1 S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 369/2007 (Kumbha Ram Vs. Gokala Ram & others) Date of Order :: 22nd February 2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.S.P.Bhati for the appellant By way of this appeal, the claimant seeks enhancement over the amount of Rs.5,75,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum awarded by the Tribunal towards compensation on account of loss suffered by him due to injuries sustained in the vehicular accident. The claimant made a claim for compensation against the driver, owner and insurer of a truck bearing registration No.RJ04 G 0754 with the submissions that on 24.08.2002 for rash and negligent driving the truck capsized between Lunada and Kanod while coming back after unloading the goods at village Lunada and Khipar; and due to accident, the claimant travelling in the vehicle as a labourer sustained grievous injuries. For quantification of compensation, the claimant asserted that at the time of accident, he was 40 years of age and was a skilled labourer earning about Rs.200/- per day i.e. Rs.6,000/- per month; that he had sustained grievous injuries including fracture on his back bone and had undergone 2 extensive treatment at Government Hospital, Barmer and at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad; that he has suffered total permanent disablement and could neither work nor carry out his daily routine and was always dependent on an attendant and was practically reduced to a living corpse. After framing of necessary issues and taking evidence, the Tribunal has found the accident to have occurred for rash and negligent driving of the truck and has rejected the contentions of insurer for its exoneration and about jurisdiction of the Tribunal. In relation to the injuries and their after-effects, the Tribunal has found with reference to the injury report Ex.6, X- ray report Ex.7 and permanent disablement certificate Ex.54 that the body of the claimant was completely paralysed below sternum and he has suffered 100% disablement. After examining the entire evidence available on record, the Tribunal has allowed Rs.8,200/- towards treatment expenditure, as against the bills of Rs.8,235/-.; Rs.25,000/- towards special diets; Rs.40,000/- for attendants; and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation. The Tribunal has noticed that the claimant asserted his age at 40 years in the claim application and stated his age at 45 years in his statement recorded on 11.08.2005 but no corroborative evidence in the form of voter list or ration card or photo identity card was produced; and on the other hand, his 3 age was stated at 50 years in the discharge ticket Ex.11, again at 50 years in the injury and X-ray reports Ex.6 & Ex.7, again at 50 years in the laboratory reports Ex.56 to 61, and at 52 years in the disablement certificate Ex.54. The Tribunal has also noticed that photostat of the record of Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad was available on record that was not got exhibited for want of original hospital record but therein too, his age was stated at 50 years. In view of such consistent and overwhelming evidence, the Tribunal has taken the age of the claimant at 50 years. Then, the Tribunal has not accepted the assertion of his income at Rs.6,000/- per month for want of corroborative evidence particularly when the claimant asserted to be a labourer working with a Cooperative Marketing Society; and has put estimate on his income at Rs.80/- per day i.e. Rs.2,400/- per month leading to annual figure of Rs.28,800/-; and with application of multiplier of 11 has assessed the loss of earnings at Rs.3,16,800/-. The Tribunal has further allowed Rs.1,25,000/- towards mental and physical pains and sufferings and another Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities of life. In this manner, the Tribunal has assessed total loss for the claimant at Rs.5,75,000/- and while making the award in this amount has allowed interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Seeking enhancement, it has been contended by 4 learned counsel for the appellant that the amount awarded by the Tribunal on every score remains on the lower side particularly when the claimant has suffered 100% disablement and his entire life is ruined. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the claimant-appellant and having examined the award in its totality, this Court is satisfied that the amount awarded by the Tribunal, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, cannot be said to be less than that of just compensation and this appeal does not merit admission. It is true that the claimant has been alleged to have suffered total permanent disablement with his body below sternum paralysed, but the assertion on his income at Rs. 6,000/- per month as a labourer was on the higher side and has rightly not been accepted for want of corroborative evidence. The Tribunal has yet taken a reasonably compassionate view of the matter and has assessed such monthly income of the claimant Rs.2,400/-; and has allowed compensation towards loss of earnings at Rs.3,16,800/- taking disablement at 100% and with application of multiplier of 11 in view of his age at 50 years. Moreover, the Tribunal has allowed reasonable amount of Rs.1,25,000/- towards pains and 5 sufferings and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities of life apart from allowing reasonable compensation on all other scores. It is noticed that though the claimant has suggested his permanent disablement with his body below sternum having been rendered useless but he has not been forthright while claiming compensation. The entire medical evidence available on record unfailingly records his age at 50 years and that has been stated at 52 years in the certificate Ex.54, strongly relied upon for the purpose of assertion of 100% disablement. It does not remain a matter of doubt that the age of the claimant was about 50 years at the time of accident in the year 2002; and yet, the claimant suggested his age at 40 years in the claim application and then stated his age at 45 years in his statement recorded on 11.08.2005. The age of the claimant- appellant has been stated at 40 years even in the memo of appeal filed before this Court on 03.07.2006, though it is noticed that there is no definite challenge in the memo of appeal to the finding recorded by the Tribunal about age of the claimant being 50 years at the time of accident. It is apparent that the claimant has wrongly stated his age at 40 years only in order to claim excessive compensation. It is to be imbibed that claims for compensation are considered for providing relief to the sufferers or the victims of 6 the results of vehicular accidents; and it inheres in the process of awarding such compensation that the claimants' own conduct must not be questionable. When the claimant deliberately puts forth a false case with misstatement on a material fact, like the present one of stating his age much below the correct one, there does not appear any justification to take any further liberal view of the matter. The award in question rules out any scope for enhancement and calls for no interference at the instance of the appellant. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily. MK (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.