* 1 * F.A. 618.2011 21/4/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 618 OF 2011 Smt. Kamal Ramchandra Chavan .....Appellant V/S. Shri. Anil Ramchandra Chavan & Ors. .....Respondents * * * * Mr. A.M. Kulkarni, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 21 April, 2011. P.C. :- 1. This appeal preferred by the original claimant is against the judgment and order dated 21st April, 2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Kolhapur dismissing her application for compensation for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident. 2. The appellant has filed compilation of pleadings, notes of evidence and the documents produced by her before the Tribunal. 3. On 8th February, 2006 the appellant was travelling by the autorickshaw owned by her husband, respondent no.1 from Kolhapur to Radhanagari. Her husband was driving the autorickshaw in a rash and negligent manner. Consequently the autorickshaw turned turtle. In the accident, the appellant suffered serious injuries to the right hand wrist and right thigh. She therefore filed an application seeking compensation of Rs. * 2 * F.A. 618.2011 21/4/2011 3,00,000/- from her husband as the owner of the autorickshaw and respondent no.2-the insurer of the autorickshaw. The application does not state particulars of the injuries sustained. The appellant claims to have taken treatment in the hospital of Dr. Deshmukh at Kolhapur who has furnished her with a certificate stating that she has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 30%. The certificate describes the injuries sustained by the appellant as follows : 1. Total crush injury of the right upper extremity from elbow to hand. “ Skin totally avulged, all the extensor tendense of the hand are crushed and avulged. 2. Fracture of second, 3rd and 4th meta Corpal of the left hand. There is avulsion of the skin and fat pad of left hand. No vascular region” 4. The Tribunal found that the appellant not only did not mention the injuries sustained by her in the accident in the claim petition, but, she also did not mention it in her evidence. Further, there is inconsistency between her evidence and that of her witness, Dr. Deshpande, as regards the extent of injuries sustained by her. There is also contradiction in the deposition of the evidence of Dr. Deshpande and the certificate issued by him. As per the deposition, the appellant sustained injuries to her right hand, whereas, as per the certificate issued by the Doctor, she sustained injuries to the left hand. If the injuries as described above had really been suffered by the appellant, she would have been subject to extensive medical treatment including some operation for setting right the various fractures allegedly suffered by her. However, it is not the case of the appellant that she has * 3 * F.A. 618.2011 21/4/2011 undergone any operation for the purpose. Apart from the lack of particulars and inconsistency between the evidence produced by the appellant, the trial court also noted that some of the documents produced by her particularly the medical bills are of the date prior to the accident. This would mean that the appellant had produced false documents before the learned Member of the Tribunal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the compilation filed by him. I am satisfied that the learned Member of the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the application. It is obvious from the record that the claim petition was not a genuine petition and that the appellant was merely taking a chance. Hence, the appeal is dismissed with costs. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]