Divya Pahwa & ORS v. Ajit Singh & ORS

$~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 54/2018 DIVYA PAHWA & ORS ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Navneet Goyal, Advocate.

versus AJIT SINGH & ORS ..... Respondent Through Ms.Komal Dhingra, Advocate for R3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

O R D E R

% 15.01.2018 Vide the present petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner no.1 who is the widow and petitioners no. 2 & 3 who are the children of one late Shri.Parmod Kumar Pahwa who had died in a motor vehicle accident on 25.03.1997 are praying for release of the compensation amount held in a fixed deposit lying with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch, Delhi, vide receipt no.0460216 dated 03.02.2007 for Rs.8,52,405/- having the maturity date 03.02.2014.

The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the amount of Rs.8,52,405/- coming to the share of petitioner no.1 had, vide order dated 27.01.2017 passed by the presiding officer MACT, been directed to be kept in fixed deposit for a period of 84 months having maturity date 03.02.2014.

He further submits that on an appeal filed by the new India Insurance Company/respondent no.3 in this Court, wherein the petitioner had been arrayed as respondent no.1, a specific direction had been given that the Bank shall issue Fixed Deposit Passbook instead of FDRs to the respondent no.1 and 5 therein and it was further directed that the maturity amount of the FDRs be automatically credited to the Saving Bank Account of the beneficiaries at the end of the FDR.

He submits that even though the FDR term period had expired on 03.02.2014, the bank has refused to release the said amount on the ground that there is an endorsement at the back of the FDR that 'not to be encashed without the order of the Court'. In view of the refusal of the Bank to release the amount, the petitioner had moved an appropriate application before the MACT on 18.07.2017. However the said application had been dismissed by the MACT by holding that since the FDR have been created as per the directions of the High Court, the application was disposed off by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court for seeking directions in this regard.

The learned counsel for petitioner as well as counsel for respondent no.3 who has appeared on advance have been heard for the purpose of limited relief which the petitioners are seeking, there is no requirement to issue notice to the other respondents. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submits that she has no objection to the release of the amount in favour of the petitioner. I have perused the order dated 12.03.2010 passed by this Court

and I find that this Court had specifically directed that upon maturity of the FDR over the amount therein should be automatically be credited to the saving bank account of the beneficiaries. In view of these specific directions, the bank ought to have itself credited the amount in accordance with the directions given by this Court. In fact, it is unfortunate that the State Bank of India has refused to release the amount to the petitioner by merely relying on the endorsement made at the back of the FDR without appreciating the subsequent order dated 12.03.2010 passed by this Court and the fact that the petitioner no.1 is a widow who lost her husband 20 years ago and is still being made to run for the amount which had become payable to her in February, 2014 itself.

The petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Branch to release the amount lying in the fixed deposit created in its Bank, vide receipt no.04602016 dated 03.02.2007 for Rs.8,52,405/- with maturity date 03.02.2014 to the petition alongwith the accrued interest.

REKHA PALLI, J JANUARY 15, 2018 sr