IN THE COURT OF SH.HARISH DUDANI JUDGE:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL 1 NEW DELHI SUIT NO.:208/10 DATE OF INSTITUTION:6.1.2005 1. Smt. [ENTITY] W/o Sh. [ENTITY] R/o 4/7, Racquet Court Road, Civil Lines, Delhi110054 Petitioner Versus 1. Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Anil Bansal R/o K302, Agrasen Appt. Patparganj, Delhi110092 2. Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Late Sh. Ishwar Nath R/o 4/7, Racquet Court Road, Civil Lines, Delhi110054. 3. The [ENTITY] 4. Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Pal Singh R/o 5394, Trilok Puri, Delhi110092 5. Sh. [ENTITY]. Page No.1 of 24 R/o C30/230, Guru Nanak Pura, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi110092 6. [ENTITY] D.O.15, D8, Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi110092 Respondents
Final Arguments heard on: 08.09.2014 Award reserved for : 09.09.2014 Date of Award : 09.09.2014 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. The present claim petition was disposed of by my Ld.Predecessor vide order dated 31.03.2011 and in the order dated 31.03.2011 my Ld. Predecessor was pleased to hold that the deceased was son of insured and mother of deceased is not entitled to compensation and was pleased to dismiss the claim petition. The petitioner filed [CASE NUMBER] before Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 15.05.2014 was pleased to set aside the order dated 31.03.2011 passed by the Ld. Tribunal and was pleased to hold that the deceased [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] & Ors. Page No.2 of 24 was son of owner of offending vehicle, therefore, the applicant/claimant is entitled to compensation being a third party.
3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the petition are that on 14.03.2003 Sh. [ENTITY]) alongwith his friends Sh. [ENTITY], Sh.[ENTITY] and Sh. [ENTITY] were travelling in Baleno car bearing no.DL9CB1071 which was being driven by respondent no.1 Sh. [ENTITY] in a rash and negligent manner and at about 11.55 PM the car reached at [ENTITY] Road and it collided with ambassador car bearing no.DL7CC5301 as a result of which Sh. [ENTITY], Sh.[ENTITY] and Sh. [ENTITY] died and Sh. [ENTITY] sustained grievous injuries. Injureds were taken to Dr. RML Hospital.
4. It is stated that Sh. [ENTITY] was 18 years of age at the time of accident he was studying Bachelors in Business Administration(BBA) at University of Wales College, New Port(UK) and had participated in sports, studies and other curricular activities. It is stated that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of vehicles bearing no.DL9CB1071 and ambassador car no.DL7CC5310 being driven by respondent no.1 and 4 respectively, the said vehicles were owned by respondent no.2 and 5 respectively and insured with respondent no.3 and 6 respectively and as such all the respondents are jointly and severally [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] & Ors. Page No.3 of 24 liable to pay the compensation. It is prayed that Rs. Ninety Lacs Ten Thousand be awarded as compensation in favour of the petitioner against the respondents.
5. Respondent no.1 has filed written statement and has contested the petition on various grounds. The averments made on merits are denied. It is denied that respondent no.1 is liable to pay compensation.
6. Respondent no.2 has filed written statement and has contested the petition on various grounds. It is stated the respondent no.2 was not driving the vehicle at the time of accident and the vehicle of respondent no.2 was duly insured with respondent no.3. The averments made on merits are denied. It is denied that respondent no.2 is liable to pay compensation.
7. Respondent no.3 has filed written statement and has contested the petition on various grounds. The averments made on merits are denied. It is stated that the vehicle no.DL9CB1071 was insured with respondent no.3 vide policy no.32202/31/02/02467 valid for the period from 17.02.2002 to 16.02.2003. It is denied that respondent no.3 is liable to pay compensation.
8. Respondents no.4 and 5 have filed joint written statement and have contested the petition on various grounds. It is stated that all the six [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] & Ors. Page No.4 of 24 persons in the baleno car were drunk and were driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. It is stated that the driver of vehicle no.DL9CB1071 lost control over the vehicle, which swung sharply to the right and went over the yellow line and slammed into the ambassador car no.DL7CC5310. The averments made on merits are denied. It is denied that respondents no.4 and 5 are liable to pay compensation.
9. Respondent no.6 has filed written statement and has contested the petition on various grounds. The averments made on merits are denied. It is stated that the vehicle no.DL7CC5310 was insured with respondent no.6 vide policy [CASE NUMBER] for the period from 25.10.2002 to 24.10.2003. It is denied that respondent no.6 is liable to pay compensation.
10.From the pleadings of parties following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor on 09.12.2006:
(1) Whether the deceased [ENTITY] sustained fatal injuries in road acciddnt dated 14.3.2003 because of the rash and negligent driving of car no.DL7CC5310 by respondent no.1, as alleged?OPP (2) If issue no.1 is proved in the affirmative, to what amount of compensation petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] & Ors. Page No.5 of 24 (3) Relief.
11.In support of her claim, petitioner examined herself as PW1. PW1 tendered her evidence in examination in chief by affidavit Ex.PX. PW1 proved the copy of postmortem report Ex.CW1/A, death certificate Ex.CW1/B, certified copy of FIR Ex.CW1/C, certified copy of site plan Ex.CW1/D, certified copy of seizure memo of Baleno car Ex.CW1/E, certified copy of seizure memo of ambassador car Ex.CW1/F, certified copy of mechanical inspection report of baleno car Ex.CW1/G, certified copy of mechanical inspection report of ambassador car Ex.CW1/H, certified copy of arrest memo of respondent no.1 Ex.CW1/I, certified copy of seizure memo of driving licence of respondent no.1 Ex.CW1/J, certified copy of notice under [SECTION] [ACT] Ex. CW1/K, certified copy of RC of baleno car Ex.CW1/L, certified copy of RC of ambassador car Ex.CW1/M, copy of insurance policy of Baleno car Ex.CW1/N, copy of insurance policy of ambassador car Ex.CW1/O, copy of identity card of deceased Ex.CW1/P, copy of marksheet of Secondary School Examination of deceased Ex.CW1/Q.
12. Petitioner examined Sh. [ENTITY], an eyewitness of the accident as PW2. PW2 stated in his examination that on 14.03.2003 he alongwith Sh. [ENTITY], Sh. [ENTITY], Sh. [ENTITY], Sh. [ENTITY] and Sh. [ENTITY] were [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] & Ors. Page No.6 of 24 coming back in a Baleno Car bearing no.DL3CD1071 which was being driven by Sh.[ENTITY] and when Sh.[ENTITY] took a turn on [ENTITY] road he lost the balance and went on the wrong side of the road and hit against the ambassador car which was coming from the opposite direction. Petitioner thereafter closed her evidence.
13.On the other hand respondents did not examine any witness despite opportunities and RE was closed.
14.I have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and perused the record. My findings on specific issues are as follows:
15.As the petition has been filed U/[SECTION] [ACT] it was incumbent upon the petitioner to prove that deceased sustained injuries in an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle no.DL9CB1071 by its driver, the respondent no.1.
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 Insurance Company Ltd. [ENTITY]). On perusal of [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] & Ors. Page No.7 of 24 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 petitioner is that on 14.03.2003 Sh. [ENTITY]) alongwith his friends Sh. [ENTITY], Sh.[ENTITY] and Sh. [ENTITY] were travelling in Baleno car bearing no.DL9CB1071 which was being driven by respondent no.1 Sh. [ENTITY] in a rash and negligent manner and at about 11.55 PM the car reached at [ENTITY] Road and it collided with ambassador car bearing no.DL7CC5301 as a result of which Sh. [ENTITY], Sh. [ENTITY] and Sh. [ENTITY] died and Sh. [ENTITY] sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner appeared in witness box as PW1 and Sh. [ENTITY], eyewitness of the accident appeared in witness box as PW2. PW1 adduced evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PX and in the [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] & Ors. Page No.8 of 24 affidavit Ex.PX the PW1 has reiterated the manner of accident as stated in the claim petition. PW2 Sh. [ENTITY] stated in his examination that on 14.03.2003 he alongwith Sh. [ENTITY], Sh. [ENTITY], Sh. [ENTITY], Sh. [ENTITY] and Sh. [ENTITY] were coming back in a Baleno Car bearing no.DL3CD1071 which was being driven by Sh. [ENTITY] and when Sh. [ENTITY] took a turn on [ENTITY] road he lost the balance and went on the wrong side of the road and hit against the ambassador car which was coming from the opposite direction. It is stated that the case vide FIR no. 48/03, under Section [SECTION] registered at PS Tughlak Road. In his written statement/reply respondent no.1 has denied the allegations against him. In its written statement respondent no. 3 has stated that respondent no.3 is not liable to pay compensation in case respondent no.1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence. Respondent no.1 has preferred to remain exparte and has not cross examined PW2 and respondent no.2 also did not put any question to PW2 in the crossexamination. In the crossexamination by respondent no.3,PW2 denied suggestion of respondent no.3 that on the day of accident they had taken alcohol in the party and they were provoking respondent no.1 to drive the vehicle at a fast speed which was denied by PW2. Apart from giving suggestion to PW2 in the crossexamination to [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] & Ors. Page No.9 of 24 the effect that they had taken alcohol in the party and the occupants of the car had provoked respondent no.1 to drive car at a fast speed, respondent no.3 has not adduced any evidence to prove its contention. The petitioner has filed on record the copy of postmortem report Ex.CW1/A, death certificate Ex.CW1/B, certified copy of FIR Ex.CW1/C, certified copy of site plan Ex.CW1/D, certified copy of seizure memo of Baleno car Ex.CW1/E, certified copy of seizure memo of ambassador car Ex.CW1/F, certified copy of mechanical inspection report of baleno car Ex.CW1/G, certified copy of mechanical inspection report of ambassador car Ex.CW1/H, certified copy of arrest memo of respondent no.1 Ex.CW1/I, certified copy of seizure memo of driving licence of respondent no.1 Ex.CW1/J, certified copy of notice under [SECTION] [ACT] Ex. CW1/K, certified copy of RC of baleno car Ex.CW1/L, certified copy of RC of ambassador car Ex.CW1/M, copy of insurance policy of Baleno car Ex.CW1/N, copy of insurance policy of ambassador car Ex.CW1/O, copy of identity card of deceased Ex.CW1/P, copy of marksheet of Secondary School Examination of deceased Ex.CW1/Q. Respondents have not proved any other version of accident. As per mechanical inspection report of vehicle no.DL9CB1071 it had fresh damages i.e. left side both doors badly damaged, left side front and rear [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] & Ors. Page No.10 of 24 doors glasses broken, left side fender and apron damaged, both front head lights broken, front bumper grill broken, front glass laminated broken, left side dash board seat assembly dislocated, left side body badly damaged and the car was 100% damaged. As per mechanical inspection report of vehicle no.DL7CC5310 it had fresh damages i.e. front bumper grill broken, front both head lights broken, front radiator assembly broken, front both mudguard and apron damaged, front cross member broken, front bonnet and chasis broken, front engine and body damaged. Thus in view of the testimony of PW2 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
18.As issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner, she is entitled to compensation.
19. Vider order dated 15.05.2014 in [CASE NUMBER] the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to hold that the deceased was son of owner of offending vehicle, therefore, the applicant/claimant is entitled to compensation being a third party.
20.The present petition has been filed by petitioner who is mother of [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] & Ors. Page No.11 of 24 deceased Sh. [ENTITY]. In the claim petition it is stated that Sh.[ENTITY] was 18 years of age at the time of accident and he was unmarried. The contention of counsel for petitioner is that the multiplier shall be applicable as per age of deceased and has relied on judgment dated 24.03.2014 in [PRECEDENT]. Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 has contended that the multiplier shall be applicable as per age of mother of deceased and has relied on judgment dated 28.05.2014 in [PRECEDENT]. The contention of counsel for petitioner is that in [PRECEDENT]) the Hon'ble High Court has specifically decided the question that the multiplier shall be applicable as per the age of deceased while in [PRECEDENT] the question of adjudication was not whether the multiplier is applicable as per age of deceased or claimants. In [PRECEDENT]) the Hon'ble High Court referred to decision in [ENTITY] v. DTC, 2009 ACJ 129 and held that the multiplier is to be taken as per age of parents which was higher. In [PRECEDENT]) the [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] & Ors. Page No.12 of 24 Hon'ble High Court referred to decisions in [PRECEDENT], M. Mansoor v. [ENTITY], 2013(12) SCALE 324, [ENTITY] & Ors. v. Madan Mohan and Anr. (2013)9 SCC 65 and [ENTITY] v. DTC & Ors. 2009(6) SCC 121. In [PRECEDENT]) the question for adjudication was that whether the multiplier is to be applied on the basis of age of deceased or on the basis of age of claimants and Hon'ble High Court was pleased to hold:
20. " I note, in [ENTITY], the Apex Court has not applied or adopted the concept of selection of multiplier as per [ENTITY], in turn, the multiplier has been selected on the basis of the age of deceased. The above legal proposition has been further affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] held as under:
15. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 17 and the High Court determined the multiplier as 12 on the basis of the age of the parents/claimants. This Court in the decision in [PRECEDENT] held as follows:
[ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] & Ors. Page No.13 of 24
15. The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of the dependent. There may be a number of dependents of the deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of the dependents has no nexus with the computation of compensation.
16. In the decision in [ENTITY] case (supra) this Court held that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the table of the said judgment which starts with an operative multiplier of 18. As the age of the deceased at the time of the death was 24 year, the multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied. The Tribunal taking into consideration the age of the deceased wrongly applied the multiplier of 17 and the High Court committed a serious error by bringing it down to the multiplier of 12."
23.Significantly, the Apex Court in the case of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] has followed the age of the victim as a factor for selecting the multiplier. Specifically, in the selection of multiplier for the age group up to '15' the Apex Court never considered the age of the claimants as a relevant factor. Therefore, this court finds no reason to adopt a different formula for the victim who is above '15' year of age, whereas the relevant factors have been adopted by the Apex Court such as (i) age of the deceased (ii) income of the [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] & Ors. Page No.14 of 24 deceased and (iii) number of dependents. The Apex Court, while formulating the relevant factors for the assessment of loss of dependency the age of the claimants never considered as a factor.
Finally, in the assessment of dependency, the courts/tribunals are computing the purchasing capacity of the deceased; not the claimants. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the age of the victim is the proper factor for selecting the correct multiplier".
21. The contention of counsel for respondent no.3 is that the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in [PRECEDENT]) is subsequent to date of judgment in [PRECEDENT]).
22.Subsequent to passing of judgment dated 28.05.2014 in [PRECEDENT]) the Hon'ble of Delhi in order dated 31.07.2014 in [CASE NUMBER] titled as [PRECEDENT]. has been pleased to hold:
3.He submits that the age of the claimant No.1, namely, the father of the deceased was 38 years and hence the wrong multiplier has been applied. This Court has in the case of [PRECEDENT] has held that the multiplier is based on the age of the deceased.
[ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] & Ors. Page No.15 of 24 The said judgment of this Court relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT].
4. In the present case, the bachelor was young and only 18 years old. Further as per the evidence of PW1/respondent No.1, the mother of the deceased as on October, 2006 was 35 years old. Hence, in my view, it would, be in the interest of justice that a multiplier of 18 is adopted in the present case. There is no reason to interfere with the findings of Tribunal."
23. In view of aforesaid discussions the multiplier shall be applicable as per age of deceased. It is stated that Sh. [ENTITY] was 18 years of age and in order to prove the age of deceased the petitioner has relied on copy of marksheet of [ACT] issued by Central Board of Secondary Education as per which the date of birth of deceased is 04.10.1984, hence the deceased was about 18 years and 5 months of age and the multiplier applicable as per [ENTITY] and Ors. vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (2009) 6 SCC 121 shall be of 18.
24. It is stated in the claim petition that the deceased Sh. [ENTITY] [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] & Ors. Page No.16 of 24 was a student at the time of accident. In para 7 of affidavit Ex.PX, PW1 has stated that at the time of accident Sh. [ENTITY] was 18 year of age and was studying Bachelor in Business Administration(BBA) at University of Wales College, New Port(UK) after doing his schooling from Modern School, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and the petitioner has relied on copy of identity card issued by University of Wales Ex.CW1/P. Petitioner has also filed on record the marksheet of deceased issued by Central Board of Secondary Education as per which he has passed All India Secondary School Examination in the year 2000. Although Sh. [ENTITY] was a student at the time of his death but it can not be said that he had no potential income. It is well settled provision of law that the potential income of the deceased can be taken into consideration for awarding loss of dependency. As per contention of petitioner the th deceased after passing of 12 standard was pursuing BBA course. Presumption can be drawn that after completion of BBA Sh. [ENTITY] would have got good opportunities for employment and would have earned good amount. Petitioner has not adduced any evidence to the effect that what were the earnings of a person holding BBA degree during the corresponding period. Even the minimum wages of a graduate w.e.f. 01.02.2013 were Rs.3543.90/ per month. In MAC App. No. [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] & Ors. Page No.17 of 24 1040/2012 titled as [PRECEDENT] the deceased Ms. [ENTITY] who expired in the accident which took place on 20.09.2004 was pursuing B. Sc.(Hons.) Mathematics course and the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to hold that the deceased was meritorious student after completion of her graduation would have got some job as an Assistant Accountant or in any government or any Public Sector Undertaking or in the private sector or as TGT on the basic pay of Rs.5500/ per month, in the year 2004 and the gross salary of the deceased would have been Rs.10,000/ per month. In the present case the petitioner has not adduced any evidence regarding the potential income of deceased on completion of his course. However, presumption can be drawn that after completion of BBA course the deceased would have earned a sum of Rs.10,000/ per month. In the circumstances the income of deceased shall be taken as Rs.10,000/ per month.
25.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, [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] & Ors. Page No.18 of 24 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."
26.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.10,00050% of Rs.10,000/=Rs.5000/ per month.
27.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 [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] & Ors. Page No.19 of 24 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."
28. The age of the petitioner has been taken as 18 years and 5 months at the time of accident. Hence after addition of 50% income of deceased would be Rs.5000/+50% of Rs.5000/=Rs.7500/ per month. After applying the multiplier of 18, the total loss of dependency is computed to be as Rs.7500x12x18=Rs.16,20,000/. The petitioner is also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/ each towards loss of love and affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses.
The total compensation is determined as under:
Loss of dependency : Rs.16,20,000/ Funeral Expenses : Rs.10,000/ Loss of Estate : Rs.10,000/ Loss of Love and Affection : Rs.10,000/ TOTAL : Rs.16,50,000/ RELIEF
29.The petitioner is thus awarded Rs.16,50,000/(Rs.Sixteen Lacs Fifty Thousand 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 [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] & Ors. Page No.20 of 24 passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
30.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:
31. 10% of the award amount shall be released to the petitioner 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.
32.The cheque be deposited in UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] & Ors. Page No.21 of 24 in the name of UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi A/c Smt.[ENTITY].
33.The interest on the fixed deposits shall be paid monthly by automatic credit in the saving accounts of the claimants/beneficiary.
34.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.
35.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.
36.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.
37.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.
38.Bank shall transfer Savings Account to any other branch/bank according to her convenience.
[ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] & Ors. Page No.22 of 24
39.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.
41.The respondent no.3 shall deposit the award amount directly in bank account of petitioner 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.
42.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. Petitioner shall also file the proof of residence and furnish the details of the bank account with the [ENTITY] within a week. Petitioner shall file her complete address as well as address of her counsel for sending the notice of deposit of the award amount.
43.The respondent no.3 shall deposit the award amount alongwith interest [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] & Ors. Page No.23 of 24 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 19.11.2014.
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY:
44. Respondents have not adduced evidence despite opportunities. In view of findings on issue no.1 above, the respondent no.1 being the driver of car no.DL9CB1071, respondent no.2 being the owner and respondent no.3 being the insurer are held jointly and severally liable. Respondent no.3 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 09.09.2014. PO/MACT01, New Delhi. [ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] & Ors. Page No.24 of 24