Delhi Transport Corporation & ... vs Navjyot Singh & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 2874 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                      Pronounced on: 10th April, 2015
+       MAC.APP. 887/2012

        DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR..... Appellants
                     Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv.
                              with Ms. Anchal Chaudhary,
                              Adv. & Ms. Latika Chaudhary,
                              Adv.
                              Mr. Gopi Chand from DTC in
                              person.

                          versus

        NAVJYOT SINGH & ORS                       ..... Respondents
                     Through:         Mr. Vikas Arora, Adv. with
                                      Mr. Dheeraj Manchanda, Adv.,
                                      Mr. Manish Sharma, Adv. &
                                      Ms. Radhika Arora, Advocate
                                      Mr. Amit Khatana, Adv. for R-
                                      4 & R-5.
        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                          JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J.

1. The Appellants impugn the award dated 03.05.2012 passed by

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal)

whereby compensation of `2,18,18,376/- was awarded in favour

of Respondents no.1 to 5 for the death of Inderpal Singh (the

deceased) who suffered fatal injuries in a motor vehicular

accident which occurred on 31.10.2001.

2. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, Respondents no.1 to

5 (Claimants before the Claims Tribunal) examined 7 witnesses

to prove negligence and income of the deceased. PW-4

Kanhaiya Lal deposed about the negligence on the part of

Appellant no.2 in driving bus no.DL-1PB-2508 belonging to

Appellant no.1. Rest of the witnesses mainly deposed about the

income of the deceased.

3. Appellants, on the other hand, examined R1W1 Attar Singh,

driver of the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) bus (Appellant

no.2 herein) and R1W2 Raj Kumar, conductor of the bus to

prove that the accident was caused because of the deceased's

own negligence.

4. On appreciation of evidence, the Claims Tribunal found that the

accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of

bus registration no.1PB-2508 by Appellant no.2. On analysing

the evidence of PWs 5 to 7 regarding the deceased's income,

the Claims Tribunal held the deceased income to be

`22,76,512/-, deducted 1/4th towards personal and living

expenses and applied the multiplier of 14 (deceased being 42

years) to compute the loss of dependency as `2,18,03,376/-. The

Claims Tribunal further added certain sums towards non-

pecuniary damages and proceeded to award the overall

compensation of `2,18,18,376/- to the Claimants.

5. Following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellants:-

(i) The accident was caused on account of deceased's own

negligence in driving Esteem car bearing registration

no.DL-5C-6690. The Claims Tribunal erred in relying on

the testimony PW-4 and discarding the testimonies of

R1W1 and R1W2.

(ii) Respondents no.1 to 5 failed to prove the deceased's

income to be `22,76,512/- per annum. The Claims

Tribunal illegally took into consideration the evidence of

PWs 5,6 and 7, it ought to have awarded compensation

on the basis of income tax return (ITR) filed for the

Assessment Year 1999-2000 which reflected the annual

income of `1,29,654.15P.

6. On the other hand, learned counsels for Respondents no.1 to 5

support the impugned award and contend that the negligence on

the part of bus driver was sufficiently established that the

income of the deceased was duly proved and that the

compensation awarded is just and reasonable.

NEGLIGENCE

7. As stated earlier, Respondents no.1 to 5 had examined PW-4

Kanhaiya Lal as an eye witness to the accident whereas

Appellants had produced the driver and conductor of the bus in

support of their claim that the deceased himself was negligent.

It was also the contention raised on behalf of the Appellants that

acquittal of the driver in the criminal case for the offence

punishable under Section 304-A IPC concludes that there was

no negligence on the part of Appellant no.2. The Claims

Tribunal, however, made an independent assessment of the

evidence to reach the conclusion that Appellant no.2 was

negligent and was therefore, responsible for causing the

accident.

8. It is no longer res integra that standard of proof of negligence in

a criminal case and in a claim petition under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) are different. It is also well

settled that de hors acquittal of the driver in a criminal case, the

Claims Tribunal is expected to make an independent inquiry to

reach a conclusion whether the negligence on the part of driver

of the offending vehicle had been proved on the touchstone of

preponderance of probability. Reiterating these principles in

N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Kurumai Ammal, (1980) 3 SCC 457,

the Supreme Court held as under:-

"2.......The plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must follow suit, was rejected and rightly. The requirement of culpable rashness under Section 304-A IPC is more drastic than negligence sufficient under the law of tort to create liability"

9. A Single Judge of this Court in State of Haryana and Anr. v. Sh.

Ajay Kumar & Ors., MAC APP.69/2005, decided on 12.11.2007

held as under:-

"...Similarly the acquittal of the driver of the

offending vehicle of the appellant by the criminal court cannot be taken to have any adverse effect on the findings reached by the Tribunal in an independent compensation case. The MACT cases have to be decided on their own footings and the same are not dependant upon the result or an outcome of a criminal case....."

10. In Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport

Corporation & Ors., (2009) 13 SCC 530, the Supreme Court

reiterated that the test of standard of proof beyond reasonable

doubt could not be applied in a claim petition under Section 166

of the Act and that the Claimants are expected to establish

negligence on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.

11. The issue of negligence was discussed at great length by the

Claims Tribunal in paras 9 to 11 of the impugned award which

are extracted hereunder:-

9 Since, the present petition is registered as claim petition under Section 166(4) MV Act, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to establish the factum of negligence attributable to driver, Attar Singh. In the petition itself, it has been detailed that the accident occurred under the circumstances where R- 1, Attar Singh was plying the bus, which is a heavy vehicle, on the wrong side of the road due to disruption of traffic and closing of road from one side. Despite the above, the driver was not vigilant and in a head-on collision, struck against the maruti esteem. The above fact is also supported from the charge-

sheet filed on record. Interestingly, the charge-sheet has been prepared consequent to the FIR lodged at the instance of Raj Kumar, R1W2, the conductor of the bus (who has deposed in favour of respondent No.1- driver in the present petition). The conductor has in no unequivocal terms cited and stated the circumstances in which the accident occurred. From the date of registration of the FIR till the culmination of the criminal proceedings, at no stage, the conductor has denied and disputed his statement made to the police. Neither the contents nor the veracity of the statement has been put to any denial. Even at the stage when he was brought as a witness in the criminal proceedings, he admitted the factum and the accident having been caused by the driver, Attar Singh while plying the bus. He also clearly admitted the site plan which had been prepared at his instance and the photographs of the occurrence taken by the police. For the obvious reasons, the conductor, being an employee of DTC, the respondent herein, has made efforts to conceal the entire truth while making his deposition before the criminal court which fact is now clearly reflected in the conduct of his supporting the erring driver by siding with him as a witness. It be observed that HC Nawab Singh who also tendered his statement before the criminal court, clearly supported the investigation and also affirmed the factum of the statement made by Raj Kumar to him directly. The site plan and the photographs corroborate that the accident occurred on the road meant for plying the vehicles in the directions in which the deceased was plying his maruti esteem car. The photographs as well as the statement made by Attar Singh before this Tribunal, sufficiently shows the impact of the accident as after the accident, the maruti esteem was badly tangled with the bus in such a manner that it continued to be dragged for few metres with the bus and could be separated only with the assistance of

external support on arrival of the police, resulting in immediate death of Inderpal Singh, driver of maruti esteem car, on the spot. Had the bus being plied at a normal manageable speed as is being claimed by the driver, Attar Singh, there was no occasion for the maruti esteem car to be so badly dragged for few metres. The width of the road is also reflective of the fact that the bus was being driven and maneuvered in the way leaving insufficient space for the vehicles coming from the opposite direction despite the two way traffic being managed on the same road by the police.

10 Merely because the driver has been acquitted by the criminal court, it would not absolve the respondents from the liability as the principles for imparting the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act are neither akin nor identical to the rigors set for dispensation of justice in the criminal trial where the accused is to be held guilty only when the charges are proved beyond doubt. At the cost of repetition, it be stated that the present proceedings are inquisitorial in nature and are based on the principles of social justice. The object and intent of the legislature while drafting the present enactment has been benevolent and the same is to be made effective. Having regard to the above, more so when the sole witness before the criminal court was the conductor of the bus who turned hostile, no parity can be drawn between the factum of bringing home the guilt of the accused in the criminal proceedings and holding him liable in the present proceedings. It be observed that the family of victim cannot be deprived of what is just to them, merely because an employee under presumable compulsions have opted to change his version, as an after-thought and in a belated act without even disputing his earlier statement rendered immediately after occurrence to the IO.

11 It be further observed that the investigation conducted by the IO has not been put to any dispute. There is no averment that the IO has not conducted the investigation fairly and in unbiased manner. The IO, HC Nawab Singh has completed his investigation expeditiously and has filed the chargesheet after having collected sufficient material. In the circumstances above, I am of the view that sufficient material has been placed on record to indite the erring driver for having caused the accident due to rash and negligent act.

12. Thus, it may be seen that the testimony of R1W2, conductor of

the bus was rejected as he himself had stated that he was sitting

in the rear portion of the bus and had not seen the accident

taking place. The Claims Tribunal further held that the

conductor of the bus did not dispute his statement made to the

police at any point of time. Thus, his not supporting the

Claimants being an employee of the DTC was understandable.

13. It is important to note that the area in which the accident took

place has wide road having dual carriageway. One of the

carriageway was closed for the traffic as the road was under

repair. It is admitted that for this reason, the DTC bus had to

come on the wrong side on the single carriageway available

which was meant for the vehicle coming from the opposite

direction. It is understandable that when one of the carriageway

is closed then the vehicles from both the directions will be

obliged to use the single carriageway available. At the same

time, there will be an extra duty of care imposed on a driver of a

vehicle who enters a carriage way not meant for the traffic

coming from the direction for which such a driver is

proceeding. In the instant case, not only PW-4, an eye witness

has categorically deposed about the negligence on the part of

driver of DTC bus (Appellant no.2) but the negligence on the

part of driver is writ large from the photographs (Ex.PW-1/RC

and PW-1/RP) available on the trial court record. It may be

noted that the place where the accident occurred, the road has a

slight curve. It is also apparent from the photographs that the

DTC bus entered the other carriageway and was not on the

extreme left of the road leaving insufficient space for the traffic

coming from the opposite direction. The fact that the Maruti

Esteem car driven by the deceased was dragged for several

metres also speaks volumes for the high speed on which the

DTC bus was being driven. Thus, Respondents no.1 to 5 had

sufficiently proved that there was culpable negligence on the

part of the driver of DTC bus in causing the accident.

14. Consequently, I do not find any error or infirmity in the view

taken by the Claims Tribunal with regard to the negligence on

the part of the driver of DTC bus. I hereby confirm the finding

on negligence.

INCOME OF THE DECEASED

15. There is a great dispute between both the parties as to the

income of the deceased Inderpal Singh. It is not in dispute that

the deceased had returned a gross income of `3,97,861.94P per

annum and his net income (after deduction of all expenses being

professional) was `1,29,654/-. It is urged by the learned

counsel for the Appellants that it is this income only which can

be taken into consideration as the income tax deducted or any

ITR filed after the death of a victim is always suspicious and

therefore, much reliance cannot be placed thereon. In support

of the contention, the learned counsel referred to the report of

the Supreme Court in V. Subbulakshmi & Ors. v. S. Lakshmi &

Anr., 2008 ACJ 936 wherein it was held that normally the ITRs

filed after the death of the victim ought not to be taken into

consideration. In the said case ITR filed after ten days of the

accident was discarded by the Supreme Court.

16. Turning to the facts of the instant case, Respondents no.1 to 5

examined three witnesses to prove the income of the deceased.

There is no gainsaying that the income of the deceased at the

time of the death is to be taken into consideration for computing

the loss of dependency. First of the witnesses is H.C. Jain (PW-

5). He testified as under:-

"I am working as Commercial Controller with M/s. Rediffusion DY&R Pvt. Ltd., Building No.9B, 3rd Floor, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon. I have been deputed vide authority letter dated 15.10.2010, Ex.PW5/A to depose in response to the summons received from the Hon'ble Court. I have brought the record of service of Shri Inder Pal Singh who was working in the company as Creative Director. At the time of his death, he was working in New Delhi office and his remuneration per month was `67,750/-. The document is Ex.PW5/B, running into three pages. Over and above, he was also entitled for other annual benefits, LTA `9,000/-, Medical `5,000/-, Health Club Membership `10,000/- and white goods `5,000/- per annum. I identify Ex.PW1/6 which is issued from my

office and the same is true and correct. It is a salary slip for the month of May, 2001 for Shri Inder Pal Singh, for a sum of `59,250/-. Over and above this, he was also entitled for `3,000/- per month as attire, `3,500/- for car allowance including petrol, servicing, repairs of company car, `1,000/- on telephone and `1,000/- on electricity, thereby making it a total of `67,750/- per month. Being a creative person, there was no impediment for Shri Inder Pal Singh to take up third party outside assignments, in his personal capacity."

17. There is a Salary Certificate Ex.PW-1/6 which reads as under:-

"REDIFFUSION-DENTSU, YOUNG & RUBICAM LTD. 7/2 & 7/3 KALU SARAI, VASISHT HOUSE, BEGAMPUR, NEW DELHI, 110017 Payslip for the month of May, 2001 EWMPLOYEE# 209 NAME INDER PAL SINGH Join Date : 01/07/2000 PF# 1079 Attendance : 31.00 Days Designation :

        DEPARTMENT :             DELHI
        PAYMENTS                                         (Rs.)         (Rs.)
        BASIC                                          21,000.00
        CITY COMPENSATORY ALLOWANCE                    27,250.00
        HOUSE RENT ALLOWANCE                           11,000.00
        TOTAL PAYMENTS:                                             59,250.00
        DEDUCTIONS
        PROVIDENT FUND                                 2,520.00
        INCOME TAX                                     15,000.00
        TOTAL DEDUCTIONS:                                           17,520.00
        NEY PAY:                                                    41,730.00

For REDIFFUSION-DENTSU, YOUNG & RUBICAM LTD. Sd/-

Authorized Signatory"

18. There is another certificate issued by Rediffusion-Dentsu,

Young & Rubicam Limited (Ex.PW-5/A) which shows that

apart from the Basic pay, Special Allowance and House Rent

Allowance as shown in the salary slip for the month of May,

2001, the deceased was also entitled to leave travel expenses of

`9,000/- per annum and medicines/hospitalisation expenses to

the extent of `5,000/- per annum.

19. There is a third letter dated 01.04.2000 which will go on to

show that the deceased was further entitled to the following

expenses:-

"1. On attire, subject to a maximum of `3,000/- per month.

2.On petrol/ servicing/ routine repairs and maintenance of the company car provided to you for official duties, subject to a maximum of `3500/- per month.

3. On your telephone, subject to a maximum of `1,000/- per month towards personal calls.

4. On electricity charges subject to a maximum of `1,000/- per month."

20. The salary for the month of May, 2001 is of great import. It

does not make any mention of any allowances paid towards

attire, towards petrol and towards telephone or electricity

charges. If this amount of `8,500/- per month was admissible it

was also subject to income tax and the income tax would have

been deducted every month on this amount had this been

payable to the deceased. Certificate Ex.PW-1/6 reveals that on

monthly salary of `59,250/-, income tax of `15,000/- was being

deducted apart from the deduction of `2,520/- towards

Provident Fund. I am inclined to believe that the multinational

companies do pay certain sums towards purchase of

medicines/hospitalisation and also leave travel expenses, if it is

claimed. This amount was however, not claimed. Since this

was reimbursement of expenditure, to my mind, the same

cannot be taken into consideration. All the more, author of the

letter dated 01.04.2000 who stated that the deceased was

entitled to further allowances of `8,500/- per month in addition

to the one mentioned in the Salary Certificate Ex.PW-1/6, was

not produced. As stated earlier, since income tax was not being

deducted at source on this amount, I am not inclined to rely on

the same.

21. Although the Appellants had disputed the genuineness of the

Salary Certificate Ex.PW-1/6 and it is urged that the loss of

dependency ought to have been awarded on the basis of the ITR

filed for the previous year, yet I see no reason to disbelieve the

Salary Certificate Ex.PW-1/6 which mentions the PF number as

1079 and the income tax of `15,000/- per month being deducted

at source on monthly basis.

22. Now, I turn to the deceased's salary from Arms

Communications and Apra Motels. According to Respondents

no.1 to 5, the deceased was also working as a Creative

Consultant with Arms Communications. As per the Certificate

Ex.PW-1/7, a sum of `63,225/- was paid to the widow of the

deceased vide letter dated 16.08.2003. Similarly, by another

Certificate Ex.PW-1/8 from Apra Motels a sum of `1,62,000/-

was paid to the widow of the deceased Inder Pal Singh as

Interior Designing Consultancy charges for the period from

April, 2001 to October, 2001. Certificate Ex.PW-1/7 from Arms

Communications was stated to be proved by one Praveen

Kumar PW-6. However, the author of the same was not

produced. In cross-examination, PW-6 deposed that the

Retainership agreement was executed between M/s. Arms

Communications Pvt. Ltd. and the deceased. The said document

was also not produced. Admittedly, before joining Rediffusion-

Dentsu, Young & Rubicam Limited as a regular employee, the

deceased was working of his own and was having a gross

income of `3,97,861/- per annum. The deceased claimed the

following expenditure and returned the net income of

`1,24,697/- for the Assessment Year 1999-2000 as under:-

INDER PAL SINGH CREATIVE CONSULTANT PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31ST MARCH, 1999

Particulars Amount (`) Particulars Amount (`)

To Artwork/Artist Exp. 30,750.00 By 3,97,861.94 Professional Receipts To photography Exp. 3,464.00 To Petrol 18,252.69 To Rent 13,650.00 To Copywriter Expenses 41,072.00 To Bks & Periodicals 4,045.00 To Entertainment 5,086.78 To Travelling Exp. 25,198.75 To Professional Charges 1,500.00 To Bank Charges 200.00 To Conveyance 4,475.00 To Fees & Subs. 2,500.00 To Telephone Exp. 29,009.00 To Interest/Chg. On car loan 5,953.57

To Printing & Stationery 1,068.00 To Salaries 58,800.00 To Car Repair 4,375.00 To Depreciation:

        M. Car          21,005.00
        Furn & Fix      2,760.00     23,765.00
        To Net Profit                1,24,697.15
                                     3,97,861.94                    3,97,861.94

                   BALANCE SHEET AS AT 31ST MARCH, 1999

        Capital & Liabilities        Amount (`)       Assets        Amount (`)
        Inder Pal                    M. Car           1,05,024.00
        Singh Cap.                   Less Depr.       21,005.00     84,019.00
        A/c
        Op. Bal on 87,778.57         Furn. & Fix.     27,599.00
        1.4.98 (Cr)                  Less Depr.       2,760.00      24,839.00
        Add:        Net 124,697.15
        Profit (Cr)                  Cash        in                 1,250.00
                                     Hand
                       2,12,475.72
        Less:      Net 102,367.72 1,10,108.00                       1,10,108.00
        Drawings

23. Of course, income of any person can suddenly increase in the

next year, particularly of a professional engaged in creative

work. But the same has to be proved by reliable evidence.

Since the deceased was already working as an independent

creative consultant, it was very easy to obtain the letters after

his death to inflate the income.

24. Similarly, although PW-7 deposed that the deceased was

working on retainership charges since April, 2001 on

retainership fee of `3,24,000/-, it is difficult to comprehend that

no payment would be made to the deceased for his work for the

period of six months. All the more, anxiety of K.M. Gupta

(PW-7) to support the Respondents' case was evident from the

fact that PW-7 went on to add that the deceased was entitled to

annual appraisal, although if there is a retainership on yearly

basis, its terms can always change as per the work performed by

an independent person. The judgment in V. Subbulakshmi &

Ors. v. S. Lakshmi & Anr., 2008 ACJ 936 fully applies to the

instant case and it is difficult to believe the income of the

deceased working as independent Interior Designing Consultant

from Apra Motels and Arms Communications.

25. At the same time, as stated above, I see no reason to disbelieve

the deceased's income of `59,250/- per month or in other words

an annual income of `7,11,000/-. In the Assessment Year 2002-

2003, the liability towards income tax on an income of

`7,11,000/- was about `1,75,000/- and that is why monthly

income tax of `15,000/- was being deducted at source by the

employer.

26. The deceased was survived by aged parents, a widow and two

children. Even if father was not dependent, it will not make any

difference as the deduction towards personal and living

expenses in terms of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. v. Delhi

Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 will be 1/4

and on applying the multiplier of 14 (deceased being 42 years),

the loss of dependency will come to `56,28,000/- (7,11,000/- -

`1,75,000/- (income tax) x 3/4 x 14).

27. In view of the three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court

in Rajesh & Ors. v. Rajbir Singh & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 54,

Respondents no.1 to 5 will be further entitled to a sum of

`1,00,000/- each towards loss of love and affection and loss of

consortium, `25,000/- towards funeral expenses and `10,000/-

towards loss to estate.

28. The overall compensation thus, comes to `58,63,000/-. The

compensation awarded is reduced accordingly.

APPORTIONMENT

29. While dealing with the question of apportionment, the Claims

Tribunal awarded 15% of the compensation to the two children

i.e. Respondents no.2 and 3 herein. It is true that the children

were young and yet to settle in their lives and Respondent no.1

being a widow has to struggle to rear and bring up the children.

At the same time, responsibility to maintain the parents in their

old age cannot be undermined. The apportionment made by the

Claims Tribunal in the circumstances, giving 50% of the

awarded amount to the widow cannot be faulted.

30. This accident took place long back and Respondents no.2 and 3

might have attained majority now. The execution of the

impugned award was stayed, subject to deposit of `40 lacs, i.e.

`30 lacs in the name of Respondent no.1 and `5 lacs each in the

names of Respondents no.4 and 5.

31. Vide impugned award, the Claims Tribunal had awarded

interest @ 9% per annum. Although, interest rates had started

fallen since the beginning of this century, they started firming

up since the year 2007. The rate of interest on long term deposit

varies at present between 8% to 9%. Senior citizens get an

addition of 0.25% to 0.5%. The Claims Tribunal in its wisdom

awarded interest @ 9% per annum with which I will not like to

interfere.

32. As stated earlier, the accident took place long back and the

execution of the award was stayed subject to deposit of `40

lacs. I have hereinabove, affirmed the apportionment of the

compensation in favour of the Respondents. The balance

compensation along with interest as awarded by the Claims

Tribunal shall be deposited separately in the name of five

Respondents. In other words, after deducting the amount of `30

lacs, balance amount shall be deposited in the name of

Respondent no.1 and similarly 15% each of the compensation

along with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name

of Respondents no.2 and 3. After deducting a sum of `5 lacs

each deposited in the name of Respondents no.4 and 5, the

balance amount payable along with proportionate interest shall

be deposited in the name of Respondents no.4 and 5.

33. It appears from the record that a sum of `5 lacs was released in

favour of Respondent no.1 and `1 lac each in favour of

Respondents no.4 and 5. It is directed that on deposit of the

entire balance amount, as indicated above, in UCO Bank, Delhi

High Court Branch, New Delhi within six weeks, 50% of the

amount awarded (including the amount already released), if

any, shall be released in favour of Respondents no.1 to 5. The

balance amount awarded to the Respondents shall be held in

Fixed Deposit as indicated hereunder:-

(i) Balance 50% of the awarded amount along with

proportionate interest shall be held in Fixed Deposit in

the name of Respondent no.1 proportionately for a period

of 2 years, 4 years, 6 years and 8 years respectively;

(ii) 50% of the awarded amount along with proportionate

interest shall be held in Fixed Deposit in the name of

Respondents no.2 and 3 for a period of 2 years and 4

years respectively. These Respondents however, shall be

entitled to premature withdrawal of the amount to meet

the expenses for their higher education or for the purpose

of their marriage;

(iii) 50% of amount along with proportionate interest payable

to Respondents no.4 and 5 shall be held in Fixed Deposit

for a period of 1 year and 2 years respectively in equal

proportions; and

(iv) Respondents no.1 to 5 shall be entitled to quarterly

interest, if they so desire.

34. The Appeal is allowed in above terms.

35. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE APRIL 10, 2015 vk