Bombay High Court
Raman Bhagwandas Vanjari vs Mohammad Salim Sk Abdullah & Others on 24 March, 2017
Author: A.S.Chandurkar
Bench: A.S.Chandurkar
248-J-FA-390-05 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.390 OF 2005
Raman Bhagwandas Vanjani
Aged Adult, Occ. Business,
(LIC Agent), R/o Civil Lines,
Washim, District-Akola
(Now District Washim). ... Appellant.
-vs-
1. Mohammad Salim Sk. Abdullah
Aged- Adult, Occ. Driver
2. Deorao V. Ghate
Aged about Adult,
Owner of Auto Rickshaw
Both R/o Mangwadi, Tah. Risod,
Dist. Akola (Now Dist. Washim)
3. The Branch Manager,
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Old Cotton Market, Akola. ... Respondents.
Shri P. V. Ghare, Advocate for appellant.
Shri V. G. Wankhede, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Ms T. D. Khade, Advocate for respondent No.3.
CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : March 24, 2017 Oral Judgment :
The appellant who is the original claimant has challenged the judgment of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola as he is aggrieved by the ::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 20:44:07 ::: 248-J-FA-390-05 2/7 judgment dated 31/01/2005 by which his claim for compensation has been dismissed.
According to the appellant he was travelling on his motorcycle on 13/10/1996, when he was dashed by an autorickshaw coming from opposite direction. The appellant sustained injuries on his head and was required to be hospitalized. On that basis he filed claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the said Act) . The claim was contested by the respondents and the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal after considering the evidence on record held that the appellant had suffered injuries on account of a motor vehicle accident. However the claim for compensation came to be rejected on the ground that the appellant had not approached the Tribunal with clean hands. It found that two medical receipts were fabricated by him and on that basis the entire claim for compensation was dismissed by passing the impugned judgment.
2. Shri P. V. Ghare, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in so far Issue Nos.1 to 4 framed by the Claims Tribunal are concerned, they have been answered in favour of the appellant. The only reason for disallowing the claim for compensation is that according to the learned Member two bills at Exhibits-56 and 59 had been manipulated. According to him on that basis the entire claim for compensation came to be dismissed. He submitted that considering the fact that the appellant had suffered ::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 20:44:07 ::: 248-J-FA-390-05 3/7 disability to the extent of 10%, he was entitled to receive some amount of compensation in that regard.
3. Shri V. G. Wankhede, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 supported the impugned order. According to him the findings recorded against Issue No.5 were sufficient to disallow the claim for compensation. It was submitted that the appellant by his own conduct was rightly held dis- entitled to receive compensation. He urged that the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and I have perused the records of the case. The following point arises for consideration :
" Whether the entire claim for compensation under Section 166 of the said Act was liable to be rejected on the ground that two medical bills were found to be manipulated ?"
5. The Claims Tribunal while answering Issue Nos.1 to 4 has held that the appellant sustained 10% permanent disability on account of motor vehicle accident that occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent No.1. These findings recorded against Issue Nos.1 to 4 are not under challenge. While answering Issue No.5 the ::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 20:44:07 ::: 248-J-FA-390-05 4/7 amount of compensation under Section 166 of the said Act has been disallowed after noticing some additions in the figures of medical receipts at Exhibits-56 and 59. The Claims Tribunal after noticing these receipts concluded that the appellant had not approached the Tribunal with clean hands and held that dismissal of claim petition would be sufficient punishment for him.
6. Perusal of the entire order of the Claims Tribunal indicates that on account of insertions made in Exhibits-56 and 59, the appellant was guilty of committing an offence against administration of justice. He was therefore not entitled for any compensation.
The learned Member of the Claims Tribunal after having found that the appellant had suffered 10% permanent disability by virtue of a motor vehicle accident ought to have considered the prayer for grant of compensation under Section 166 of the said Act. If the learned Member found that some medical bills were interpolated, the claim for grant of said medical expenses could have been disallowed. It is not the case that there was a doubt created with regard to occurrence of the accident itself. Issue Nos.1 to 4 had been answered in favour of the appellant. The approach of the learned Member that as two medical bills were found to be interpolated, dismissal of the entire claim petition would result in sufficient punishment appears to be a harsh view. If the occurrence of the accident was not in ::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 20:44:07 ::: 248-J-FA-390-05 5/7 doubt and it was proved that the appellant had suffered 10% permanent disability the Tribunal could have disallowed those amounts with regard to which it had a doubt of having been incurred.
7. There is another aspect of the matter. The maxim " falsus in uno falsus in omnibus " which means if some part of the version of a witness is not found to be believable his entire version must be disregarded has not received general acceptance in different jurisdictions in India as held in Nisar Ali vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1957 SC 366. In other words, if the case of the appellant with regard to medical bills at Exhibits-56 and 59 was to be disbelieved, that part of his deposition was liable to be excluded while determining the amount of compensation if his case otherwise entitled him to grant of compensation. The entire case was not liable to be disbelieved resulting in refusal to grant any compensation whatsoever.
8. Coming to the aspect of the amount of compensation, the appellant had placed on record certificate issued by the Life Insurance Corporation dated 02/01/1997 at Exhibit-30 which indicated the amount of income from commission for the period from 01/04/1995 to 31/03/1996 to be Rs.2,31,922/-. This certificate indicated that income tax of Rs.18,172 had been deducted. Considering the date of accident which is 13/10/1996 coupled with the document at Exhibit-31 which is a certificate indicating ::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 20:44:08 ::: 248-J-FA-390-05 6/7 deduction of tax at source, the monthly income of the appellant can be taken to be Rs.15,000/- . As per certificate at Exhibit-38 the appellant suffered 10% disability. Considering the nature of avocation being done by the appellant as an insurance agent, the loss of income as a result of said accident could be taken at 10% which would come to Rs.1500/- per month. The annual reduction in the amount of income would come to Rs.18,000/-. By applying the multiplier of 16 according to his age, the amount of compensation would come to Rs.2,88,000/-. An amount of Rs.22,100/- as per document at Exhibit-52 towards operation charges has been duly proved. Said amount is also admissible. Thus in the facts of the present case, total compensation of Rs.3,10,000/- is payable by the respondents. As noted above the medical bills sought to be relied upon by the appellant have been discarded on account of being interpolated. Hence I am not inclined to grant any amount towards medical expenses.
9. In view of aforesaid discussion, I find that in the facts of the present case grant of amount of Rs.3,10,000/- would be fair compensation to the appellant for the accident in question. The point as framed is answered accordingly. In the result the following order is passed :
(i) The judgment of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola in M.A.C.P. No.211/1997 dated 31/01/2005 is quashed and set aside.
::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 20:44:08 ::: 248-J-FA-390-05 7/7
(ii) It is held that the appellant is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,10,000/- payable with interest @ 7.5% per annum from 15/12/1997 till realization. The said amount shall be jointly and severally paid by the respondents.
(iii) First appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE Asmita ::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 20:44:08 :::