S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.2035/07 RSRTC vs. Chhagana Ram & ors. 1 S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.2035/07 RSRTC vs. Chhagana Ram & ors. Date of Order: 22.9.2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. B.S. Bhati for the appellant. Mr. S.K. Sankhla for the respondents. Mr. R.K. Singhal for respondent no.4. ... Heard learned counsel for the parties. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that excess amount has been paid by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaur in Claim Case No.26/97, dated 2.5.2001. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that merely on the basis of the bills submitted by the claimant, the entire amount has been awarded by the learned Tribunal without even looking into the dates on which the bills were issued by the dealer. It is submitted that the vehicle in question is jeep and for its damages, amount of total one lack has been awarded. The learned counsel for the appellant questioned the bills which are issued by Mohd. Yusuf & Sons and according to S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.2035/07 RSRTC vs. Chhagana Ram & ors. 2 the learned counsel for the appellant, these all bills started from Ex.46 to Ex.56 appear to have been obtained with collusion of the dealer. It is also submitted that even a bill of the date 25.12.1997 (Ex.P.58) has been produced which is of Rs.26,000/- and the accident occurred in the month of October,1996 and as per the learned Tribunal, the vehicle in question, after repair, came on the road within 15 days and further even as per the claimant himself, the vehicle came on the road within two months. In view of the above, the claim of the claimant is based on absolutely false evidence and, therefore, the same is liable to be rejected. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the claim case, the respondent produced the person who repaired the vehicle and also produced the bill which was given by the shop-dealer of the shop from which the parts were purchased. It is submitted that the accident was serious accident and it caused the total loss of the vehicle and, therefore, the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- claimed by the claimant is the total loss caused to the vehicle. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the bill dated 25.12.1997 is the S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.2035/07 RSRTC vs. Chhagana Ram & ors. 3 only receipt by which the payment was made to the person who repaired the body of the vehicle, which is apparent from the bill dated 25.12.1997(Ex..P.58), a bill given for the body repairing of the vehicle. I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and the various Bills. The accident occurred in the month of October, 1996. The bills produced by the claimant are of the period starting from January, 1997. It is possible that the vehicle remained unattended because of the huge loss and it may be also possible that in repairing the vehicle, much time may have been taken by the repairing person. So far as the bills raised in the month of January, 1997 as well as in the month of February, 1997, there appears to be just logical reason that they have raised in period of two months, but so far as making payment of the repairing of the body, as mentioned in Ex.P.58 as well as even chassis repairing etc., that cannot have any connection with the repairing of the vehicle because of the reason that according to the claimant himself, the vehicle got repaired by him within a period of two months or at the most 2-1/2 months from the time S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.2035/07 RSRTC vs. Chhagana Ram & ors. 4 of accident, then the payment of the chassis repairing in the month of December, 1997 and for item mentioned in Ex.P.58 cannot have the direct relation with the repairing of the vehicle. In view of the above reasons, the amount of the Bill dated 25.12.1997 (Ex.P.58) alone deserves to be deducted from the award as awarded by the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed and the amount of Rs.26,000/- is reduced from the total amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. In case the amount has been paid by the appellant to the claimant, the appellant shall be entitled to recover the said amount from the respondent-claimant. (PRAKASH TATIA),J. mlt