Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2380 (RAJ)

Kalu v. Arvind Kumar

2019-09-05

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the minor appellant claimant Kalu @ Kamlesh through his natural guardian father Shri Rameshwar Jat for assailing the judgment-cum-award dated 27.11.2003 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara in MAC No. 187/2000 whereby, the claim application filed by the claimant appellant was dismissed. 2. On numerous previous dates of hearing, no one has appeared to argue the appeal on behalf of the appellant. Thus, the case was heard in absentia of the appellant and his counsel. 3. I have perused the averments made in the appeal and having heard and considered the submissions advanced by Shri Sanjeev Johari, Advocate representing the respondent United Insurance Company Limited and have minutely gone through the impugned judgment and the original record. 4. The claimant was aged 6 years at the time of the alleged accident which took place on 07.04.2000. It was mentioned in the claim application that the claimant was standing beside the road when the driver of the motorcycle No. RJ-06-4M-4183 (insured with the respondent No. 3), drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and collided the same with the claimant causing him serious injuries on his face. Because of the impact, five upper teeth of the claimant were dislocated. His jaw broke and his face lost shape. The upper lip and the right cheek were cut because of which, the claimant received permanent disfiguration on his face. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was incurred on the treatment of the claimant and he has become disabled for the rest of his life. 5. The Insurance Company filed a reply to the claim application stating that the accident took place because of the negligent act of the claimant himself and therefore, he was not entitled to any compensation whatsoever. 6. The learned Tribunal decided the issue No. 1 regarding the accident having been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle driver, in favour of the claimant. 7. The issue No. 2 regarding quantum of the claim was considered by the learned Tribunal in detail and it held that all the bills produced by the claimant in favour of the claim were fabricated and had been tampered. The figures mentioned therein were overwritten and the tampering was visible on the face of the record. 7. The issue No. 2 regarding quantum of the claim was considered by the learned Tribunal in detail and it held that all the bills produced by the claimant in favour of the claim were fabricated and had been tampered. The figures mentioned therein were overwritten and the tampering was visible on the face of the record. No documents pertaining to the treatment provided to the claimant were produced on record. As per the prescription (Ex. P/3), a stitched wound was noted on the face of the claimant and some injuries were also noticed on the gums and the teeth. The Medical Officer referred the injured claimant to the Dental Surgeon but, no corresponding document to show that the claimant was ever taken to the surgeon for treatment, was produced on record. The disability certificate (Ex. P/14) also bore signs of tampering. The teeth which were dislocated grew back and as such, the Tribunal held that no permanent disability was suffered by the claimant due to the impact of the accident. The claim was rejected observing that the claimant indulged in tampering with the bills of the medication as well as the disability certificate and thus, the claimant was not entitled to any award whatsoever. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal in the impugned award are absolutely justified. 9. I have perused the medical bills and the disability certificate produced on behalf of the claimant and find that the same bear clear signs of tampering. The medical report/certificate (Ex. P/16) also appears to be tampered with. 10. In this background, I am of the firm opinion that the claim of the appellant was rightly rejected by the learned Tribunal. The impugned award dated 27.11.2003 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara in MAC No. 187/2000 does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or error whatsoever warranting interference. 11. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit. 12. Record be returned to the learned Tribunal forthwith.