IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 540 of 1996 HIRANYAGARBH V/S RANCHHOR Mr. AK RAJVANSHY, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. LALIT PAREEK for DINESH MEHTA & Mr. BHAGAT DADHICH for Mr. MRIDUL JAIN for the respondent Date of Order : 8.2.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- This appeal has been filed by the claimant, against the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Dungarpur, dt. 27.7.1996, whereby the learned Tribunal decreed the claim for a sum of Rs. 3000/-, for personal injury. The facts of the case, as appearing from the record are, that on 9.10.1993 the appellant and other claimant Jayanti Lal were traveling on scooter on 9.10.1993. At about quarter past eight in the morning, when they reached near railway bridge, the delinquent jeep No. RJ 12/T-112 came from opposite side, and hit the scooter, as a result of which both the occupants fell down, and the two persons sustained injuries, for which two claims were filed. The appellant was driving the scooter, and according to him he suffered many simple and grievous injuries on his person, on account of which he had to remain on leave from 9.10.1993 to 18.1.1994, had to travel from Dungarpur to Ahmedabad 4-5 times. Claim has been made for nutritional diet, hospitalisation, expenditure incurred on two attendants, property damage, permanent disablement suffered on account of bony injury, mental pain and agony, adverse effect on future prospects etc., and the claim for a total sum of Rs. 4,90,116/- was filed. Since in the present case only question is of quantum, as the claimant seeks enhancement, I need not dilate on other aspects. The learned Tribunal, while deciding issue no.4 regarding quantum has discussed the evidence of the claimant injured, and the documents produced on record, comprised of Ex. 85, 86, 97, 98, 99, 100 and 101 etc., and found, that from perusal of the Injury Report Ex.-85, and the X-Ray Plate No. 6845 it is clear, that the appellant did not suffer any bony injury. Likewise, the documents Ex. 97 and 98 were disbelieved being not reliable. Then Ex. 95 and 96 were also found to be not reliable. Then, Ex. 99 and 100 were also found to be suspicious, and Ex.-101 was found to be not supported by any medical evidence, more so since there was no bony injury, and thus finding the appellant to be suffering from simple injury, Rs. 1,000/- were awarded for mental pain and 2 agony, Rs. 1100/- were awarded for medical expenditure, and Rs. 900/- were awarded for other inconveniences suffered by the appellant. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length, so also the learned counsel for the respondent, and have gone through the record. A look at the statement of the injured appellant P.W.2 shows, that he has deposed about having sustained fracture in the knee, consequent upon fall, so much so, that his bone of knee came out, which he pressed on the spot. Then, he has deposed to have remained hospitalised for 10 days at Dungarpur, wherefrom he was discharged, then he remained under treatment at home for two months, a plaster was cast on his leg, and on account of plaster for two months, his mobility of leg was lost, and he contacted Dr. Yusuf, who advised him to go to Ahmedabad, where he got examined himself from Dr. Dinu Bhai Patel, who advised him to contact Dr. Nilesh Shah, who operated him by inserting rod, so also removed fractured bones. Then, he was advised to undertake exercise. Then, thereafter he again went to Ahmedabad, and remained there for 15 days for physiotherapy exercise. Then, he returned back, and again went Ahmedabad. Thus in all he went for four times to Ahmedabad, and then he has proved Injury Report Ex. 85, Medical Bills, and Admission Certificates Ex. 86 to 98. Then, receipts of Jeep 3 Fare have been proved as Ex. 99 and 100, and Permanent Disability Certificate is proved as Ex. 101. In my view, the appellant has exaggerated the things out of proportion, which cannot be believed on any parameters, whether on medical science, or common sense, that on account of fall from scooter, any bone from his knee would come out, and the appellant would be able to restore it by pressing it on the spot, by himself, and then he would go to hospital immediately, where he would be examined, and even after X- Ray no bony injury would be found, as if the appellant had miracle of reuniting of bones, merely by pressing it by himself, and then after about three months, i.e. on 13.11.1993, at Ahmedabad, the doctor would find the fracture of lateral part of femur. He would operate and remove the fractured pieces of femur, as appears from Ex.- 87. Thus, the magnitude of the ailment, as pleaded by the appellant, is ex-facie unbelievable. Then, a look at Ex.96 shows, that thereon the name of some other patient Mohit Bhatia was mentioned, which has been erased, and the name of appellant has been inserted, apart from the fact, that this is the bill of 7.1.1994. Likewise, Ex. 97 and 98 relate to some Hiranya Patel. The learned trial court has found, that these documents are very much doubtful, more so when, even according to Ex. 85, there was no bony injury, no reliance can be placed on these documents, even to 4 connect them with the injuries, said to have been suffered in the accident. Likewise sufficient and correct reasons have been given by the learned trial court regarding Ex. 99 and 100. Thus, in my view, the story propounded about the nature of the injuries sustained, and the expenditure incurred in that connection, does not at all inspire confidence. It may be observed here, that had the appellant suffered fractures on 9.10.1993, it does not stand to reason, that it would not be noticed in the hospital, and then, he claims that a plaster was cast on his leg, for which also there is no evidence, and none of the prescription of the treatment establishes this fact, and then in December 1993, the doctor would find the fractured bones. Thus, taken from any stand point, in my view, the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial court do not require any interference, and obviously, therefore, the quantum of compensation also does not require any interference. The appeal thus has no force, and is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/ 5