with good range of movement and one inch shorting of the right lower limb with permanent physical impairment of 7% in relation to right lower limb.
31. It is alleged that the petitioner underwent resurgery to rectify the right leg i.e. fracture of the shaft of femur. He was also admitted to the Fortis Jassa Ram Hospital, Delhi for the removal of implant from the right ulna (right arm) by conducting the surgery. Following the judgments (supra) in the light of considering the disability certificate, it appears that disability would definitely MACP No. 256/11/10.
Ravi Makhija Vs. Capt. Nrusingh Prashad Patnaik. Page 16 of 2217
affect his daily activities as his right lower limb was short of one inch and the ends of the justice would be met, if the functional disability is taken as 50% of seven percent viz. 68390X3.5/100X15X12.
32. I, therefore, award a sum of Rs. 4,30,857/ to the petitioner towards loss of earnings due to disability. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Naresh Kumar & Others, MAC Appeal No. 493/2012 decided on 7.5.2012 is relied upon. PAIN & SUFFERING
33. Pain and suffering is covered under non pecuniary damages. To calculate the same, nature of injuries sustained by the injured, duration during which he got the medical treatment and was confined to bed, are some of the factors which are required to be taken into account.
34. In the present case, it is apparent from the medical record that he was found to have an operated fracture of the right fema and right oleconan with good range of movement and one inch short of right lower limb with permanent physical impairment of 7% in relation to right lower limb. Due to which, he must have undergone tremendous pain. The mental agony which the petitioner might have undergone at the time of accident cannot be equated or quantified in terms of money. Physical pain which the MACP No. 256/11/10.
Ravi Makhija Vs. Capt. Nrusingh Prashad Patnaik. Page 17 of 2218
petitioner must have undergone during the course of treatment would have been immense.
35. To compensate the petitioner under this head, I award a sum of Rs.
50,000/ to the petitioner for pain and suffering. CONVEYANCE & SPECIAL DIET
36. PW4 during the course of his deposition has failed to substantiate the amount spent by him on conveyance and special diet with documentary evidence, however considering the nature of injuries sustained by him, he would have paid repeated visits to the hospital/doctor for his follow up treatment incurring expenses on conveyance which is apparent from the Medical Treatment papers available on record. He must have required to take special diet to recover from the injuries sustained by him.
37. I, therefore, award a sum of Rs. 30,000/ to the petitioner towards Conveyance and special diet.
38. Keeping in view the nature of injuries and evidence available on record, following amount shall be just compensation: 1 Loss of Medicines & treatment: Rs. 2,55,633/ MACP No. 256/11/10.
Ravi Makhija Vs. Capt. Nrusingh Prashad Patnaik. Page 18 of 22 19 2 Loss of income on account of leaves : Rs 9,66,579/ 3 For loss on account of permanent disability : Rs 430,857/ 4 Pain and Suffering : Rs. 50,000/ 5 Conveyance &Special Diet : Rs. 30,000/ 6 Loss of Amenities : Rs. 30,000/
________________________________________________________________________ Total : Rs. 17,63,069 (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Sixty three Thousand Sixty Nine only) INTEREST
39. This petition was filed on 30.4.2010. There is no material to withhold the interest. Petitioner is awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. LIABILITY
40. No evidence has been led on behalf of the respondents including the insurance company to avoid the liability. Admittedly, the offending vehicle was being driven and owned by R1 and the same was insured with R2 and hence, R1 is the principal tort feasor and R2 is vicariously liable. Both the respondents are held jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount. Since the offending vehicle was insured with the R2, therefore it shall pay the awarded amount.
MACP No. 256/11/10.
Ravi Makhija Vs. Capt. Nrusingh Prashad Patnaik. Page 19 of 2220
41. In view of the above discussions, issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
42. Issue No. 3: Relief.
In view of the findings on issues no. 1 and 2 the petitioner is awarded Rs. 17,63,069/ (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Sixty Nine only)/ with interest.
43. The awarded amount be deposited by R2 with State Bank of India, Dwarka Court Complex Branch, Sector10, New Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation to the Nazir of this Court. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, SBI Branch is directed to release Rs. 2,63,069/ with interest to the petitioner by transferring the same to his Saving Bank Account after keeping the remaining amount in a fixed deposit in his name in the following manners:
1. Rs. One Lakh for a period of One year.
2. Rs. Two Lakhs for a period of Two years.
3. Rs. Two Lakhs for a period of Three years.
4. Rs. Two Lakhs for a period of Four years.
5. Rs. Two Lakhs for a period of Five years.
6. Rs. Two Lakhs for a period of Six years.
7. Rs. Two Lakhs for a period of Seven years.
MACP No. 256/11/10.
Ravi Makhija Vs. Capt. Nrusingh Prashad Patnaik. Page 20 of 2221
8. Rs. Two Lakhs for a period of Eight years.
44. The interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits shall be paid monthly by automatic credit of interest in the respective Savings Account of the beneficiary.
45. Withdrawal from the aforesaid account shall be permitted to the beneficiary after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo Identity Card to the beneficiary to facilitate identity.
46. No cheque book shall be issued to the beneficiary without the permission of this Court.
47. The original fixed deposit receipts shall be retained by the Bank in the safe custody. However, the original Pass Book shall be given to the beneficiary along with the photocopy of the FDRs. Upon the expiry of the period of each FDR, the Bank shall automatically credit the maturity amount in the Savings Account of the beneficiary.
48. No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the said fixed deposit receipts without the prior permission of this court.
49. On the request of the beneficiary, Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch according to his convenience.
50. The beneficiary shall furnish all the relevant documents for MACP No. 256/11/10.
Ravi Makhija Vs. Capt. Nrusingh Prashad Patnaik. Page 21 of 2222
opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit Account.
51. R2 shall inform the petitioner through registered post that the cheque of the awarded amount are being deposited so as to facilitate the petitioner to collect his cheque.
52. Copy of the award be supplied to both the parties at free of cost.
53. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court on 03.12.2012.
(AMAR NATH) PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT :
DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI.
MACP No. 256/11/10.Ravi Makhija Vs. Capt. Nrusingh Prashad Patnaik. Page 22 of 22