Delhi District Court
Smt Shakuntla vs Sh. Hansraj on 10 April, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI CHANDRA BOSE : JUDGE :
MACT : DELHI
SUIT No. : 168/08
UNIQUE ID NO. : 02404C0126992008
1. Smt Shakuntla, W/o Sh. Ram Singh,
2. Ms. Gayatri, D/o Sh. Ram Singh,
3. Ms. Ekta, D/o Sh. Ram Singh,
All r/o C29, Central Jail, Tihar, Delhi64. .........Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Hansraj, S/o Sh. Hardev Yadav,
R/o Fatehpura Kalan, Kotputli,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan. ............ Driver
2. Sh. Mukesh Kumar Modi, S/o Sh. Kailash Chand,
R/o ChhawaniNeemKaThana,
District Sikar, Rajasthan. ........... Owner
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd,
Kundan Bhawan, Opposite Choudhary Hotel,
M.I Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Pin No. 302001. ......Ins. Co.
SUIT NO. 168/8 1/25
4. Smt Kiran Bala, W/o Late Sh. Devesh Kumar,
5. Master Mayank, S/o Late Sh. Devesh Kumar,
C/o Sh. Balram Pal, R/o Pal Mohilla,
near Durga Mandir, Village Bhovapur,
Kaushamhi, Ghaziabad, UP. .......Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 22.01.08 DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 17.02.12 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.04.12 A W A R D
01. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of this claim petition filed u/s 166 & 140 of M.V. Act, 1988 by Smt Shakuntla, Ms. Gayatri and Ms. Ekta seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 30 Lacs in respect of accidental death of Late Sh. Devesh Kumar against Sh. Hansraj, Sh. Mukesh Kumar Modi and The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, (hereinafter to be referred as R1, R2 & R3 respectively).
02. The brief facts of the case, as per claim petition, are that on 30.06.07, deceased Sh. Devesh Kumar was driving Tata Safari no. SUIT NO. 168/8 2/25 DL3CAJ0099 and said vehicle was carrying other persons namely Dr. Sahib Singh Verma, Sh. Jagbir Singh, gunman/security and Sh. Suresh Kumar and was on his return to Delhi as Dr. Sahib Singh Verma was returning to Delhi after attending a public function at NeemKaThana. It is further stated that at about 2.20 pm, when they reached at National Highway no. 8, i.e Jaipur Delhi Highway, near TanGugal Kota, approx 4 kms from Shahjahanpur, District Alwar, Rajasthan, another vehicle no. Tata Canter Truck no. RJ23GA0487 which was being driven by R1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed who was under the influence of alcohol (liquor) and as a result lost his control over his vehicle and the truck jumped the road divider and came across the divider on the road of Jaipur to Delhi side and hit the Tata Safari. It is further stated that as a result, all the four persons traveling in Tata Safari died at the spot. It is further stated that R1 came out of the offending vehicle and before he could run away, he was apprehended and was taken into custody by the police deployed at Highway for patrolling.
03. WS was filed on behalf of R1 wherein the case of the petitioners was denied. It is stated that present claim petition is not maintainable against him because offending vehicle was insured with SUIT NO. 168/8 3/25 R3.
04. WS was also filed on behalf of R2 wherein the case of the petitioners was denied.
05. WS was also filed on behalf of R3 wherein the case of the petitioners was denied. However, it is stated that the offending vehicle was insured with R3 vide policy no. 243308/2007/7297 for the period from 30.01.07 to 29.01.08.
06. Following issues were framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties:
(i)Whether on 30.06.07 at about 2.20 pm, near Tan Gugalkota, District Alwar, Rajasthan, vehicle no. DL3CAJ0099 was hit by vehicle no. RJ23GA0487 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and it caused death of Sh. Devesh Kumar?
(ii) Whether deceased himself was driving his vehicle in a negligent manner? OPR2 & 3.
(iii)Whether petition is bad due to nonjoinder of owner and insurer of vehicle of the deceased? OPR2 & 3.
(iv)Whether driver of the offending vehicle did not carry valid and SUIT NO. 168/8 4/25 effective permit and DL? OPR3.
(v) Whether petitioner no. 2 and 3 were married prior filing of the petition if so its effect? OPR4 & 5.
(vi)Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation as prayed for if so from which of the respondent? OPP.
(vii) Relief.
07. In order to prove the case, petitioner no. 1 filed her affidavit. She was cross examined on behalf of R3. PW 2 Sh. Ram Singh also filed his affidavit and was cross examined on behalf of R3. PW 3 Dr. Ajit Singh Yadav, Medical Officer Incharge, Community Health Centre, Behrod, Alwar, Rajsthan was also examined and was cross examined on behalf of R3. PW 4 Sh. Vikas was also examined and was cross examined on behalf of R3. PW 5 Sh. Pawan Kumar, LDC, Transport Authority, Janakpuri was also examined. PW 5 Sh. Manish was also examined and was cross examined on behalf of R3. No evidence was led on behalf of respondents.
08. I heard final arguments of counsel for petitioners and counsel for R3. I considered their submissions and evidence on record. My findings of issues are as under:
09. FINDIINGS ON ISSUE NO. 1.
SUIT NO. 168/8 5/25
PW 1 Smt Shakuntla has stated in her affidavit that she is the mother of deceased Devesh Kumar who met with fatal accident on 30.06.07 while on his way from Jaipur to New Delhi. She has relied upon death certificate Ex. PW 1/2. She has also stated in her affidavit that deceased was driving Tata Safari no. DL3CAJ0099 in which VVIP Sh. Sahib Singh Verma, the Ex Chief Minister of Delhi cum Ex Union Minister of Labour was also travelling and returning from NeemKaThana to Delhi after attending a public function. She has also stated that accident took place at about 2.20 pm on 30.06.07 at National Highway No. 8, under PS Shahjahanpur, District Alwar, Rajasthan and a Tata Canter Truck no. RJ23GA0487 came from opposite side which was being driven by R1 in a rash and negligent manner and all of a sudden, after taking U turn and by crossing the road divider, hit the Tata Safari and as a result, all the four persons travelling in Tata Safari including Devesh Kumar were killed.
10. PW 3 Dr. Ajit Singh Yadav was examined who has proved the fact that he had conducted post mortem of dead body of Devesh Kumar on 30.06.07 in Community Health Centre, Behrod, Alwar, Rajsthan. He has also proved the fact that post mortem report Ex. PW 3/1 was prepared by him. He has also stated that cause of death was of SUIT NO. 168/8 6/25 multiple bone injuries including head injuries leading to shock and death had arisen due to fatal road accident.
11. During arguments, it was submitted by Ld. counsel for petitioners that certified copies of criminal record was filed in connected case bearing no. 72/8 , titled as Smt Sahib Kaur Vs Hansraj arising out of same accident and it shows that R1 was chargesheeted by the police. It was further submitted that since R1 was chargesheeted by the police after investigation of the case, it may be considered that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of R1. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for R3 submitted that he does not want to address any arguments on the point of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle.
12. I considered the submissions of counsel for petitioners as submitted above on the point of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. I considered the case law namely "National Insurance Co. Ltd, Appellant Vs Pushpa Rana and others, Respondents, 2009 ACJ 287". In this case law, Hon'ble Justice Kailash Gambhir of our own Hon'ble High Court, in para no. 13 has held that " Certified copy of criminal court, such as, FIR, recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of vehicle are documents of SUIT NO. 168/8 7/25 sufficient proof to reach the conclusion that driver was negligent. Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in these proceedings".
13. In the present case, certified copies of criminal record such as chargesheet, seizure memo of offending truck, its mechanical inspection report, site plan and recovery memo have been filed. PW 1 Smt Shakuntla has also stated in her affidavit that her deceased son Devesh Kumar had met with fatal accident on 30.06.07 at about 2.20 pm, when he was driving Tata Safari no. DL3CAJ0099 at National Highway no. 8 and the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Tata canter no. RJ23GA0487 coming from opposite side. PW 3 Dr. Ajit Singh Yadav has proved the death of deceased Devesh Kumar as he had proved the fact that he had conducted the PMR of deceased Devesh Kumar. During his cross examination, counsel for insurance company has not disputed the death of deceased in the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending Tata Canter. Therefore, considering the testimony of PW 1 Smt Shakuntla, PW 3 Dr. Ajit Singh Yadav and ratio of aforesaid case law, I am of the view that it has been proved on behalf of petitioners that on 30.06.07 SUIT NO. 168/8 8/25 at about 2.20 pm, near Tan Gugalkota, District Alwar, Rajasthan, deceased Devesh Kumar who was driving vehicle no. DL3CAJ0099 expired after the said vehicle was hit by vehicle no. RJ23GA0487 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and it resulted in his death. This issue is decided in favour of petitioners and against respondents.
14. FINDIINGS ON ISSUE NO. 2.
The onus to prove this issue was on R1. No evidence has been led on behalf of R1 to prove the fact that an cyclist had suddenly come on the road and R1 tried to save the said cyclist with the result accident took place. Therefore, it is held that R1 has failed to prove this issue. This issue is decided against R1.
15. FINDIINGS ON ISSUE NO.3 .
The onus to prove this issue was on R1, R2 and R3. No evidence has been led on behalf of R1, R2 and R3 to prove the fact that vehicle no. DL3CAJ0099 was being driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver. Even during crossexamination of any of the witnesses produced on behalf of petitioners, it has not come on record that vehicle no. DL3CAJ0099 was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver. Therefore, it is held that R1, R2 and SUIT NO. 168/8 9/25 R3 have failed to prove this issue. This issue is decided against R1, R2 and R3.
16. FINDIINGS ON ISSUE NO.4 .
During arguments, it has not been argued on behalf of R3 that petition is bad due to nonjoinder of owner and insurer of vehicle in which deceased was travelling. Moreover, the case of the petitioners is that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of canter no. RJ23GA0487. Therefore, I am of the view that there was no need of impleading owner and insurer of vehicle no. DL3CAJ0099. The owner and insurer of vehicle no. DL3CAJ0099 were not necessary party. Therefore, petition is not bad due to nonjoinder of owner and insurer of vehicle no. DL3CAJ0099. This issue is decided accordingly.
17. FINDIINGS ON ISSUE NO.5 .
The onus of proving this issue was on R3. R3 was to prove that driver of offending vehicle was not having valid and effective permit and DL. No evidence was led on behalf of R3 to prove this issue despite opportunity given to it. Moreover, their evidence was closed at the request of proxy counsel for counsel for R3. It shows that R3 was not having such defence during trial. Therefore, it is held that SUIT NO. 168/8 10/25 R3 has failed to prove the fact that driver of the offending vehicle did not carry valid and effective permit and DL. This issue is decided accordingly.
18. FINDIINGS ON ISSUE NO.6 .
Whenever death of a person takes place in an accident involving use of motor vehicle, his legal heirs and dependents become entitled to be compensated by the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle. The amount of compensation does not bring back the dead but it certainly helps the legal heirs and dependents to live life with dignity and comfort as they were living during the lifetime of the deceased. Otherwise no amount of money in the world can bring back the dead or ease the pain of separation. The amount of compensation which is awarded depends upon age, earnings and other liabilities of the deceased.
19. It is claimed in the petition that deceased Devesh Kukmar was working as a driver with M/s Garuda Imaging and Diagnostic Pvt Ltd, 129, Transport Centre, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi and was earning Rs. 10,000/ per month. PW 1 Smt Shakuntla, who is the mother of the deceased has filed her affidavit wherein she has stated that deceased was employed with M/s Garuda Imaging and Diagnostic Pvt Ltd and SUIT NO. 168/8 11/25 was earning Rs. 10,000/ per month as a salary. I perused the cross examination of PW 1. During her cross examination, she has stated that her son was employed with M/s Garuda Imaging and Diagnostic Pvt Ltd for about 23 months prior to the accident. PW 2 Sh. Ram Singh, father of deceased, has also filed his affidavit. During his cross examination, he has stated that his deceased son was employed with Garuda Company at Punjabi Bagh for 4 or 5 months prior to the accident. He has stated during his cross examination that "I do not have any salary certificate of my son Devesh".
20. PW 4 Sh. Vikas has been examined on behalf of petitioners. He has stated that "I am marketing representative in this company since the year 2004 and have brought the record pertaining to the salary and attendance of Sh. Devesh Kumar (now deceased) who was working as driver in our company". He has also brought the attendance register for the period 01.04.07 to 30.06.07. He has also stated that as per official record, after the death of deceased Devesh, another register was prepared for the purpose of attendance considering that this register may be required by the police or for court proceedings. He was cross examined on behalf of R3 but his further cross examination was deferred for 07.04.10 for next date. On next SUIT NO. 168/8 12/25 date, this witness was not produced by M/s Garuda Imaging and Diagnostic Pvt Ltd and in his place, PW 5 Sh. Manish was examined. Since cross examination of PW 4 could not be completed, his testimony cannot be read in evidence. Photocopy of RC of maruti van of the company has not been produced to show that M/s Garuda Imaging and Diagnostic Pvt Ltd was having maruti van. No resignation letter of PW 4 Sh. Vikas has been filed on record by PW 5 Manish. PW 5 has stated that Sh. Vikas has left the company in the last week of June 2010. The testimony of PW 5 is not trustworthy on the ground that no appointment letter of deceased Devesh was produced by him. As per record of M/s Garuda Imaging and Diagnostic Pvt Ltd, deceased was working as a driver from 01.04.07 till he died. On the other hand, Sh. Ram SinghPW 2father of deceased has stated that deceased was employed with M/s Garuda Imaging and Diagnostic Pvt Ltd for about 4 or 5 months prior to his accident. Had the deceased been working with M/s Garuda Imaging and Diagnostic Pvt Ltd, his father Ram Singh must be knowing for how many months his deceased son had worked with M/s Garuda Imaging and Diagnostic Pvt Ltd. PW 2 has also stated that "I do not have any salary certificate of my son Devesh and I have no SUIT NO. 168/8 13/25 knowledge about the salary of my son". It is very strange that PW 2 who is the father of deceased even did not know the salary of his deceased son. PW 1 Smt Shakuntla has stated during her cross examination that "My husband had obtained salary certificate"
while PW 2 Ram Singh, her husband, has categorically stated during his cross examination that he does not have any salary certificate. PW 1 Smt Shakuntla has also stated that "I do not have any knowledge from where salary certificate was obtained". The certificate Ex. PW 1/ 4 has been filed on record. I fail to understand who has filed it when it was not obtained by PW 2 Ram Singh, father of deceased. Even this certificate has not been proved by examining its authorized signatory. From the evidence on record, it is clear that a separate register was prepared just to show that deceased Devesh Kumar was working with M/s Garuda Imaging and Diagnostic Pvt Ltd. The testimony of PW 5 Manish is not trustworthy in the light of testimony of PW 1 Smt Shakuntla, mother of deceased and PW 2 Sh. Ram Singh, father of deceased. Therefore, it is held that petitioners have failed to prove the fact that deceased Devesh Kumar was working with M/s Garuda Imaging and Diagnostic Pvt Ltd and was earning Rs. 10,000/ per month. Therefore, I agree with the submissions of SUIT NO. 168/8 14/25 counsel for R3 that minimum wage applicable on the date of death of deceased under the category of skilled may be considered. The photocopy Ex. PW 1/3 of deceased Devesh Kumar shows that it was for LMV (NT), LMV (Commercial) and HTV and it shows that deceased was skilled. Therefore, I take the help of Minimum Wage for the purpose of calculating monthly income of deceased. The date of death of deceased is 30.06.07. The Minimum Wage under the category of skilled is Rs. 3,894/ per month. Therefore, I take Rs. 3,894/ per month as income of deceased.
21. It is well settled by Catena of Judgments of our Hon'ble High Court that Hon'ble High Court has taken judicial notice of the increase in minimum wages to meet the increase in price index and inflation rate. Hon'ble High Court has taken the view that the minimum wages get doubled over the period of 10 years and increase in minimum wages is not akin to future prospects.
22. I rely upon the case law namely Santosh Devi, Appellant Vs. Abdul Kareem & Others Respondents decided on 08th October, 2009 in MAC.APP No. 440/2009 and Reshma & Ors. Appellant Vs. Harish Kaushik & Ors Respondents decided on 11th December, 2009 MAC.APP 560/2007 in which it is held that " the income of SUIT NO. 168/8 15/25 the deceased should be computed by taking the average of minimum wages at the time of accident and its doubled".
23. In judgment namely Smt Kiran Devi and others, appellants Vs Surjit Yadav and others, respondents, in MAC.APP No. 511/09 decided on 18.01.10, wherein it has been held by considering earlier judgments by Hon'ble Justice JR Midha of Hon'ble High Court that "Judicial notice be taken by Tribunal of the fact that Minimum Wages gets almost doubled over a period of ten years".
24. Following the aforesaid Judgments cited as above, the income of the deceased is computed by taking the average of minimum wage of Rs. 3,894/ per month at the time of accident and its doubled which comes to Rs. 5,841/ (3,894 +7,788/2).
25. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that there are five claimants including R4 and R5 and therefore, 1/4th should be deducted towards personal and living expenses of deceased. It is further submitted that since R4 has remarried, she should not be granted any compensation as she does not remain financially dependent upon the income of deceased after her remarriage. On the SUIT NO. 168/8 16/25 other hand, Ld. counsel for R4 and R5 submits that major portion should be granted to them as even after the remarriage of R4, she is entitled to compensation. He has relied upon case law Vimla, Appellant VS Dinesh Kumar Sharma and others, 2008 ACJ 816, of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench, in support of his arguments. On the other hand, counsel for R3 submits that petitioners no. 2 and 3 being sisters of deceased cannot be taken as financially dependents upon the income of deceased since their father was earning and they were financially dependents upon the income of their father.
26. I considered the submissions of counsel for petitioners and counsel for R3 and counsel for R4 and R5 as submitted above. In case law Jayakodi & Ors, Appellants Vs National Insurance Company Ltd & Anr, Respondents, II (2010) ACC 592 (SC), it has been held that"Brother and sister are neither dependent nor legal representative of deceased".
27. In case law namely Vimla, Appellant Vs Dinesh Kumar Sharma and others (Supra), it was held that "Widow even after remarriage continues to be the legal representative of her husband as there is no provision under Hindu Succession Act or SUIT NO. 168/8 17/25 any other law which lays down that after remarriage she does not continue to be legal representative. The right of succession accrues immediately on the death of husband and in the absence of any provision she cannot be divested from the property vested in her due to remarriage. It is understandable that the life of a widow, after the death of her husband, in the family, cripples abnormally. Generally, she is subjected to all kinds of indignities, compelling her to leave and fall back on parents where she is taken to be eye sore by the families of her brothers, particularly when parents are not alive and even if they are alive they can hardly look after her due to old age. With this background, it is considered necessary that a widow marries as early as possible. Therefore, in case she has done so, her claim for compensation cannot be defeated by her remarriage. It would be highly improper to compel her to lead a life of a widow till she receives the compensation". It is further held that "Father and younger sisters of deceased are not entitled to compensation for his death in the presence of his widow and mother".
28. In view of ratio of case laws as mentioned above, SUIT NO. 168/8 18/25 petitioners no. 2 and 3 cannot be held financially dependents upon the income of deceased in the present case.
29. In view of above discussions and reason therein, there remains only three financially dependents upon the income of deceased, i.e. petitioner no. 1 Smt Shakuntla, mother of deceased, R4 Smt Kiran Bala, widow of deceased and R5 Master Mayank, son of deceased and therefore, deduction would be 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased from his income as per case law namely Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. 2009 (V) AD(136). If we deduct 1/3rd from his monthly income i.e. 5,8411,947 (1/3rd of Rs. 5,841), we arrive at a figure of Rs. 3,894/. This can be said to be loss of monthly dependency to the petitioner no. 1 and R4 and R5 and the annual dependency comes to Rs. 46,728/(3,894x12).
30. As per photocopy Ex. PW 1/3, the date of birth of deceased has been shown as 04.02.76. The date of death of deceased is 30.06.07. Therefore, his age on the date of his death was more than 31 years. Considering these facts, I am of the view that multiplier of '16' is applicable in view of ratio of case law namely Smt. Sarla SUIT NO. 168/8 19/25 Verma Vs. DTC (Supra), for the purpose of calculating the loss of dependency of the petitioner no. 1 and R4 and R5. Hence, after applying multiplier of '16' to the multiplicand of Rs. 46,728/, we arrive at a figure of Rs. 7,47,648/ towards compensation on account of loss of dependency of the petitioner no. 1 and R4 and R5.
31. In addition to it, R4 being widow of deceased is entitled to be compensated for loss of consortium. Let she be paid Rs. 10,000/ towards loss of consortium. Rs. 10,000/ is also granted towards loss of estate.
32. In addition to it, petitioner no. 1 and R4 and R5 are entitled to be compensated for loss of love and affection. Deceased left behind mother, widow and one son. They will miss him through out their lives. Nothing can ever compensate the actual loss. Only a humble attempt is made by the Tribunal to apply soothing balm over their wounds. As such, they are granted Rs. 25,000/ for loss of love and affection. They be also paid Rs. 5,000/ towards funeral expenses as lot of money is required to be spent on numerous religious rites and ceremonies and also on transportation of body.
33. In view of above additions, total compensation payable to petitioner no. 1 and R4 and R5 is as under :
SUIT NO. 168/8 20/25
1.Loss of dependency : 7,47,648/
2.Loss of consortium : 10,000/
3. Loss of estate : 10,000/
4. Loss of love & affection : 25,000/
5. Funeral expenses : 5,000/ Total : 7,97,648/
34. To sum up I hold that petitioner no.1 and R4 and R5 are entitled to receive Rs. 7,97,648/.
35. So far as the liability to pay the compensation is concerned, it is primary duty of R1 and R2 being driver and owner of offending vehicle and R3 being insurer of the offending vehicle is vicariously liable to pay compensation for the damages suffered by the petitioner no. 1, R4 and R5. Since offending vehicle was duly insured with R3 on the date of the accident and R1 was having valid and effective D/L, therefore, R3 is liable to pay the compensation. This issue is decided accordingly.
36. RELIEF I have already held above that the petitioners are entitled SUIT NO. 168/8 21/25 to receive Rs. 7,97,648/. Now, they are entitled to net amount of Rs 7,47,648/ (after deduction of Rs. 50,000/ of interim award) payable by R3. I direct R3 to pay the said amount to petitioner no. 1 and R4 and R5, within 60 days of today alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum to be calculated from the date of institution till date of actual deposit failing which they would be entitled to further interest @ 12% for the delayed period. This compensation alongwith proportionate interest is apportioned between the petitioners as under :
1. Petitioner no.1 : 1,00,000/
2. Respondent no. 4 : 1,47,648/
3. Respondent no. 5 : 5,00,000/
37. In view of the guidelines issued by Supreme Court in the case titled as General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v/s Susamma Thomas & Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631 for appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered:
SUIT NO. 168/8 22/25
38. As such R3 is directed to deposit the cheques of the awarded amount with proportionate interest in Union Bank of India at 63, Ist Floor, C.S.CII, Sector9, Rohini, Delhi through its Branch Manager in the accounts to be opened by petitioner no. 1 and R4 and R5, within 60 days from today and in case of delay, insurance company shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for delayed period.
39. Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the Union Bank of India at 63, Ist Floor, C.S.CII, Sector9, Rohini, Delhi, is directed to release Rs. 20,000/ out of the awarded amount of petitioner no.1 and Rs. 75,000/ out of awarded amount of respondent no. 4 alongwith proportionate interest by transferring the same to their Saving Bank Accounts. The entire awarded amount of respondent no.5 be kept in FDR till the attainment of age of maturity. The remaining awarded amount of petitioner no.1 be kept in fixed deposit in her name for the period of four years. The remaining awarded amount of respondent no. 4 be kept in fixed deposit in her name for the period of six years.
40. The interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits shall be paid monthly by automatic credit of interest in the Saving Account of the SUIT NO. 168/8 23/25 petitioner no. 1 and R4 and R5.
41. Petitioner no. 1 and R4 and R5 shall not be having any facility of loan or advance on these FDRs. However, in case of emergent need, they may approach this court for premature withdrawal of any amount.
42. Withdrawal from the aforesaid accounts shall be permitted to the petitioner no. 1 and R4 and R5 after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity Card to them to facilitate identity.
43. No cheque book be issued to the petitioner no. 1 and R4 and R5 without the permission of this court.
44. The Bank shall issue Fixed Deposit Pass Book instead of the FDRs to the petitioner no. 1 and R4 and R5 and the maturity amount of the FDRs be automatically credited to the Saving Bank Account of the beneficiaries at the end of the FDRs.
45. On the request of the petitioner no. 1 and R4 and R5, Bank shall transfer the Saving Account to any other branch according to their convenience.
46. Petitioner no. 1 and R4 and R5 shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account to the SUIT NO. 168/8 24/25 Branch Manager, Union Bank of India at 63, Ist Floor, C.S.CII, Sector9, Rohini, Delhi. No joint account be opened in their names.
47. Copy of this order be given to parties for compliance. Copy of this order be also sent to Branch Manager, Union Bank of India at 63, Ist Floor, C.S.CII, Sector9, Rohini, Delhi.
48. Petition is disposed of on aforesaid terms. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (CHANDRA BOSE)
COURT ON 10.04.12 JUDGE/MACT:ROHINI
DELHI
SUIT NO. 168/8 25/25