Allahabad High Court
Vinod Tiwari And Another vs Raj Kumar Maruya And Others on 18 March, 2013
Author: Rakesh Tiwari
Bench: Rakesh Tiwari, Anil Kumar Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. 35 First Appeal From Order No.721 of 2013 Vinod Tiwari & another ......Appellant. Vs. Raj Kumar Maurya & others .....Respondents. ******* Counsel for the appellant: Sri Krishna Kumar Chaurasiya, Advocate. Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Anil Kumar Sharma, J.
(By Justice Rakesh Tiwari) We have heard Sri Krishna Kumar Chaurasiya, counsel for the appellant, and perused the record as also papers filed along with memo of appeal.
This appeal challenges the award dated 19.12.2012 passed by M.A.C.T./Additional District Judge, Mirzapur in M.A.C.P. No. 196 of 2008: Vinod Tiwari & another Vs. Raj Kumar Maurya & others.
The award is challenged on the ground that the Tribunal has not correctly appreciated evidence on record; that the amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation is inadequate and the award is in the teeth of mandatory provision of law.
The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has not properly considered the expenses of medical treatment of the claimant-appellants vis-a-vis the medical bills submitted by them and that rate of interest @ 6% awarded is too less than the prescribed rate of interest which is minimum 12% per annum. Thus, the Tribunal has illegally deprived the interest of insurance money.
Brief facts of the case are that an accident took place on 25.1.2008 with Jeep registration no. U.P.63-B 7775 in which the appellants Vinod Tiwari and Vandana Devi Tiwari were going to Mirzapur. The said accident took place with Truck registration no. U.P. 63-D 9447 near Barkachha Mixing Plant, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District-Mirzapur. First Information Report was lodged being Case No. 54 of 2008 under Sections 279, 304-A, 337, 333F/427 IPC against the aforesaid offending truck.
The two claimant-appellants filed a joint claim petition no. 196 of 2008 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.20,50,000/-. However, after appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the claimant-appellants vide impugned award dated 19.12.2012.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and on perusal of record, we find that the Tribunal by the impugned award has recorded a finding of fact that medical bills submitted by claimant-appellants were forged. The Tribunal further held on basis of appreciation of documentary and oral evidence that claimant-appellant no. 1 is entitled for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and claimant-appellant no. 2 is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- only, spent by them in their treatment for recouping their health. The finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard is quoted below:
"i=koyh ij ;kphx.k dh vksj ls nokvksa ds dz; djus ls lEcfU/kr iznhi esfMdYl }kjk fuxZr dS'k eseks dh ewy izfr lwph 71x ls 72x@1 yxk;r 11 izLrqr dh x;h gS ftlesa ;kph la0 1 fouksn frokjh ls lEcfU/kr dz; dh x;h yxHkx pkyhl gtkj ewY; dh nok dh ifpZ;kW nkf[ky dh x;h gS rFkk cUnuk frokjh ls lEcfU/kr iSrhl gtkj :i;s ewY; dh nok dh ifpZ;kW nkf[ky dh x;h gS ijUrq ;kphx.k dh vksj ls mDr nkf[ky ifpZ;ksa dks lkfcr ugh djk;k x;k gSA bl laca/k esa foi{kh chek dEiuh ds bUosfLVxsVj /khjt dqekj JhokLro }kjk e.Myh; izcU/kd ;wukbVsM bfUM;k ba';ksjsal dEiuh dks bl vk'k; dh O;fDrxr ,oa xksiuh; fjiksVZ izsf"kr fd;k x;k gS fd tkWp drkZ fn0 26-3-2011 dks ftyk ljdkjh vLirky fetkZiqj x;k rFkk bejtsUlh okMZ esa ik.Ms; th ls eqykdkr fd;kA mUgs fMLpktZ fLyi o iphZ fn[kk;k rks mUgksus crk;k ds ;g fMLpktZ fLyi lgh gSA fouksn frokjh dk bykt Mk0 ,l0ds0 mik/;k; }kjk fd;k tk jgk FkkA iqu% iznhi esfMdy gky ftyk vLirky ds cxy esa 1 yxk;r 11 fcyks dks fn[kk;k rks mUgksus crk;k fd ;g lc fcy QthZ gS vkSj u mlds nqdku ls tkjh fd;k x;k gSA muds }kjk fyf[kr :i ls Hkh voxr djk;k x;k fd 1 yxk;r 11 fcy tks fd u mlds nqdku ls tkjh fd;k x;k gS vkSj u gh tks fcy cuk gS] ml ij mudh fy[kkoV o gLrk{kj gh gSA ;g lHkh fcy QthZ gSA lR;kiu gsrq Hksts x;s fcy dh Nk;k izfr la0 11 ds vUr esa iznhi dqekj f}osnh iznhi esfMdYl ftyk vLirky fetkZiqj }kjk fn0 26-3-2011 dks bl vk'k; dh fjiksVZ nh x;h fd 1 yxk;r 11 fcy tks fd u esjs nqdku ls tkjh fd;k x;k gS vkSj u gh tks fcy cuk gS ml ij mldh fy[kkoV o esjk gLrk{kj ugh gS] lg lHkh fcy QthZ gSA iznhi esfMdy QeZ ds ekfyd iznhi dqekj f}osnh] ftlus chek dEiuh ds vUos"kd dks mDr vk[;k fyf[kr :i ls nh gS] U;k;ky; ds le{k crkSj U;k;ky; lk{kh fn0 4-4-2011 dks ijhf{kr gqvk gS] ftlus vius c;ku esa viuh nqdku ls fofHkUu frfFk;ksa esa tkjh dh x;h nokvksa dh ifpZ;kW] tks i=koyh esa dkxt la[;k 72x@1 yxk;r 72x@11 gS] ds QthZ gksus rFkk mlesa vafdr nokvksa ds laca/k esa lkjh izfof"V;kW xyr gksus dk vfHkdFku fd;k gS bl lk{kh }kjk vius izfrijh{k.k esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd mlus chek dEiuh ds vUos"kd dks Hkh bu ifpZ;ksa ds laca/k esa fyf[kr :i ls vk[;k vius gLrk{kj lfgr fn;k gSA ;g lHkh nok,W mldh nqdku ls ugh fcdh gS vkSj u mDr ifpZ;ksa esa dksbZ bUnzkt mlds }kjk fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj mijksDr lR;kiu vk[;k ls Li"V gS fd ;kphx.k }kjk izLrqr fd;k x;k fcy QthZ vfHkys[k gS] vr% bl ij fopkj fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugh gSA blds vykok ;kfpdk ij miyC/k fpfdRldh; izi=ksa ds voyksdu ls fofnr gS fd ;kph la0 1 fouksn frokjh dks mDr nq?kZVuk esa lkekU; izd`fr dh pksVs vk;h gSA mldh vksj ls iSrhl gtkj :i;s ds nok ds dz; ds laca/k esa dS'keseks nkf[ky fd;k x;k gS ijUrq ijUrq U;k;ky; lk{kh iznhi f}osnh ds c;ku ,oa chek dEiuh ds vUos"kd dh vk[;k ds vk/kkj ij ml ij fo'okl fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugh gSA ;kfpdk ij miyC/k fpfdRldh; izi=ksa ds voyksdu ls fofnr gS fd ;kph dks mDr nq?kZVuk esa vk;h pksVksa ds dkj.k ftyk vLirky fetkZiqj esa 10 fnuksa rd HkrhZ gksdj bykt djkuk iM+k gSA bykt ds nkSjku pk;h dks dqN u dqN [kpZ djuk iM+k gksxkA vr% nok ds en esa ;kph dks 2000@& :i;k fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gSA ;kph la0 1 }kjk vius c;ku esa 10 fnuksa rd HkrhZ gksdj viuk bykt djkuk dgk x;k gSA ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa 100@& :i;s izfr fnu ds fglkc ls 10 fnu rd dh vof/k ds fy;s vk; esa gq, gkl ds en esa 1]000@& :i;k rFkk lgk;d ds en esa 1000@& :i;k fn;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA blds vfrfjDr ;kph dks LokLF; ykHk izkIr djus ds nkSjku ;kph dks ikSf"Vd vkgkj fn;k tkrk jgk gksxkA vr% ikSfLVd vkgkj ds en esa 1]000@& :i;k bl izdkj ;kfpuh la0 1 fouksn frokjh dqy eq0 5000@& :i;k izfrdj ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSA tgkW rd ;kfpuh la0 2 ds nq?kZVuk esa vk;h pksVksa ds bykt esa gq, [kpZ dk iz'u gS] ;kfpdk ds voyksdu ls fofnr gksrk gS fd mDr nq?kZVuk esa ;kph dks pksVs vk;h vkSj mDr pksVksa ds bykt ds dze esa ;kphx.k yxHkx ,d lIrkg rd lnj ftyk vLirky fetkZiqj esa bykt gsrq HkrhZ jgsA pwWfd ;kphx.k ljdkjh vLirky esa HkrhZ jgs] vr% nok vkfn dh lqfo/kk fpfdRlky; ls feyrh jgh gksxhA i=koyh ij miyC/k fpfdRldh; izi= ds voyksdu ls ;g fofnr gksrk gS fd ;kfpuh la0 2 cUnuk frokjh dks QSDpj dh pksV vk;h Fkh ftldk lEcfU/kr vLirky esa bykt gqvk ftl ij ;kphx.k dks dqN u dqN [kpZ djuk iM+k gksxkA ;|fi fd ;kphx.k ds vksj ls dz; dh x;h nokvksa dh jlhnksa ij fo'okl fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugh gS ijUrq nok ds en esa ;kfpuhla0 2 cUnuk frokjh dks 3000@& :i;k fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA ;kfpdk ij miyC/k fpfdRldh; izi=ksa ds voyksdu ls fofnr gS fd ;kfpuh la0 2 cUnuk frokjh dks dks xEHkhj izd`fr dh pksVs vk;h Fkh vkSj mldks QSDpj dh pksV FkhA vr% nq?kZVuk esa vk;h pksVks ds dkj.k 'kkjhfjd ,oa ekufld d"V ds ckor eq0 5]000@& :i;k fn;k tkuk mfpr gSA ;kfpuh la0 2 }kjk vius c;ku esa 10 fnuksa rd HkrhZ gksdj viuk bykt djkuk dgk x;k gSA ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa 100@& :i;s izfrfnu ds fglkc ls 10 fnu rd dh vof/k ds fy;s vk; dh gkl ds en esa 1]000@& :i;k fn;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA blds vfrfjDr ;kfpuh dks LokLF; ykHk izkIr djus ds nkSjku ;kph dks ikSf"Vd vkgkj fn;k tkrk jgk gksxkA vr% ikSfLVd vkgkj ds en esa 1]000@& :i;k fn;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA bl izdkj ;kfpuh la0 2 cUnuk frokjh dqy eq0 10]000@& :i;k izfrdj ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSA"
Thus, it is apparent from the aforesaid finding that appellant no. 1 had submitted medical bills for purchase of medicines amounting to Rs.40,000/-, but on an investigation by Insurance Company from the owner of medical shop from which the bills were issued, it is clear that he has denied issuance of bills submitted by appellant no. 1.
The owner of the shop who was produced as witness before the Tribunal, un-equivocably stated that these bills for purchase of medicines submitted by the claimant-appellants are forged ones. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly discarded the bills in respect of medicines which were found forged and has only allowed expenses which the appellants had incurred in their treatment and for recouping their health. After perusal of aforesaid findings, we are of the considered opinion that the reasons given by the Tribunal for discarding the forged medical bills and only allowing expenses which had in fact been spent by the appellants in recouping their health, are just and reasonable.
In view of the above discussion, we find that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence adduced by the parties in the case in awarding just and reasonable compensation to the claimant-appellants.
For all the reasons stated above, we uphold the award passed by the Tribunal.
The appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Sharma, J.) (Rakesh Tiwari, J.)
Dated:18.03.2013
RCT/-