Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Savitri Devi (Smt.) vs Ramesh Chand And Ors. on 23 March, 2006
Equivalent citations: IV(2006)ACC242, 2008ACJ210, RLW2006(2)RAJ1471, 2006(3)WLC332
Author: R.S. Chauhan
Bench: R.S. Chauhan
JUDGMENT R.S. Chauhan, J.
1. The appellant is challenging the award dated 16.9.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track), Kotputli, District Jaipur whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed and direction has been issued to recover the amount of Rs. 25,000/- along with 6% interest within a period of two months from passing of the said award.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.7.2003 when the appellant and her brother, Ram Singh, were coming from her in- laws' house and going to her parental home at Devta, by a motor cycle, suddenly near a turn of Mothuka Road, a jeep, bearing Registration No. R.J-32C-0405, being driven by the respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, allegedly collided with the motor cycle. Consequently, the appellant had suffered various injuries on her person. She further claimed that her right hand was crushed. Subsequently, her right hand was even amputated by one Dr. Murari Lal. A FIR was lodged at the Police Station Patan, District Sikar regarding the alleged accident. In order to receive some compensation for the alleged accident, the appellant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. In the claim petition, the appellant claimed that at the time of alleged accident, she was 22 years of old and she was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month from her salary as she was working as Aangan Bari Teacher and from tailoring and weaving business. Therefore, she filed a claim petition for a compensation to the tune of Rs. 32,41,000/-. In order to substantiate her case, she examined three witnesses i.e., herself and her brothers and submitted twenty three documents. On the other hand, the non-claimants did not examine any evidence, but did submit two documents. After going through the oral and the documentary evidence, the Tribunal was pleased to pass an award as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before us.
3. Mr. Jai Kishan Yogi, the learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the claim petition has been dismissed ostensibly on the ground that there was an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR by the claimant. According to him, however, the said delay has been explained by the claimant. Therefore, the reason given by the Tribunal is without any foundation. He has further pleaded that the Injury Report (Ex. 8), the Report of the Medical Officer (Ex. 11), the Discharge Summary Report (Ex. 12), the Permanent Disability Certificate (Ex. 13) and Ex. 14 to 22, the bills for the medicines bought by the claimant, all prove the fact that the claimant was victim in a motor vehicle accident. However, the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the documentary evidence, which was readily available on record.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned award.
5. A proceeding before the Tribunal is a civil proceeding where it is not necessary to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, but nonetheless it is important that the claimant proves his case through cogent and reliable evidence. The statements of the claimant cannot be taken as the gospel truth until and unless there is corroborative evidence to support his contention. Such corroborative evidence would be available from the FIR lodged by the claimant or his relative immediately after the alleged accident, by the submission of the Injury Report, the X-Ray Report, if any, the medical documentation showing his/her treatment at a hospital, if any, the bills and vouchers of the medicines bought by the claimant, the testimony of the treating doctor, the Permanent Disability Certificate issued by a Government Medical Practitioner and other pieces of the oral and documentary evidence. One of the principles of law is that "men may lies, but circumstances do not". It is, thus, imperative that the documents should be produced to substantiate one's claim petition. In the absence of these relevant documents or in case these documents are replete with contradictions or lacunae, the Tribunal would be justified in rejecting the claim petition. The tendency to file frivolous cases in order to make a fast buck is increasing day by day. The unscrupulous, the unprincipled and the greedy persons are abusing the beneficial piece of legislation like Motor Vehicle Act to fabricate false cases and to make money. Such tendency are not only harmful for the judiciary, but also for the society. Such practice floods the Tribunal with false cases, adds to the judicial work, wastes the valuable time of the Courts, drags the alleged driver, the owner and the insurance company, if any, of the offending vehicle through a long judicious process. Therefore, in order to deal with this menance, a strict view should be taken by the Tribunal. In case it is discovered that an utterly false claim petition has been filed by the claimant, then action under Section 340 read with Section 195 IPC should be taken against the claimant. Exemplary costs should also be imposed on those who abuse the law and process of the court.
6. In the present case, the learned Tribunal has given cogent and compelling reasons for dismissing the claim petition, which are as under:
(a) The appellant claims that A.W. 2, Ram Singh, is her "real brother", yet according to the documents in the criminal proceedings initiated by the claimant, A.W. 2 is claimed to be "a cousin brother".
(b) According to the appellant, her brother Ram Singh was equally injured in the alleged accident, yet Ram Singh in his testimony clearly states that he did not receive any injury in the alleged accident.
(c) Allegedly, the accident took place on 27.7.2003, yet the FIR was lodged with the police on 8.9.2003 i.e., after one and half month, that too by Ram Singh. The appellant claims in her testimony that her brother had lodged the FIR on the very day of the accident. Ram Singh also claims that on the very day of the accident, he had lodged the FIR with the Police Station, yet in the FIR available on record (Ex. 1), there is no mentioning of the fact that earlier an FIR was lodged by the claimant. In the FIR (Ex. 1), there is also no explanation for the inordinate delay of one and half month in lodging of the FIR.
(d) According to the appellant, allegedly her right hand had come under the jeep at the time of accident, and the same was subsequently amputated by Dr. Murari Lal, A.W. 3. Yet, according to Dr. Murari Lal, the appellant was brought it to him in an injured state, the hand was already amputated and she did not bring it with her. The testimony of the doctor is extremely untrustworthy. For, despite the fact that allegedly the appellant had come to him in a serve condition, he did not draw up any injury report. He did not inform the police although it was a medico-legal case. In his discharge summary, he claims that the appellant was discharged from his Nursing Home after a period of one and half month i.e., 8.8.2003, yet discharge summary (Ex. 12) is dated 9.9.2003. In the discharge summary, he does not state the treatment to be given to the patient and the medicines to be given to the patient which would be required to be taken by the patient for another one month.
(e) The doctor has also contradicted his earlier statement given to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex. D1). Therein, he had claimed that he had amputated the appellant's hand, yet in his testimony before the Tribunal, he claims that the hand was already amputated because of the alleged accident. To further complicate the matter, in his cross-examination he claimed that the amputation of the hand could also be the result of an injury sustained in a crusher. Moreover, he further states that he does not remember asking the appellant as to cause of her injury. He does not even remember when the surveyor from the Insurance Company questioned him. Thus, this witness is highly untrustworthy.
(f) The Injury Report (Ex. 8) submitted is also delayed by 42 days. The said Report, in fact, was drawn up only after the FIR was lodged at the Police Station.
(g) The appellant claims that she was earning Rs. 500-600 as an Aangan Bari Teacher, but she has not submitted any salary certificate issued by the department.
(h) Although the appellant claims that she is an educated person, she does not remember for how many month she was hospitalized.
7. The illusive answers, the vague story, the lack of documentary evidence, the contradictory testimonies expose the fact that the case is falsely fabricated in order to gain compensation from the Tribunal. The appellant may have sustained an injury, loosing her right hand, but there is no proof that the injury was sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Since the appellant has been unable to prove her case, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing her case. An interim compensation was paid to her, but as the case has not been proved, the Insurance Company is certainly entitled to recover the said amount from her. As cogent and convincing reasons have been given by the Tribunal, we see no reason for interfering with the impugned award.
8. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal. It is, hereby dismissed.