1 IN THE COURT OF SH.HARISH DUDANI JUDGE:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL 1 NEW DELHI SUIT NO.143/13 DATE OF INSTITUTION:18.04.2013 1. Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Lakha Singh 2. Smt. [ENTITY] W/o Sh. [ENTITY] 3. Ms. [ENTITY] D/o Sh. [ENTITY] 4. Ms. [ENTITY] D/o Sh. [ENTITY] All R/o House No.A79, Dayanand Colony, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi Petitioners Versus 1. Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Jag Ram Yadav R/o Village Amoth, Tehsil Mundawar District Alwar, Rajasthan 2. [ENTITY], Aagaar, Rajasthan Respondents
Final Arguments heard on: 19.04.2014 Award reserved for : 30.04.2014 Date of Award : 30.04.2014 AWARD
1. Vide this judgment cum award I proceed to decide the petition filed U/[SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT], as amended up to date (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for grant of compensation in a road accident.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the petition are that on 01.02.2013 Sh. [ENTITY] was coming from Gurgaon on his motorcycle no.DL3SAQ3346 and at about 1.10 AM he reached at NH8opposite Venus Hotel on Mahipalpur Flyover and in the meantime the bus bearing no.RJ29PA0822 being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and hit the motorcycle of Sh. [ENTITY] as a result of which Sh.[ENTITY] fell down and sustained injuries. The injured was taken to JPN Apex Trauma Centre AIIMS where he was declared dead. It is stated that the case vide FIR no. 24/13, under [SECTION] [ACT] was registered at PS Vasant Kunj(North).
3. It is stated that Sh. [ENTITY] was 26 years of age at the time of accident and he was working as Disc. Jockey(DJ) with M/s DJ3 and was earning a sum of Rs.36,500/ per month. It is stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle being driven by respondent no.1 and the vehicle was owned by respondent no. 2 and as such both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. It is prayed that Rs. One Crore only alongwith interest @ 18% per annum be awarded as compensation in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
4. Respondents have filed joint written statement and have contested the petition on various grounds. It is stated that the complaint is based on hearsay grounds and the person providing information has not been identified and there is no eyewitness to the scene of occurrence. It is stated that no such accident took place and the false FIR has been lodged in connivance with the police. The averments made on merits are denied. It is denied that respondents are liable to pay compensation.
5. From the pleadings of parties following issues were framed on 17.07.2013:
1. Whether Sh. [ENTITY] sustained fatal injuries in the accident which occurred on 1.2.2013 at about 1.10 AM at Mahipal Pur, Flyover, NH8, Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no.RJ29PA0822 being driven by respondent no.1 and owned by respondent no.2?
2.) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3.)Relief.
6. In support of their case the petitioners examined petitioner no.1 father of deceased as PW1. PW1 tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PW1/A and proved the copy of identity card of deceased as Ex. PW1/1, copies of identity cards of all petitioners Ex.PW1/2(colly) and the bills of goods purchased by the deceased for home Ex. PW1/3(colly).
7. Petitioners examined petitioner no.2 mother of deceased as PW2. PW2 tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex. PW2/A.
8. Petitioners examined Sh. [ENTITY] employer of deceased as PW3.
PW3 tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PW3/A and proved the salary vouchers Ex. PW3/1(colly) and certificate regarding income/salary of deceased Ex.PW3/2.
9. Petitioners examined Sh. [ENTITY] as PW4. PW4 tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. PW4/A. The petitioners thereafter closed their evidence.
10.On the other hand respondents examined respondent no.1 as R1W1 who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.R1W1/A.
11.Respondents also examined Sh. [ENTITY] conductor of bus as R1W2. R1W2 tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.R1W2/A. Respondents thereafter closed their evidence.
12.I have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and perused the record. My findings on specific issues are as follows.
13.As the petition has been filed U/[SECTION] [ACT] it was incumbent upon the petitioners to prove that deceased sustained injuries in an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle no.RJ29PA0822 by its driver.
14. The contention of Ld. Counsel for respondents is that the petitioners have to prove the negligence of respondent no.1 in causing the accident and has relied on decision in [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT].
15. In [PRECEDENT] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi referred to the decisions in [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT] and was pleased to hold:
10. In [PRECEDENT], the three Judges Bench decision in [ENTITY]) was relied. It was held that to claim compensation under [SECTION] of the [ACT], the proof of negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle was a sine qua non. The owner becomes vicariously liable for the act of his servant and the Insurer on account of the contract of insurance to indemnify the owner. It was observed that in a Petition under [SECTION] of the Act, negligence or default on the part of the owner or driver of the vehicle was not required to be proved.
At the same time, it has to be kept in mind that proof of negligence as required in a Claim Petition under [SECTION] of the Act, is not the same as in a criminal case i.e."beyond reasonable doubt", but "the preponderance of probability".
16.To determine the negligence of driver of offending vehicle it has been held in [PRECEDENT] as follows:
"The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondentsclaimants 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 Apex Court in Oriental [PRECEDENT]). On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced:(i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR no. 955 of 2004, pertaining (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under [SECTION] , [ACT] against the driver was lodged; (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 deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under the [ACT] are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on part of the driver."
17.The case of the petitioners is that on 01.02.2013 Sh. [ENTITY] was coming from Gurgaon on his motorcycle no. DL3SAQ3346 and at about 1.10 AM he reached at NH8opposite Venus Hotel on Mahipalpur Flyover and in the meantime the bus bearing no.RJ29PA0822 being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and hit the motorcycle of Sh. [ENTITY] as a result of which Sh.[ENTITY] fell down and sustained injuries. The injured was taken to JPN Apex Trauma Centre AIIMS where he was declared dead. It is stated that the case vide FIR no. 24/13, under [SECTION] [ACT] was registered at PS Vasant Kunj(North). Petitioners no.1 and 2 appeared in witness box as PW1 and PW2 and adduced evidence by way of affidavits Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW2/A. In the affidavits Ex. PW1/A and Ex.PW2/A the PW1 and PW2 have reiterated the manner of accident as stated in the claim petition. PW1 stated in the crossexamination that he is not an eyewitness of the accident. PW2 stated in crossexamination that he came to know about the accident at about 3.00 AM on 01.02.2013. In para 1 of PO of written statement the respondents no.1 and 2 have stated that the complaint is based on hearsay evidence and the person providing the information has not been identified and there is no direct evidence to the seen of occurrence. In para 4 of PO of written statement respondents have stated that no such accident took place and the FIR has been lodged falsely in connivance with the police. The contention of counsel for respondents is that the petitioners have not examined any eyewitness of the accident. The contention of counsel for petitioner is that the eyewitness is not required to be examined as police has filed Detailed Accident Report(DAR) in this case and alongwith DAR police has filed documents of investigation of case which prima facie prove involvement of offending vehicle and on that account the negligence of respondent no. 1 in causing the accident has been prima facie proved. The contention of respondents is that there is discrepancy in the documents as filed alongwith DAR and on that account it can not be said that respondent no.1 has negligently caused the accident. Ld. Counsel for respondents has stated that in the seizure memo of motorcycle and in the mechanical inspection report of motorcycle there is discrepancy regarding the model of motorcycle. The counsel for petitioner has contended that although there is discrepancy regarding the model of motorcycle in the seizure memo of motorcycle and in the mechanical inspection report of motorcycle but both these documents bear the same registration number of motorcycle and on that account it can not be said that respondent no.1 was not negligent in causing the accident.
18. Respondents have examined respondent no.1 as R1W1 and conductor of bus as R1W2 who adduced evidence by way of affidavits Ex.R1W1/A and R1W2/A. In the affidavit Ex.R1W1/A the respondent no.1 has stated that he was driver of bus no. RJ29PA0822 and respondent no.1 has denied that the accident took place with his bus and stated that he was implicated by the police in the intervening night of 31.1.2013 and 1.2.2013 near Hyatt Hotel and police officials asked the passengers to get down and the bus was taken to police station and their statements were recorded and statements of passengers were not recorded. R1W1 admitted in the crossexamination that the case vide FIR no. 24/13 under [SECTION] [ACT] was registered against him at PS Vasant Kunj(North) and the said FIR has not been quashed by any court. R1W1 further stated that he has not made any complaint to any police officer or court that FIR no.24/13 has been falsely lodged against him. R1W2 stated that he was conductor of bus at the relevant time. R1W2 admitted in the crossexamination that in the intervening night of 31.1.2013/1.2.2013 the bus no.RJ29PA0822 was being driven by respondent no.1 and the said bus was taken to police station by police authorities and he has not made any complaint to the police officials or in the court that a false case was registered against the driver of bus no.RJ29PA0822. Apart from examining R1W1 and conductor of bus the respondents have not proved their defence by examining any independent witness.
19.Police has filed Accident Information Report(AIR) in this case and alongwith AIR police has filed copy of FIR no.24/13, under [SECTION] [ACT], PS Vasant Kunj(North), copy of asal tehrir, copy of site plan, copy of final report under [SECTION] [ACT], seizure memo of motorcycle no. DL3SAQ3346, seizure memo of bus no. RJ29PA0822, seizure memo of RC of bus no.RJ29PA0822, copy of driving licence of respondent no.1, copy of seizure memo of driving licence of respondent no.1, copy of mechanical inspection reports of motorcycle and bus.
20.In [PRECEDENT]) the Hon'ble High Court held that:
"11. In [PRECEDENT], while holding that in a petition for award of compensation, the negligence has to be proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probability, in para 15, it was observed 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".
"12. The observations of the Supreme Court in [ENTITY]) were referred with approval in later judgment in [PRECEDENT].
21. Ld. counsel for petitioner has relied on decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in DTC and Anr. V. [ENTITY]wari Shankar and Ors., [CASE NUMBER] wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to hold:
17."No doubt, in a petition Under [SECTION] of [ACT], the aspect of negligence has to be proved by the claimants. In order to prove the negligence, the respondents/claimants have produced the copy of First Information Report which is registered Under [SECTION] [ACT]. Significantly, the FIR has been registered on 01.03.2000, i.e., on the date of accident and the same has been culminated into the acquittal of appellant no.2.
Moreover, in the criminal proceedings, the appreciation of evidence is based on the concept of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. The [ACT] being a welfare legislation, the appreciation of evidence and assessment is not regulated by technicalities. However, acquittal in the criminal case will not vitiate the proceedings under the [ACT]. Therefore, the Ld. Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on the basis of records and concluded that the negligence has been proved".
22.In [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to hold:
14.I have heard ld.Counels for the parties. As far as the issue of negligence is concerned, claimants have to prove either by examining the witnesses or by the criminal record. In the present case PW2 Shri [ENTITY], ASI, who investigated the FIR No.299/2007 registered at PS Delhi Cant has been examined to prove the aforesaid FIR Exhibit PW2/1, Charge Sheet as Exhibit PW2/2, DD Report as Exhibit PW2/3 and rough site plan as Exhibit PW2/4. The aforesaid witness also proved the seizure memo of offending vehicle as Exhibit PW2/5 and notice issued under [SECTION] of the Act as Exhibit PW2/6.
Moreover, the aforesaid PW2, who was the IO of the case, also proved the superdari order of the vehicle Exhibit PW2/7 and order of the ld.MM by which the driver of the offending vehicle was charged as Exhibit PW2/8.
23.As per mechanical inspection report of motorcycle no. DL3SAQ3346 it had fresh damages i.e. front mud guard damaged/number plate dented/pressed, head light damaged, front indicators damaged, handle bar pressed, left clutch lever bend, left side leg guard broken, right side brake paddle bend, rear both sides indicators damaged. As per mechanical inspection report of bus no.RJ29PA0822 it had fresh damages i.e. front bumper dented/scratched, right side lower body dented/pressed/scratched, right rear outer tyre vikrant 100020 nylon, right front tyre MRF 100020 nylon, left side lower body dented/pressed scratched, left front tyre MRF 90020 nylon, left rear tyre JK 90020 nylon. As per final report under [SECTION] [ACT] respondent no.1 has been charge sheeted for the offences under [SECTION] [ACT]. Thus in view of the testimony of PWs and documents on record, the negligence of respondent no.1 has been prima facie proved. As such issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. ISSUE NO.2
24.As issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner, they are entitled to compensation.
COMPENSATION
25.The present petition has been filed by petitioner no.1 father of deceased and petitioner no.2 mother of deceased and petitioners no.3 and 4 sisters of deceased.
26. It is stated in the claim petition that the deceased was 26 years of age and he was unmarried. In view of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in The [PRECEDENT] the multiplier shall be applicable as per age of deceased. In order to prove the age of deceased the claimants have relied on copy of Aadhar Card of deceased and their ration card wherein the year of birth of Sh. [ENTITY] is mentioned as 1986. Hence, Sh. [ENTITY] was about 27 years of age at the time of accident and the multiplier applicable as per [ENTITY] and Ors. vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC 121 shall be of 17.
27. It is stated in the claim petition that Sh. [ENTITY] was working as Disc Jockey(DJ) with M/s DJ3 and was earning a sum of Rs. 36,500/ per month. In para 6 of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and PW2/A the PW1 and PW2 have stated that the deceased was working as DJ in the company named as M/s DJ3 and was drawing salary of Rs.16,500/ per month and apart from it the deceased was giving music tuitions to the upcoming DJ's from his house and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/ per month and the total income of deceased was Rs.36,500/ per month. PW1 and PW2 stated in crossexamination that the deceased was not paying income tax. In order to prove the employment and income of deceased the petitioners have examined PW3 Sh. [ENTITY] and PW4 Sh. [ENTITY] who adduced evidence by way of affidavits Ex.PW3/A and PW4/A respectively. PW3 has stated in his affidavit Ex.PW3/A that he is the Proprietor of M/s DJ3 and the M/s DJ3 is the company involved in playing music and organizing events in the ceremonies etc and has further stated that Sh. [ENTITY] has worked with him for about 13 months and his salary was about Rs.16,500/ per month. PW3 stated in the crossexamination that he has entered into contract with Hotel Crown Plaza, Gurgaon for playing music in the said hotel in the year 2010 which is renewed annually and the said contract has not been entered on any fixed amount but the amount is paid as per number of performances given in the said hotel during the period of time. PW3 stated that he is assessed to income tax and he has not brought his income tax records and he further stated that he is not maintaining books of accounts of his business and thereafter he voluntarily stated that his CA is maintaining the books of accounts. PW3 has relied on vouchers Ex. PW3/1(colly) in order to prove that he was paying Rs. 16,500/ per month to Sh. [ENTITY]. In the cross examination PW3 admitted that Ex. PW3/1(colly) do not bear the signatures of Sh. [ENTITY] in token of receipt of payment of the said vouchers. PW3 further stated in crossexamination that he has not issued any letter of appointment to Sh. [ENTITY]. It is to be noted that PW3 has not proved any document which could prove that he is Proprietor of M/s DJ3 and that his company is engaged in the business of playing music as stated in affidavit Ex. PW3/A. PW3 has also not proved any books of accounts maintained by him in regular course of business and that the payment which was allegedly made to Sh. [ENTITY] was duly reflected in the books of accounts. The vouchers Ex.PW3/1(colly) which are from 03.02.2012 to 11.2.2013 do not bear signatures of Sh. [ENTITY] in token of receipt of Rs. 16,500/ per month as mentioned in the said vouchers. The vouchers Ex.PW3/1(colly) have not been proved by any cogent evidence. PW3 has also relied on certificate purportedly issued by him to the effect that Sh. [ENTITY] was working with M/s DJ3 from 1.1.2012 to 31.1.2013 at the salary of Rs. 16,500/ per month. As discussed above no documents have been filed to prove the contents of Ex.PW3/2 regarding employment and salary of Sh.[ENTITY] with M/s DJ3. The testimony of PW3 does not inspire confidence.
28. In the claim petition the petitioners have only stated that Sh. [ENTITY] was working as Disc Jockey(DJ) with M/s DJ3 and was earning a sum of Rs.36,500/ per month and in the claim petition it is not stated that Sh. [ENTITY] was conducting tuition classes in music and was earning any amount. However in the affidavits Ex. PW1/A and PW2/A the petitioners have pleaded that Sh. [ENTITY] was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/ by giving music tuition to upcoming DJs and in order to prove the said contention the petitioners have examined PW4 Sh. [ENTITY] who has stated in his affidavit Ex.PW4/A that he was learning music from Sh. [ENTITY] at his house for 2 hours on two days in a week i.e. Saturday and Sunday and he used to pay Rs. 3,000/ per month to Sh. [ENTITY] and there used to be 6/7 persons in the batch with him. PW4 stated in the crossexamination that no qualification is required for becoming Disc Jockey(DJ) and he could not take full classes from Sh.[ENTITY]. PW4 further stated in crossexamination that he has no document to show that he ever attended classes from Sh. [ENTITY] and ever made any payment to Sh. [ENTITY]. Apart from oral testimony of PW4 the petitioners have not adduced any cogent evidence in order to prove that Sh.[ENTITY] was a musician and was proficient in work of Disc Jockey(DJ) and was conducting tuition classes. No documents have been proved on record by petitioners to prove the number of students who were taking music classes from Sh. [ENTITY] and the amount paid by the said students and that Sh. [ENTITY] was maintaining any books of accounts of his music classes in the regular course of his business. The petitioners have not succeeded in proving that Sh.[ENTITY] was conducting tuition classes and was earning any amount from the same. In the absence of any proof of employment and income, the income of deceased shall be taken as minimum wages as per his qualifications. PW1 stated in the cross th examination that Sh. [ENTITY] had appeared for 10 standard examination. The petitioners have not proved that Sh. [ENTITY] th had passed 10 standard examination and was matriculate. In the circumstances the income of deceased shall be taken as minimum wages of a nonmatriculate as on 01.10.2012 which were Rs.8008/ per month.
29.The deceased was a bachelor. In [ENTITY] and Ors. vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC 121 it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
"31.Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependant and the mother alone will be considered as a dependant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependants, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependant on the father."
30.In view of the above judgment, 50% is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses and after deduction of 50% , the income of deceased would be Rs.8,00850% of Rs.8,008/=Rs.4,004/ per month.
31.In [ENTITY] and others V.Rajbir Singh and others, 2013 ACJ [SECTION]3, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
"11.Since the court in [ENTITY]'s case, [CASE NUMBER], actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid down in [ENTITY]'s case, [CASE NUMBER] and to make it applicable also to selfemployed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30 percent always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of selfemployed or persons with fixed wages, in case the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50 percent 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 percent in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years."
32. The age of the petitioner has been taken as around 27 years at the time of accident. Hence after addition of 50% income of deceased would be Rs.4004/+50% of 4004/=Rs.6,006/per month. After applying the multiplier of 17, the total loss of dependency is computed to be as Rs.=Rs.6006/x12x17= Rs.12,25,224/. In [ENTITY] and others V.Rajbir Singh and others, 2013 ACJ [SECTION]3, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that funeral expenses should be Rs.25,000/. Petitioners are also awarded Rs.25,000/for loss of love and affection and Rs. 10,000/ towards loss of estate.
The total compensation is determined as under:
Loss of dependency : Rs. 12,25,224/ Funeral Expenses : Rs. 25,000/ Loss of Estate : Rs. 10,000/ Loss of Love and Affection : Rs. 25,000/ TOTAL : Rs. 12,85,224/ RELIEF
33.The petitioners are thus awarded Rs.12,85,224/(Rs. Twelve Lacs Eighty Five Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Four only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum in view of judgment of [ENTITY] and others [ENTITY]) from the date of filing of petition till its realisation including, interim award, if any already passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. The petitioner no.1 father of deceased can not be considered as dependent on deceased in view of judgment of [ENTITY] and Ors. vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (supra). Moreover petitioner no.1 stated during course of examination on 19.04.2014 that he is working as Assistant Foreman in DTC and getting salary of Rs.30,000/ per month. Petitioner no. 1 further stated during course of examination on 19.04.2014 that the petitioner no. 3 who is 30 years of age has been recently married. Petitioner no.4 also can not be considered dependent on deceased as the petitioner no.1 who is father of petitioner no.4 is working and earning. In the circumstances the entire award amount is awarded in favour of petitioner no.2 mother of deceased.
34.For safeguarding the compensation amount from being frittered away by the claimants, directions have been given by Hon'ble Supreme Court for preserving the award amount in the case of [PRECEDENT]. In view of the directions contained in the above judgments the award amount is to be disbursed as follows:
35. 10% of the award amount shall be released to petitioner no.2 by transferring it into her savings account and remaining amount be kept in FDR in UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in following manner:
1. Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of one year.
2. Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of two years.
3. Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of three years.
4. Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of four years.
5. Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of five years.
6. Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of six years.
7. Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of seven years.
8. Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of eight years.
9. Fixed deposit in respect of 10% for a period of nine years.
36.The cheque be deposited in UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the name of UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi A/c Smt.[ENTITY].
37.The interest on the fixed deposits shall be paid monthly by automatic credit in the saving accounts of the claimants/beneficiary.
38.Original fixed deposit receipt shall be retained by the Bank in safe custody. However, the original pass book shall be given to the claimant along with the photocopy of the FDR. Upon the expiry of period of FDR the bank shall automatically credit the maturity amount in the saving account of beneficiary.
39.The original fixed deposit receipt shall be handed over to the claimant at the end of the fixed deposit period and shall automatically credit the maturity amount in the savings account of the beneficiary.
40.No cheque book shall be issued to the claimant without permission of the court. No loan, advance or withdrawal shall be allowed on the fixed deposit without permission of the court.
41.Withdrawal from the aforesaid accounts shall be permitted to the beneficiary after due verification and the Bank shall issue photo identity card to the beneficiary to facilitate identity.
42.Bank shall transfer Savings Account to any other branch/bank according to her convenience.
43.The beneficiary shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the Saving Bank Account and Fixed Deposit to Senior Manager of UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi.
[ENTITY] to report in case the cheque is not deposited within 30 days of the passing of the award/judgment. [ENTITY] is directed to note the particulars of the award amount in the register today itself.
45.The respondents no.2 shall deposit the award amount directly in bank account of the petitioner no.2 at UCO Bank,Patiala House Court,New Delhi within 30 days of the passing of the award failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
46.The petitioner shall file two sets of photographs along with her specimen signatures, out of which one set to be sent to the Nodal Officer, UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi along with copy of the award by [ENTITY] and the second set be retained to the court for further reference. The photographs be stamped and sent to the bank. The petitioner shall also file the proof of residence and furnish the details of the bank account with the [ENTITY] within a week. The petitioner shall file her complete address as well as address of her counsel for sending the notice of deposit of the award amount.
47.The respondent no.2 shall deposit the award amount alongwith interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the claimant with a copy to her counsel and the compliance report shall be filed in the court alongwith proof of deposit of award amount, the notice of deposit and the calculation of interest on 18.07.2014.
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY:
48. In view of findings on issue no.1 above, the respondents are held jointly and severally liable. Respondent no.2 is vicariously liable for the act of respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 is directed to deposit the award amount within 30 days with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of petition till its realisation. In case of any delay, it is liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay. [ENTITY] to report in case the cheque is not deposited within 30 days of the passing of the award/judgment. [ENTITY] is directed to note the particulars of the award amount in the register today itself.
An attested copy of the award be given to the parties. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court. ([ENTITY]) on 30.4.2014 PO/MACT01, New Delhi.