Vinod Tiwari and Another vs Raj Kumar Maurya and Others

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—We have heard Sri Krishna Kumar Chaurasiya, counsel for the appellant, and perused the record as also papers filed alongwith 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 and another v. Raj Kumar Maurya and 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. 63B 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, 304A, 337, 333F /427, I.P.C. 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:

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, unequivocally 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.