1 FA No. 73 of 2001 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICAUTRE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELALTE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 73 OF 2001 Ashok Rasikbhai Patel ... Appellant Versus Maharashtra State Transport Corporation Kolhapur and Anr. ... Respondents Mr. D.S. Sawant for the appellant. Mr. G.A. Karmalkar i/b Mr. G.S. Hegde for the respondents. CORAM : SMT.R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : APRIL 05, 2011 P.C. 1. This First Appeal is preferred by the original claimant for enhancement of the compensation awarded to him on account of injuries allegedly sustained in the motor vehicle accident. 2. On 12th March, 1991 the appellant and one Sudhakar Shinde were coming from village Hosur to Nipani on Kinetic Honda Scooter. When the appellant was near Nandyal Cross 2 FA No. 73 of 2001 within the limits of village Alabad, S.T. bus bearing No. MWQ 6501 came from the opposite direction in high speed and dashed against the scooter of the appellant. Resultantly, the appellant and the pillion rider were thrown off the scooter. The appellant claims to have sustained fracture injury to his right leg at several places. He was allegedly initially taken to Primary Health Center at Kapashi and from there shifted to the hospital of Dr. Milind Kulkarni at Miraj. The appellant claims that he was indoor patient in the hospital at Miraj from 12th March, 1991 to 17th June, 1991 and was operated on for number of times, on the injured leg. He claimed to have sustained permanent disability to the extent of 20% and claimed compensation of Rs. 5 lacs. towards loss of income, medical expenses, attendance on him, his nursing, permanent special diet, pains and sufferings and loss of amenities of life etc. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence brought before it granted compensation of Rs.25,000/- in additional to Rs.12,000/- already received by the appellant towards no fault liability. 3 FA No. 73 of 2001 3. The Tribunal found that most of the bills produced by the appellant were not genuine. The appellant produced bill at Exh. 26 in the sum of Rs.57,800/- given by M/s. Sandhata Medical Research Society, Fracture and Orthopedic Hospital, Miraj. The bills contained various over-writings and insertions made in date and amounts. Perusal of the bill at Exh. 26 confirms observation of the Tribunal. The appellant did not produce any medical case papers of his hospitalization and 8 operations allegedly performed on him. The injuries found on the person of the appellant at the time of his admission to the hospital on the date of incident are seen to be of simple injuries of cut lacerated wound and swelling of thigh. The history sheet of the hospital at Exh. 31 did not indicate any major injury which would require long hospitalization and incurring of huge expenses. The Tribunal also opined that most of the bills and vouchers produced by the appellant are doubtful documents because the bills either mention incorrect name of the appellant or the name is illegible with repeatation of dates and unsupported by relevant prescriptions. Perusal of the deposition of the appellant also shows 4 FA No. 73 of 2001 that it suffers from the same infirmity. The appellant claims to have become unconscious when he met with the accident, whereas the history recorded by the doctor when he was taken to hospital shows that the appellant was conscious and well oriented. In his deposition the appellant claims to have suffered fracture injury to right leg, head injury, and several other bodily injuries. He also claims that because of the accident, his eye sight became weak and it affected his hearing also. None of these consequences can be said to be the outcome of the injuries noted in the history- sheet of hospital, i.e. of cut lacerated wound on the leg of the appellant. The Tribunal found that even disability certificate produced by the appellant was not the document which can be believed. The appellant has not examined any medical expert in support of huge claim made by him in support of injuries sustained by him and the expenses incurred for treatment of the injuries. In these circumstances, the compensation granted by the learned Member of the tribunal seems to be just and reasonable. In fact it is more than just and reasonable. Therefore, the impugned judgment does not require any interference at the hands 5 FA No. 73 of 2001 of this court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (SMT.R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J.)