1 IN THE COURT OF MS. REKHA RANI : JUDGE : MACT : DELHI MACT No. : 592/10 UNIQUE ID No. : 02404C0347162010 1. [ENTITY] W/o [ENTITY] (Widow of deceased) 2. [ENTITY] S/o [ENTITY] (Son of deceased) 3. [ENTITY] S/o [ENTITY] (Son of deceased) 4. [ENTITY] W/o B.D. Bhatia (Mother of deceased ) All R/o M1/SA, PhaseI, Budh Vihar, Delhi. Petitioners Versus 1. [ENTITY] S/o Satya Prakash Mittal, R/o I39, Phase1, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. (Driver) 2. [ENTITY], R/o B71/3, Basement, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi. (Owner) 3. [ENTITY], Lusa Tower, R/o A2/3, Naniwala Bagh, Azarpur, Ring Road, Delhi. (Insurance) Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 20.12.2010 DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 30.08.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.09.2013 AWARD: [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] 1 of 26
1. [ENTITY] died in a road side accident on 19.10.2010 at about 8:00 a.m at Wazirpur to Madhuban Chowk Road in front of Flyover, NSP Pitam Pura. After completion of investigation, ASI [ENTITY] filed detailed accident report (DAR). Drivercumowner (in short R1) abstained from the enquiry proceedings. United India Insurance Co. Ltd (in short R2) filed written statement. It is stated that it is a hit and run case but later on vehicle No. DL8CK7307 was falsely implicated and as such R2 is not liable to pay anything. It is denied that deceased died in the alleged accident involving the offending vehicle. It is however admitted that the alleged offending vehicle was insured vide policy No. 2227003110P000652110 and valid from 28.07.2010 to 27.07.2011.
2. Although no specific issues were framed by my Learned Predecessor, petitioners have produced evidence on negligence of R1 and also on quantum of compensation. [ENTITY], brother of deceased, [ENTITY] widow of deceased and investigating officer were examined as Pws. [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] 2 of 26
3. I have carefully perused the material available on record and uhave also heard Sh. [ENTITY], Advocate for petitioners and Sh. [ENTITY], Advocate for R2.
Issue No.1 Qua Negligence
4. [ENTITY] deposed that deceased was his elder brother. They intended to visit a shop at Netaji Subhash Place with a view to take it on rent for business purposes. They reached Netaji Subhash Place at about 8:00 a.m on 19.10.2010. He was standing at the bus stop and his brother was ahead of him and in the process of crossing the road when a Swift car of red colour bearing registration No. DL8CK7307 came from the side of Wazirpur Flyover, which was being driven by its driver at high speed, rashly, negligently in violation of traffic rules without blowing any horn and hit his brother with great force. Consequently, he fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately taken to Max Hospital in a PCR Van, where [CASE NUMBER] was prepared by the doctor. It is further deposed that he was shifted to Braham Shakti Hospital, Pooth Khurd on the same day. The witness further stated that [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] 3 of 26 he had noted registration number of the offending vehicle, but he could have his statement recorded by the police only on 20.11.2010, as he was busy either attending to his brother or his business.
5. SI [ENTITY] was examined on two dates. His testimony on both dates is self contradictory. The relevant part is extracted below: "I had received D.D No.11A on 19.10.2010 from DO and I went at the spot. At the spot I did not meet the injured or any eyewitness and came to know from public persons that injured was taken by a person who was injured to the Max Hospital. I went to Max Hospital and obtained [CASE NUMBER] of injured and enquired about the injured from the attending doctors who informed that the injured has been taken out by his brother. I met injured [ENTITY] and his brother [ENTITY] in the verandah of Hospital I enquired from injured and his brother about the accident. Both had replied my queries about the accident. Brother of injured [ENTITY] had inspected that we both were crossing the road and [ENTITY] was ahead of me and a Swift Car No. DL8CK7307, red colour came from flyover side and hit [ENTITY] and the driver of the said car stopped for a moment [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] 4 of 26 and ran away. I did not call the PCR but somebody from the public called the PCR. Sh. [ENTITY] had not stated about the arrival of the PCR at the spot in his presence. He had also stated that he immediately taken his brother to Max Hospital. [ENTITY] had told me that he and his brother do not want any action in this regard. I do not know as to where Mr. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] went from the Hospital that is whether they went to home or another hospital. Doctor attending [ENTITY] had stated that he has received head injury. I had not recorded on any document that the injured and [ENTITY] do not want any action. I had also not recorded the fact that the said Swift car had hit the injured. It is correct that in this said MLC of injured, number and type of offending vehicle is not mentioned. It is also correct that name of the relative or friend in the MLC is not mentioned. I had not tried to trace out the offending vehicle, its driver or the owner as injured and his brother had requested not to take any action. I had closed the investigation on the same day on the instance of SHO. SHO had directed me to close DD entry and kept the MLC with him under supervision. I did not register FIR on the date of accident. I had obtained mobile number of [ENTITY] and again contacted in about any accident. Thereafter I did not contact either injured or his brother [ENTITY] till [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] 5 of 26 registration of the FIR. I did not know where injured was being treated till registration of FIR. I did not inquire about the driver and owner of the said Swift car till registration of FIR. I did not obtain result of MLC. Doctor had told that whether this case is serious or not, it would be revealed after report of CT Scan of the injured. Still I do not know whether CT scan of the injured was done or not and what was its result. I had not inquired about the said fact from the Doctor or otherwise as case was closed at the request of injured and his brother [ENTITY] (examination conducted on 05.03.2011)."
Crossexamination was deferred at the request of the witness due to non availability of case diary. His crossexamination was again conducted on 30.07.2011 by my Learned Predecessor and the relevant extract is as follows:
"Nobody has given any details regarding the vehicle involved in the accident on 19.10.10. Even the vehicle number was not given by anybody or any witness on 19.10.10. I have given the statement on last date as to the involvement of the vehicle as I have not seen the records of the case and now, I have seen the records of the case and therefore, today, I state that no vehicle was ever given or mentioned by [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] 6 of 26 any witness including [ENTITY] or [ENTITY]. For the first time on 20.11.10, the witness has told me about the involvement of the vehicle no DL8CK7307 and thereafter, I recorded the statement of complainant [ENTITY] and investigated about the involvement of aforesaid vehicle. After recording the statement on 20.11.10, we have registered the case as FIR No. 436/10.
On 19.10.10, the complainant [ENTITY] had informed me that he did not want any action in the case and he is taking his brother for further treatment to other hospital. On his verbal statement, I went to the police and closed the DD entry on 19.10.10."
6. The investigating officer is of the level of Subinspector and he is making material contradictions in his testimony recorded on two different dates. He did not explain how in his first statement he categorically and clearly mentioned the registration number of the offending vehicle. He had also stated that doctor attending the injured had stated that injured had received head injury. Despite that he closed the case allegedly at the instance of SHO on the ground that injured and his brother did not want any action in this regard. In his examination conducted on [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] 7 of 26 subsequent date he took a U turn and resiled from his earlier statement and stated that nobody told him about the registration number of the offending vehicle on 19.10.2010.
7. Learned counsel for R2 contended that investigating officer in collusion with the petitioners have filed a false case. [ENTITY] stated in his testimony that accident took place while the deceased was crossing the road in front of flyover Netaji Subhash Place with Swift car bearing registration No. DL8CK7307 being driven rashly and negligently and hit his brother. Investigating officer in his examination conducted on the first date stated the same thing that [ENTITY] told him on 19.10.2010 that [ENTITY] was crossing the road ahead of [ENTITY] when Swift car came from flyover side and hit him. In his crossexamination, [ENTITY] had stated that the driver of the offending vehicle stopped for a while and thereafter fled away from the site of accident alongwith the vehicle. Same thing was deposed by the investigating officer. He deposed that [ENTITY] had told him that on 19.10.2010 that driver of the Swift car stopped for a [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] 8 of 26 moment and thereafter fled away from the site. As such the investigating officer as well as [ENTITY]'s deposition to the effect that [ENTITY] was crossing the road when he was hit by a Swift car and further that driver of the said car stopped for a moment and thereafter fled from the site of accident is identical, which means that [ENTITY] must have told the investigating officer about the manner in which accident took place on 19.10.2010 itself. This fact is clear from the testimony of investigating officer recorded on 05.03.2011. The fact that he chose not to investigate the case properly by making further enquiries regarding the medical condition of the injured and the offending vehicle shows that the investigating officer was rather helping R1 and not the petitioners. Investigating officer stated that the doctor attending [ENTITY] at Max Hospital had told him that injured had received head injuries yet he did not bother to keep a track of the condition of the patient.
8. Learned counsel for R2 contended that deceased did not die due to injuries sustained in any road accident involving the alleged [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] 9 of 26 offending vehicle and that is why complaint was made by [ENTITY] after a delay of about 10 days regarding the accident.
9. The material on record does not support contention of learned counsel for R2. MLC bearing No. 1708 of Max Hospital, dated 19.10.2010 shows that the deceased reached the hospital at about 8:25 a.m with history of road traffic accident. [ENTITY] deposed that Max Hospital doctor advised City Scan to be done and that since charges of Max Hospital were too high, they decided to shift the deceased to Braham Shakti Hospital Pooth Khurd as the said hospital was a charitable hospital. It is further deposed that city scan of the deceased was done and the report came in the evening. He consulted doctors of [ENTITY], who advised immediate surgery. It is further deposed that as no surgical facilities were available in Braham Shakti Hospital, deceased was shifted to [ENTITY] on the night of 19.10.2010 itself.
10. Record of [ENTITY] shows that the deceased was brought to the hospital on 20.10.2010 at about 12:45 a.m [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] 10 of 26 and he was discharged on 25.10.2010. The witness further testified that his brother was operated upon at [ENTITY] and he was told that the surgery was successful. It is further stated that since it was stated by doctors that surgery was successful and in view of the fact that treatment at [ENTITY] was costly, the deceased was shifted to Braham Shakti Hospital, Pooth Khurd on 25.10.2010, where he remained till 03.12.2010. The record of Braham Shakti Hospital and Research Center shows date of admission of the deceased as 25.10.2010 and he remained there till 03.12.2010. So, there is continuous treatment from the date of accident till the date of his death.
11. As per MLC of deceased prepared by Max Hospital on the date of accident itself it is said that he was brought with alleged history of road traffic accident and as per his postmortem report, the cause of death is "head injury" as a result of blunt force impact, possible in road side accident all injuries being ante mortem in nature.
12. Treatment of the deceased from the date of accident till the [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] 11 of 26 date of his death is continuous and it is proved that he died due to injuries sustained in the road accident. It is also explained by [ENTITY] why he did not lodge the FIR on the date of accident itself. He stated that on the date of accident they had decided not to take any action against R1, but when expenses of medical treatment of the deceased were rising too high and he was not recovering from the treatment and his condition was deteriorating it was deceased to lodge FIR.
13. It has to be borne in mind that [ACT] does not stipulate holding a trial for petition preferred under [SECTION] of the Act. Under [SECTION] of the Act, a Claims Tribunal holds an inquiry to determine compensation which must appear to it to be just. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. In [PRECEDENT]. Hon'ble Apex Court held " that tribunal exercising quasijudicial functions are not courts and that therefore they are not bound to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of actions in courts nor are they bound by strict rules of evidence. They can unlike courts, obtain all information for [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] 12 of 26 the points under the enquiry from all sources and through all channels, without being fettered by rules and procedure, which govern proceedings in court. The only obligation which the law casts on them is that they should not act on any information which they may receive unless they put it to the party against whom it is to be used and give him a fair opportunity to explain it. What is a fair opportunity depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but where such an opportunity has been given, the proceedings are not open to attack on the ground that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the procedure followed in courts"
14. In [ENTITY] Devi and ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors (2009) 13 SC 530, Supreme Court held that " 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 [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] 13 of 26 doubt could not have been applied."
15. In [PRECEDENT]. Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that "The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT]. On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced (1) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No. 955/2001, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under [SECTION], [ACT] against the driver, (iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under [ACT] are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] 14 of 26 be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down."
16. Report under [SECTION] shows that R1 was prosecuted for having caused the accident. Investigating officer in his cross examination stated that R1 did not lodge any complaint with him regarding his alleged false implication in this case. R1 has not explained as to why the petitioners will involve him falsely in absence of any enmity.
17. In view of the judgments cited above and evidence on record preponderance of probability is that deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
Issue No.2 Qua Compensation
18. Widow of deceased deposed that deceased was working as share broker in Stock Market, Delhi and earned Rs. 1215 thousand per month. In her crossexamination, she stated that she did not any have documentary evidence regarding his income.
[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] 15 of 26
19. During the course of arguments Sh. [ENTITY], Advocate for petitioners stated that loss of dependency may be calculated on minimum wages of unskilled.
20. In [PRECEDENT]. [CASE NUMBER], it was urged by LRs of the deceased that she used to sell milk and milk products at her house and was earning Rs.15,000/ per month. It was contended by Ld. Counsel for LRs of the deceased that Claims Tribunal ought to have accepted the deceased's income at Rs.15,000/ per month. Since no documentary evidence with regard to deceased's profession was produced, Claims Tribunal was held right in awarding loss of dependency on minimum wages.
21. In [PRECEDENT] was no documentary evidence with regard to the employment of the deceased as a cook at M/s Aman Deep Dhaba or his salary at Rs.8,000/ per month. Dhaba was not registered with the Sales Tax/Vat Department. No register for payment of wages was maintained. No receipt regarding payment of any salary to the deceased was produced. [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] 16 of 26 In absence of any evidence regarding employment of the deceased with the said Dhaba or his salary at Rs.8,000/ per month, Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 27.08.2012 held that the only option left is to award loss of dependency on minimum wages.
In absence of any documentary evidence regarding the occupation of the petitioner or his income, loss of dependency has to be calculated on the basis of minimum wages. Minimum wages of unskilled were Rs. 5278/ at the time of accident. Age of deceased as per his school leaving certificate Ex.PW1/3 was 19.10.1961, so he was 49 years of age at the time of accident.
22. In [ENTITY] & Others v. Rajbir Singh & Others 2013(6) SCALE 563, deceased was around 33 years of age at the time of accident. He was survived by his widow and minor children. He was working as a clerk in a Government School. Claims Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 8,96,500/. On appeal Hon'ble High Court enhanced the total compensation to Rs. 10,17,000/. On further appeal to Hon'ble Apex Court total [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] 17 of 26 compensation was enhanced to Rs. 22,81,320/. Hon'ble Apex Court observed that compensation under [SECTION] has to be "just, fair and equitable" to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong as far as money can do.
23. Hon'ble Apex Court referred to [ENTITY] v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Others 2012(4) SCALE 559 in which it was observed that even in absence of any evidence as to future prospects and increase of 30% in the income has to be provided where the victim had fixed income or was a self employed person. Relevant extract of the order is as follows: "18. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of paragraph 24 of [ENTITY]'s judgment, the Court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is selfemployed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30 per cent increase in his total income over a period of time and if he/she becomes victim of accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of compensation."
[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] 18 of 26
24. However to make compensation just fair and equitable Hon'ble Apex Court observed:
11. Since, the Court in [ENTITY]'s case (supra) actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid in [ENTITY]'s case (supra) and to make it applicable also to the selfemployed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self employed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years.
12. In [ENTITY]'s case (supra), it has been stated that in the case of those above 50 years, there shall be no addition. Having regard to the fact that in the case of those selfemployed or on fixed wages, where there is normally no age of superannuation, we are of the view that it will only be just and equitable to provide an addition of 15% in the [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] 19 of 26 case where the victim is between the age group of 50 to 60 years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable. There shall normally be no addition thereafter".
Accordingly 30% addition is to be made.
Deduction towards personal and living expenses
25. Deceased was survived by his widow, two minor sons and his mother. As such 1/4 is to be deduced towards personal and living expenses as per per [ENTITY] & Ors. v. DTC & Anr. Civill Appeal No. 3483 of 2008 (arising out of [CASE NUMBER]) dated April 15, 2009.
Multiplier
26. Age of deceased as per his school leaving certificate Ex.PW1/3 was 19.10.1961, so he was 49 years at the time of accident. As such multiplier of 13 is applicable (as per [ENTITY]).
27. Calculation Minimum Wages Rs.5278/ Addition of 30% towards inflation Rs.5278 + 1583 = 6861/ [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] 20 of 26 Deduction of 1/4 as per [ENTITY] Rs. 68611715= 5146 The loss of dependency comes to Rs.8,02,776/ (Rs. 5146x12x13)
28. Regarding compensation payable on account of loss of consortium Hon'ble Supreme Court in [ENTITY] & Ors (Supra) observed that "The ratio of a decision of this Court, on a legal issue is a precedent. But an observation made by this court, mainly to achieve uniformity and consistency on a socioeconomic issue, as contrasted from a legal principle, though a precedent, can be, and in fact ought to be periodically revisited, as observed in [ENTITY]). We may therefore, revisit the practice of awarding compensation under conventional heads: loss of consortium to the spouse, loss of love, care and guidance to children and funeral expenses. It may be noted that the sum of Rs. 2500/ to Rs. 10,000/ in those heads was fixed several decades ago and having regard to inflation factor, the same needs to be increased. In [ENTITY]'s case (Supra), it was held that compensation for loss of consortium should be in the range of Rs. 5000/ to Rs. 10,000/. In legal parlance, 'consortium' is the right of the spouse to the company, care, help, comfort guidance, society, solace, affection and [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] 21 of 26 sexual relations with his or her mate. That non pecuniary head of damages has not been properly understood by our courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to get, has to be compensated appropriately. The concept of nonpecuniary damage for loss of consortium is one of the major heads of award of compensation in other parts of the world more particularly in the United States of America, Australia, etc. English Courts have also recognized the right of a spouse to get compensation even during the period of temporary disablement. By loss of consortium, the courts have made an attempt to compensate the loss of spouse's affection, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance, protection, care and sexual relations during the future years. Unlike the compensation awarded in other countries and other jurisdictions, since the legal heirs are otherwise adequately compensated for the pecuniary loss, it would not be proper to award a major amount under this head. Hence, we are of the view that it would only be just and reasonable that the courts award at least rupees one lakh for loss of consortium."
In view of the above Rs. 1 lac is given for loss of consortium.
29. Regarding compensation payable towards funeral expenses [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] 22 of 26 it was further observed in [ENTITY] & Ors (Supra) "We may also take judicial notice of the fact that the Tribunals have been quite frugal with regard to award of compensation under the head 'Funeral Expenses". The 'Price Index', it is a fact has gone up in that regard also. The head 'Funeral Expenses' does not mean the fee paid in the crematorium or fee paid for the use of space in the cemetery. There are many other expenses in connection with funeral and, if the deceased is follower of any particular religion, there are several religious practices and conventions pursuant to death in a family. All those are quite expensive. Therefore, we are of the view that it will be just, fair and equitable, under the head of 'Funeral Expenses', in the absence of evidence to the contrary for higher expenses, to award at least an amount of Rs. 25,000/."
In view of the above Rs. 25,000/ is granted towards funeral expenses. Rs. 1 lac is granted to minor children towards loss of love, care, guidance (as per [ENTITY] & Ors) (supra). Rs. 10,000/ is granted towards loss of estate.
30. The over all compensation of deceased thus comes to Rs.
10,37,776/ after deduction of interim award of Rs.50,000/ (10,37,77650,000/) 9,87,776/ plus medical bills verified by [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] 23 of 26 the IO of Rs. 5,33,729/. Therefore, Total award amount comes to Rs. 15,21,505/, which is tabulated below: Sl. No Compensation under various heads Amount awarded
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 8,02,776/ 2 Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/
3. Loss of love,care & affection of minor Rs. 1,00,000/ children
4. Loss of funeral Rs. 25,000/
5. Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/
6. Medical expenses Rs. 5,33,729/ Total Rs.15,71,505/ Compensation qua item No.2 to 4 as per [ENTITY] & Others (supra).
31. R3 is accordingly directed to deposit within 30 days from today the award amount of Rs. 15,21,505/ with interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition till notice of deposit of award amount to be given by R3 to petitioners and their counsel.
32. I have heard widow of deceased regarding financial needs of the petitioners. In view of the submissions made and further in [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] 24 of 26 view of the judgment in [PRECEDENT] following arrangements are hereby ordered:
33. Rs. 4 lac each with proportionate interest be given to petitioner No.2 to 3 (minor sons of deceased) and be kept in [ENTITY] in their names till they attain the age of majority. Rs.1 lac be given to petitioner No.4 (mother of deceased), out of which Rs. 50,000/ be released to her and remaining amount with proportionate interest be kept in [ENTITY] in her name for one year. Remaining amount be given to widow of deceased (petitioner No.1), out of which Rs. 1,21,505/ be released to her and remaining amount with proportionate interest be kept in [ENTITY] in her name for five years.
34. The interest on the aforesaid fixed deposits shall be paid monthly by automatic credit of interest in their Saving Accounts.
35. The petitioners shall not have any facility of loan or advance on these [ENTITY]s. However, in case of emergent need, they may approach this Tribunal for premature encashment of [ENTITY]'s. [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] 25 of 26
36. The DAR is accordingly disposed of.
Announced in the open Court Judge MACT today i.e.02.09.2013 Rohini Courts, Delhi [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] 26 of 26