Delhi District Court
Reshma And Ors (Lr Sof Sufiyan) vs Surender Verma on 4 January, 2025
MACP Nos. 642/22, FIR No. 418/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA MANCHANDA, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 642/22
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-008853-2022
1. Smt. Reshma,
W/o Mohd. Shaukeen,
(Mother of deceased)
2. Mohd. Shaukeen,
S/o Sh. Babuddin,
(Father of deceased)
Both R/o H.No. 41,
Apni Colony,
Village Alipur,
Delhi.
.......Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Surender Verma,
S/o Sh. Raj Singh,
R/o 2286, Apni Colony,
Village Alipur,
Delhi.
(Driver-cum-owner)
2. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.
No. 39, Second Floor,
Samyak Tower,
Opposite Metro Pillar No. 120,
Pusa Road, Delhi.
(Insurer)
........Respondents
Reshma & Ors. Vs. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 1 of 20
MACP Nos. 642/22, FIR No. 418/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
Date of Institution : 28.09.2022
Date of Arguments : 04.01.2025
Date of Decision : 04.01.2025
APPEARENCES
Sh. R.K. Jain, Ld. Counsel for petitioners.
Sh. R.D. Barsena, Ld. Counsel for driver-cum-owner.
Sh. Shailendra Rai, Ld. Counsel for insurance co.
Petition under Section 166 and 140 of M.V. Act, 1988
for grant of compensation
AWARD:-
1. In the present case male, child Sofiyan (aged about 18 months)
had suffered fatal injuries in a Motor Vehicular Accident. The petitioners are
seeking compensation in the wake of Detailed Accident Report (DAR) filed
by police corresponding to the investigation carried out in case FIR No.
418/22 U/s 279/304A IPC registered at PS. Alipur, with regard to Motor
Vehicular Accident which occurred on 19.07.2022 at about 10:00 AM at
Loharo Wali Gali, Apni Colony, Alipur, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS.
Alipur, involving vehicle i.e. TATA Ace bearing registration no.
DL01-LAE-9098(offending vehicle) allegedly being driven in a rash and
negligent manner and without following traffic rules by respondent no. 1.
DAR filed by police, was treated as claim petition under Section 166(4) of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act‘).
2. As per DAR, on 19.07.2022, deceased child namely Sofiyan was
playing in Gali. At about 10:00 AM, one vehicle i.e., TATA Ace bearing
Reshma & Ors. Vs. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 2 of 20
MACP Nos. 642/22, FIR No. 418/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
registration no. DL01-LAE-9098(offending vehicle) which was being driven
by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from front side and hit
against the aforesaid child Sofiyan, as a result of which, he sustained
grievous/serious injuries. He was immediately taken to SRHC Hospital,
Narela, Delhi, where he was declared brought dead. Postmortem was
conducted on the dead body of deceased at the Mortuary of BJRM Hospital,
Jahangir Puri vide PMR No. 776/22 dated 19.07.2022. FIR No. 418/22 u/s.
279/304A IPC was registered at PS. Alipur with regard to the said accident.
3. The respondent no. 1 i.e., driver-cum-owner has claimed that he
was having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. He
further claimed that alleged offending vehicle was insured with respondent
no. 2 as on the date of accident. It has been further claimed that no such
accident had occurred with the offending vehicle and the same has been
falsely implicated in the present case. On merits, he denied the averments
made in the DAR and prayed for its dismissal.
4. The insurance company had filed its legal offer, whereby it
offered to pay a sum of Rs. 4,70,000/- to the petitioners as compensation
towards full and final satisfaction of their claim for the fatal injury suffered
by their deceased son Sofiyan in the accident in question. The said offer was
not acceptable to the petitioners in the present case.
Reshma & Ors. Vs. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 3 of 20
MACP Nos. 642/22, FIR No. 418/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
5. From pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed vide
order dated 03.04.2023 :-
1) Whether the deceased Master Sufiyan(aged about
18 months at the time of accident), S/o Mohd.
Shaukeen, suffered fatal injuries in road traffic
accident on 19.07.2022, at about 10:00 AM at
Loharo Wali Gali, Apni Gali, Alipur, Delhi, within
the jurisdiction of PS. Alipur, due to rashness and
negligence on the part of the driver-cum-owner
Surender Verma/R-1, who was driving TATA Ace
bearing registration no. DL-1LAE-9098, owned by
R-1/Surender Verma and insured with M/s
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company
Limited/R-2? OPP.
2) Whether the Lrs of deceased are entitled to any
compensation if so to what amount and from whom?
OPP.
3) Relief.
6. In order to establish their claim, the petitioners have examined
only one witness i.e. PW-1 Ms. Reshma (mother of deceased as well as
alleged eyewitness) and their evidence was closed vide order dated
13.10.2023. On the other hand, no evidence was adduced by any of the
respondents and RE in the matter was closed vide order dated 06.05.2024.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsels for the
petitioners and insurance company. My findings on the issues are as under:-
Reshma & Ors. Vs. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 4 of 20
MACP Nos. 642/22, FIR No. 418/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
ISSUE NO. 1
8. For the purpose of this issue, the testimony of PW1 Ms. Reshma
(eyewitness) is relevant. PW1 has deposed in her evidence by way of
affidavit Ex. PW1/A that on 19.07.2022, she was standing in Loharo Wali
Gali, Apni Colony, Alipur, Delhi and watching her son Sofiyan who was
playing in the Katcha Portion of the road, on the extreme right hand side of
the Gali. At about 10:00 AM, he saw that a TATA Ace bearing registration no.
DL1L-AE-9098 which was being driven by its driver Sh.
Surender/Respondent no. 1 at a very high speed, rashly, negligently, without
taking necessary precautions, without observing proper look out, violating
the traffic rules and without blowing any horn, came from inside the Apni
Colony, Alipur, Delhi and hit against with a great force, as a result of which,
he fell down on the road and sustained serious/grievous injuries all over his
body. She further deposed that thereafter, deceased was taken to SRHC
Hospital, Narela, Delhi, where he was declared ‘brought dead’.
9. During her cross-examination on behalf of driver-cum-owner,
she deposed that the accident in question took place on 19.07.2022 at about
10:00 A.M. She further deposed that the offending vehicle was TATA ACE of
white colour, which was being driven rashly at a very high speed of more
than 60 kmph. She denied the suggestion that the offending vehicle was not
being driven at a very high speed by its driver or that the place of accident
was very narrow to drive the vehicle at a high speed. She further deposed
Reshma & Ors. Vs. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 5 of 20
MACP Nos. 642/22, FIR No. 418/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
that police also recorded her statement. She denied the suggestion that she
was not present at the accident spot at the time of accident or that she was not
an eye witness or that she had given a false statement to the police or that she
reached at the accident spot after the occurrence of the accident. She admitted
that she did not take the infant minor to the hospital herself. She volunteered
that her mother took the child to SRHC Hospital, Narela. She deposed that
the accident took place in front of her house. She further deposed that her
mother lived nearby and was at her house at the time of accident and came
out on hearing her shouting. She denied the suggestion that she did not take
the child to the hospital as she was not present at the accident spot. She
volunteered that she was in a state of shock upon seeing her infant child
fatally injured and was not in mentally fit state to act. She further deposed
that her brother was called by her sister in law, by making a telephonic call
and on his arrival, she accompanied her brother to the hospital. She admitted
that the accident took place in the adjacent lane of the lane where her house
was situated. She volunteered that her child had ran out to play when the
offending tempo hit him. She further deposed that she was running behind
her child when the offending tempo ran over her child. She denied the
suggestion that her mother could not hear her scream as she was at her home,
while the accident took place in the adjacent lane. She further denied the
suggestion that the accident occurred due to her negligence as she did not
take care of minor child or that the child came in front of the offending
vehicle, without any caution.
Reshma & Ors. Vs. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 6 of 20
MACP Nos. 642/22, FIR No. 418/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
10. It is evident from the testimony of PW1 that the respondent no. 1
could not impeach her testimony through litmus test of cross-examination
and said witness is found to have successfully withstood the test of cross-
examination. Even otherwise, there is no reason or motive as to why she
would depose falsely about the accident. Moreover, FIR No. 418/22 is
shown to have been registered on the statement of aforesaid witness PW1
Reshma. The presence of said witness at the spot of accident at the time of
accident can be substantiated by seeing the list of witnesses annexed
alongwith the chargesheet filed in the criminal case wherein name of
complainant/PW1 Ms. Reshma is mentioned at S.No. 1. On the other hand,
respondents have not examined any witness in order to rebut the testimony
of PW1 in this regard during the course of inquiry. Hence, there is no reason
to disbelieve her uncontroverted testimony on the point of accident in
question being caused by respondent no. 1 while driving the offending
vehicle. The contents of said FIR would show that the complainant has
disclosed therein the same sequence of facts leading to the accident as
deposed by her in her evidence as PW1. Hence, there is no possibility of any
false implication of driver of offending vehicle or false involvement of the
said vehicle in this case. Furthermore, said FIR is shown to have been
registered on the date of accident itself i.e. 19.07.2022. Thus, there is no
possibility of false implication of respondent no. 1 and / or false involvement
of offending vehicle at the instance of the petitioners.
Reshma & Ors. Vs. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 7 of 20
MACP Nos. 642/22, FIR No. 418/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
11. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no.1/driver of offending
vehicle, was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how
and under what circumstances, the accident has taken place. However, he has
preferred not to enter into the witness box. Thus, an adverse inference is
liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question has
taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by him.
There is nothing on record to show that the injured/petitioner has any enmity
with the driver of the offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate him in this
case. Reliance placed on Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. V.
Kamlesh & Ors, MAC APP. No. 530/2008 passed by Hon’ble Delhi High
Court on 11.11.2008.
12. During the arguments, Ld. Counsel for petitioners heavily relied
upon criminal case record in support of case of petitioners in order to bring
home that the accident in question had taken place due to the rash and
negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e. TATA Ace bearing Registration No.
DL1L-AE-9098, by its driver/respondent no. 1. It has been contended that
respondent no. 1 Sh. Surender Verma was also chargesheeted by police for
offences punishable U/s 279/304A IPC, which clearly establishes that the
accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending
vehicle by respondent no. 1.
13. Apart from above, copy of death summary (which is part of
criminal case record) also corroborates that cause of death of deceased was
Reshma & Ors. Vs. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 8 of 20
MACP Nos. 642/22, FIR No. 418/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
cerebral damage as a result of blunt force impact. All the injuries were ante-
mortem in nature. The injuries as mentioned in the relevant column of
external injuries of the said report, are also consistent with the injuries which
are sustained in road traffic accident. It is proved on record, by sufficient
evidence as per law that the deceased succumbed to his injuries sustained in
the road accident in question.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has
come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove their
case on the basis of preponderence of probabilities, that deceased suffered
fatal injuries in road accident which took place on 19.07.2022 at about 10:00
AM at Loharo Wali Gali, Apni Colony, Alipur, Delhi, due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no. 1. Thus, issue
no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.2
15. The petitioners who are claimants are the parents of deceased. It
is evident that the petitioners have actually suffered mental agony due to
death of their deceased child. Accordingly, petitioners are entitled for just and
fair compensation in the present case.
16. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 enjoins upon the
Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award
Reshma & Ors. Vs. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 9 of 20
MACP Nos. 642/22, FIR No. 418/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
reasonable. The guiding principles for assessment of “just and reasonable
compensation” in fatal case has been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India, in case titled as Smt. Anjali & Ors., Vs. Lokendra Rathod & Ors, in
Civil Appeal No. 9014 of 202, decided on 06.12.2022 that: –
“The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (for short, “MV Act“) gives paramount
importance to the concept of ‘just and fair’
compensation. It is a beneficial legislation
which has been framed with the object of
providing relief to the victims or their
families. Section 168 of the MV Act deals
with the concept of ‘just compensation’
which ought to be determined on the
foundation of fairness, reasonableness and
equitability. Although such determination can
never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an
endeavor should be made by the Court to
award just and fair compensation irrespective
of the amount claimed by the applicant/s. In
Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr.3, this Court has laid
down as under:
“16.”Just compensation” is adequate
compensation which is fair and equitable, on
the facts and circumstances of the case, to
make good the loss suffered as a result of the
wrong, as far as money can do so, by
applying the well settled principles relating to
award of compensation. It is not intended to
be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.”
Reshma & Ors. Vs. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 10 of 20
MACP Nos. 642/22, FIR No. 418/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
17. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the compensation should
be just and is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be
niggardly or a pittance. Reliance is placed on 2012 (8) SLT 676 titled K.
Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The aforesaid Principle of law has
also been reiterated by a landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in
2017 (13) SCALE 12 : 2017 XI AD (SC) 113 titled National Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. Accordingly, the quantum of appropriate and
adequate compensation to the victim of road accident is to be derived after
assessment of various relevant parameters, as per law. Hereinafter,
assessment is divided into several criteria, as applicable to the facts of the
present case.
LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
18. The claimants/petitioners in the present case are the parents of
deceased child Sofiyan (aged about 18 months).
19. Now, the question arises as to how the compensation has to be
calculated in case of death of minor child. It is the contention of Ld. Counsel
for insurance company that in the present case, notional income of minor
child be considered for grant of compensation. On the other hand, Ld.
Counsel for petitioners/Lrs of deceased stated that minimum wages be
considered for the same.
20. Ld. Counsel for insurance company relied upon certain
judgments in support of his contentions. It is seen that in the said cases, the
Reshma & Ors. Vs. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 11 of 20
MACP Nos. 642/22, FIR No. 418/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
accident pertained to the year 2002/2003. However, Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in its recent judgment passed in a case titled “Royal Sundaram General
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Zeenat Khan & Ors.”, MAC. APP. 242/2024, CM
APPL. 26702/2024 wherein accident pertains to the year 2020, held as
under:
16. In light of the aforementioned rulings by the
Supreme Court and this Court, the most
reasonable approach to assess loss of dependency,
even for a minor, would be to refer to the
minimum wages established by the State
Government in the location where the minor lived
at the time of the accident.
\17. As the notional income is being determined on
basis of the minimum wages, I deem it appropriate
also to add future prospects to such income at the
rate of 40% by applying the principle laid down by
the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company
Limited v. Pranay Sethi And Others, (2017) 16
SCC 680.
21. Further, for ascertaining the multiplier in case of death of child
up to the age of 15 years, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled
“Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Zeenat Khan &
Ors.”(supra), held in the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment, which
is reproduced as under:
26. The Apex Court further observed that it was
high time to move to a standard method of
selection of multiplier income for future prospects
and deductions for personal and living expenses.
The Table given in Sarla Varma was approved for
Reshma & Ors. Vs. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 12 of 20
MACP Nos. 642/22, FIR No. 418/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
the selection of multiplier in Claim Applications
under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, in cases of
death. The multiplier of 15 was recommended in
the cases of death of a child upto 15 years.
22. In the above cited decision, the facts were almost similar as the
deceased in the said case was also minor aged about 3 ½ years. In the light
of aforesaid discussion, I am inclined to take minimum wages of an unskilled
person notified by the State Government where the minor resides at the time
of accident for determining the loss of dependency because in the case in
hand, the educational qualification of parents of deceased was not disclosed
by them anywhere in the claim petition in order to ascertain their educational
background. I also deem it appropriate to add future prospects to such
income at the rate of 40% (by applying the principle laid down by the
Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.) as
the notional income is being determined on the basis of minimum wages. Out
of the above amount so assessed, deduction has to be made towards the
personal and living expenses of the deceased. As the deceased was a
bachelor, 50% has to be deducted on account of personal and living expenses
in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. The multiplier in the present case is
taken as 15 as deceased child was under the age of 15 years at the time of
accident. The minimum wages of an unskilled person were Rs. 16,506/- per
month as on the date of accident which is 19.07.2022.
Reshma & Ors. Vs. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 13 of 20
MACP Nos. 642/22, FIR No. 418/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
23. In view of the aforesaid, the total of loss of dependency would
come out to Rs. 20,79,756/- (Rs. 16,506/- X 1/2 X 140/100 X 12 X 15).
Hence, a sum of Rs. 20,79,756/- is awarded under this head in favour of the
petitioners.
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
24. Now considering the prayer of petitioners for grant of
compensation on account of “Loss of Love & Affection” the binding legal
position has been laid down by the celebrated judgment of Pranay Sethi’s
case (supra) and recent judgment titled New India Assurance Company
Limited V. Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 dated 07.09.2020
of Supreme Court of India wherein it has been held that the petitioners are
not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further, the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in appeal titled as Pooja’s case (supra), has been pleased to
observe in para 18 of the judgment that the Constitution Bench decision in
Pranay Sethi‘s case (supra) does not recognize any other non-pecuniary head
of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this
head.
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
25. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
case titled as, Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Tribunal considers that both the
petitioners i.e. parents of deceased are entitled for payment of Rs. 40,000/-
each towards “loss of consortium”. By way of pronouncement of Pranay
Sethi case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to
Reshma & Ors. Vs. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 14 of 20
MACP Nos. 642/22, FIR No. 418/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
hold that there shall be an increase of 10% on account of ‘inflation’ after a
period of three years. Applying, the afore-cited binding law the The Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Ltd. V. LR‘s of Sukhbir
Singh, MAC. APP. 518/2013 vide judgment pronounced on 13.07.2023 has
been pleased to direct the entitlement of dependents to 10% increase under
this head, though, the date of accident was of 2011 and the date of impugned
award was of 2013. Accordingly, both the petitioners are entitled to a sum of
Rs. 48,400/- (Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 40,000/- + 10% of Rs. 44,000/-) each
towards “loss of consortium”.[As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two
escalations of 10% each is awarded since the date of accident in the present
matter is 19.07.2022]
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
26. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in
view of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra)
which has been re-enforced in LR’s of Sukhbir Singh (supra), the Tribunal
considers that both the petitioners are also entitled for payment of
Rs. 18,150/- (Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) on
account of “loss of estate” and for equal payment of Rs. 18,150/-
(Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 15,000/- + 10% of Rs. 16,500/-) towards “funeral
expenses”. [As per the judgment Pranay Sethi(Supra), two escalations of 10%
each is awarded since the date of accident in the present matter is
19.07.2022]
Reshma & Ors. Vs. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 15 of 20
MACP Nos. 642/22, FIR No. 418/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
27. Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion, the
compensation is quantified as below:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 20,79,756/-
2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 96,800/-
3. Loss of Estate & Funeral Rs. 36,300/-
Expenses
Total Rs. 22,12,856/-
Rounded off to Rs. 22,13,000/-
28. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which
of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Respondent no.
2/insurance company has not claimed exemption on account of any statutory
breach as envisaged u/s.149(2) MV Act. They have not adduced any evidence
in absence of any statutory defence. Rather, insurance company had given
legal offer in the present matter. Keeping in view the existence of valid
insurance policy of the offending vehicle for the relevant period and in the
absence of any statutory defences available to the insurance company,
insurance company concerned is legally liable to pay the compensation
amount, as determined hereinabove. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
29. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 & 2, I award a sum of
Rs. 22,13,000/- (including interim award amount if any) alongwith interest @
7.5% per annum w.e.f date of filing the claim petition i.e. 28.09.2022 till the
Reshma & Ors. Vs. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 16 of 20
MACP Nos. 642/22, FIR No. 418/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
date of its realization, in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
(Reliance placed on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baby Raksha & Ors,
MAC APP. No. 36/2023 passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 21.04.2023).
APPORTIONMENT
30. Statement of petitioners were recorded on 06.05.2024 in
compliance of directions of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No.
842/2023 in case titled Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. V. Jaibir Singh & Ors., decided
on 08.01.2021 as per clause 29 of MCTAP. In view of their statements and
keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby ordered
that out of the awarded amount along with proportionate interest; the
petitioner no. 1 namely Reshma (mother of deceased) shall be entitled to
share amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) alongwith
proportionate interest and the petitioner no. 2 Mohd. Shaukeen (father of
deceased) shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 7,13,000/-(Rupees Seven
Lakhs and Thirteen Thousand Only) alongwith proportionate interest.
31. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 1, a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs Only) is directed to be immediately released to her
through her bank account no. 42857401450 with State Bank of India, Nehru
Enclave, Delhi, having IFSC Code SBIN0017884 and remaining amount is
directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 25,000/- for
one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having
cumulative interest, for each of the petitioners.
Reshma & Ors. Vs. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 17 of 20
MACP Nos. 642/22, FIR No. 418/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
32. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 2, a sum of Rs. 2,13,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs and Thirteen Thousand Only) is directed to be
immediately released to him through his bank account no. 42845539095
with State Bank of India, Nehru Enclave, Delhi, having IFSC Code
SBIN0017884 and remaining amount is directed to be kept in the form of
FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/- for one month, two months, three
months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest, for each of the
petitioners.
33. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be
subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings
bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings
bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank
account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody.
However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of
maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS)
in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their
residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing
System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of
their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on
the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
Reshma & Ors. Vs. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 18 of 20
MACP Nos. 642/22, FIR No. 418/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
(f) The concerned bank shall not to issue any cheque book and/or debit
card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and /or cheque book have
already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of
the award amount.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the
claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been
issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and
claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement
before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank alongwith the
duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the
claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause(g) above.
(i) The petitioner is directed to open a Motor Accident Claims Annuity
(Term) Deposit Account (MACAD) in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of
Hon’ble Justice J.R. Midha in case titled as Rajesh Tyagi and Others Vs.
Jaibir Singh and Others F.A.O No. 842/03 as per clause 31 of MCTAP and
form VIII titled as Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD)
Scheme as directed in the said order.
(j) Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court branch is further directed to
disburse the FD amount in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit
(MACAD) Scheme account as directed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide
order dated 07.12.18, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
34. Respondent no. 2/Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co.
Ltd., is directed to deposit the award amount with SBI, Rohini Courts branch
within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be
liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager,
SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the respective share amounts
immediately to aforesaid petitioners in their respective bank accounts as
Reshma & Ors. Vs. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 19 of 20
MACP Nos. 642/22, FIR No. 418/22; PS. Alipur DOD: 04.01.2025
aforesaid, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He be further
directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the
claimants approach the bank for disbursement so that the award amount starts
earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Copy of the award
be given dasti to the petitioners and also to counsel for the insurance
company for compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph each,
specimen signatures, copy of bank passbooks and copy of residence proof
of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal Officer of SBI, Rohini Court, Branch,
Delhi for information and necessary compliance. Form XV & Form XVII in
terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A. Copy of order be also
sent to concerned M.M and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP.
Digitally signed
by RICHA
MANCHANDA
RICHA
MANCHANDA Date:
2025.01.04
14:42:16
Announced in the open +0545Court on 04.01.2025
(RICHA MANCHANDA)
Judge MACT-2 (North)
Rohini Courts, DelhiReshma & Ors. Vs. Surender Verma & Anr. Page 20 of 20