1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.484 OF 1993 Ramrao s/o Annarao Nagargoje, age: 33 years, Occ: Agri., R/o Vithalnagar, Latur. Appellant Versus 1 Ram Pandurang Sabde, age: major, Occ: Business, R/o Krishnanagar, Latur (owner of vehicle) 2 Shamrao Rangrao Mudhe, age: 40 years, Occ: Driver, R/o Shrikrishna Nagar, Latur (Driver of vehicle). 3 Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., through its Branch Manager, main Road, Latur. Respondents Mr.G.D.Kale, advocate holding for Mr.R.T.Nagargoje, advocate for appellant. Mr.T.M.Venjane, advocate for Respondents No.1 & 2. Mr.A.A.Joshi, advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 05 th January, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Appellant-claimant, being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by District Judge & Ex-Officio Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur on 21.10.1992 in M.A.C. Petition No.2 of 1992, has approached this Court by way of presenting instant First Appeal. 2 2 The appellant (hereinafter referred to as `the claimant’) presented claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.One lakh on account of injury sustained by him in an accident alleged to have taken place on 12.07.1991 at about 3.30 p.m. on North-South road in front of Panchayat Samiti Office, Latur. According to the claimant, on the relevant day, he was riding on a two wheeler `Spark’. While he was proceeding from western side of the road, in front of hospital of Dr.Chinte, one vehicle `Matador Tempo’ came from opposite direction in fast speed and gave dash to the claimant. As a result of dash given by four wheeler, claimant sustained fracture injury to his left leg. He was immediately shifted to the hospital of Dr.Chinte where he was treated as an indoor patient for about twenty two days. He was required to incur an amount of Rs.5000/- to 6000/- for securing medical treatment. The claimant had also engaged one Ashok Shinde as an Assistant to look after him and he was paid Rs.400/- per month for a period of six months. The claimant was also required to take treatment from one Dr.Lahane from Beed. He was admitted as an indoor patient in the hospital of Dr.Lahane at Beed for a period of two and half months. The claimant claimed that he was required to incur expenditure of Rs.8000/- towards the treatment received from Dr.Lahane. The claimant also claims that he was required to take physiotherapy treatment and was required to incur expenses for the same also. The claimant, as such, claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.One lakh. 3 Respondents No.1 and 2 have resisted the claim by presenting written statement. The contention in respect of occurrence of the incident has been denied by the Respondents. According to the contesting respondents, the vehicle in question i.e. four wheeler (Matador Tempo) was standing in front of hospital of Dr.Chinte and the claimant, who was riding on 3 two wheeler, came in fast speed and dashed against the stationary vehicle and as a result of which, he sustained injury. The contesting respondents have denied their liability in respect of payment of claim raised by claimant towards medical treatment. 4 The Insurance Company has also resisted the claim by filing written statement and denied the liability. 5 After recording evidence of parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant has failed to substantiate his claim and as such dismissed the Petition. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the amount received by the claimant to the tune of Rs.12,000/- on account of no fault liability is sufficient to meet the claim and he is not entitled to receive any further compensation under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 6 In order to substantiate the claim, claimant examined himself and stated his version in respect of occurrence of the incident. The version stated by the claimant has been controverted by the respondents. The Tribunal has considered in detail the oral evidence while recording findings. It is worthwhile to note here that the claimant, immediately after occurrence of the incident, was taken to the hospital of Dr.Chinte. It is to be noted that occurrence of incident is just in front of the hospital of Dr.Chinte. It is stated by Dr.Chite, who was examined as a witness before the Tribunal, that claimant was taking medical treatment even prior to receiving injury in question. Dr.Chinte mainly deals with cases relating to Orthopedic injuries. It is stated by Dr.Chinte that the claimant had already sustained injury to his left leg and was receiving treatment at the hands of Dr.Chinte. This aspect of the 4 matter has been suppressed by the claimant in the petition and also while deposing before the Tribunal. It was also disclosed by Dr.Chinte, in his evidence, that while stating details in respect of occurrence of incident, the claimant had disclosedto him that he sustained injury because of dash of his vehicle to the door of stationary vehicle which was standing in front of hospital at the time of occurrence of the incident. The patient himself i.e. claimant explained to the doctor that the two wheeler, on which he was riding, has dashed against the door of stationary vehicle i.e. Matador Tempo standing in front of hospital of Dr.Chinte and as a result of which he fell down and sustained injury. 7 It is also to be taken note of that no immediate F.I.R. was lodged by the claimant with police and only after eight days of occurrence of incident, on 18.07.1991, F.I.R. came to be lodged. Trial Court relied upon the evidence of Dr.Chinte who deposed about the history of occurrence of incident, which was immediately stated by patient himself i.e. Claimant, which gives a different version than that stated by the claimant. The Tribunal, therefore, came to the conclusion that no liability can be fixed on the Respondents in respect of occurrence of incident as claimant himself has dashed against a stationary vehicle. 8 Apart from this aspect, in the F.I.R., claimant has stated about presence of two Muslim boys who had shifted claimant to the hospital of Dr.Chinte, however, none of the witnesses named in the F.I.R. were examined by the claimant. However, another witness by name Babasaheb Deshmukh was examined. The Tribunal has, in these circumstances, rightly refused to place reliance on the version put up by the claimant or his witness in respect of occurrence of incident. 5 9 Another aspect of the matter is that the claimant has withheld certain facts from the Tribunal. It is disclosed by Dr.Chinte that the claimant was already receiving treatment from him in respect of fracture injury sustained by him. From the version stated by Dr.Chinte, it is more than clear that the claimant had already received an injury, for which he was receiving treatment. This aspect has not been disclosed by the claimant. 10 The claimant has also led evidence of one Dr.Lahane from Beed for substantiating his claim in respect of expenses incurred by him for receiving medical treatment as well as being indoor patient at the hospital of Dr.Lahane for considerable period. It is to be noted that the claimant was already receiving treatment from Dr.Chinte from Latur, who is an Orthopedist. It is rather doubtful as to what made the claimant to approach Gynecologist to receive treatment and that too at Beed. It is disclosed by claimant that one Dr.Dhaytadak has examined and treated him at the hospital of Dr.Lahane. However, in order to substantiate his claim in that regard, claimant has not examined Dr.Dhaytadak. The version put up by claimant in respect of his receiving treatment at the hospital of Dr.Lahane at Beed, who is Gynocologist, has, therefore, been rightly discarded by the Tribunal. The contention raised by claimant in respect of his sustaining disability to the extent of 25% has also not been substantiated by him by leading cogent evidence in that regard. 11 For the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error in turning down the claim put up by claimant for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.One lakh. The Tribunal has rightly observed that the amount received by him towards no fault liability 6 to the tune of Rs.12,000/- is sufficient for meeting the claim. I do not find any perversity in the reasons recorded by the Tribunal. There is no reason to cause interference in the order passed by Tribunal. Appeal is devoid of substance. 12 In the result, appeal stands dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/fa48493