Vishal Verma vs Shri Haripal Singh

Krishna Murari and Prashant Kumar, JJ.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the ''Act'') has been filed by the claimant appellant claiming enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs.1,15,100/- along with 7% simple interest on account of injuries suffered in the accident.

An application under Section 166 of the Act has been made by the appellant claiming a sum of Rs.33,66,000/- along with 12% interest on the allegation that on 31.10.2014 at about 4 p.m., he was going to Ghantaghar from his residence for making some purchases and when he reached in front of ''gaushala'' on G.T. road, he saw that a Scorpio bearing registration no. UP 50 H 5310 was being driven rashly and negligently and, thus, he stopped his motorcycle on the side of the road, but still the driver of the Scorpio came on the wrong side of the road and hit him, which resulted in grievous injuries. He was taken to Government hospital, Etah where he was given first aid treatment, but looking to the seriousness of the injuries, he was referred to Agra. He underwent treatment at Ganpati hospital, Agra on 01.11.2014 and 03.11.2014 where his right hand and right leg were operated. However, the rod was not rightly implanted in his hand at Ganpati hospital, on account of which he was again operated on 19.12.2014 by Dr. Manoj Mittal at Mittal nursing home.

The Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence, both oral as well as documentary, returned a finding that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of the offending Scorpio vehicle which resulted injuries to the claimant and the said offending vehicle was duly insured and was having fitness certificate and the driver was having a valid license.

Insofar as the question of quantum is concerned, the Tribunal did not believe the assertion of the claimant that he had become permanently disabled for want of any disability certificate adduced in evidence. Placing reliance upon the receipts, medical expenses which were duly approved, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.78,100/- towards the expenses incurred in two operations and the purchase of the medicines. Certain bills and vouchers for purchase of medicines, which were not duly verified nor were they accompanied with the prescription of the Doctor and, hence, the Tribunal did not place reliance upon the same. Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.22,000/- towards purchase of medicines, Rs.5000/- towards special diet, Rs.5000/- towards travelling expenses, Rs.5000/- towards mental pain and in this manner, determined a total sum of Rs.1,15,100/- as compensation to be paid to the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that appellant suffered disability on account of the accident which has resulted into future loss of income, but no amount has been awarded by the Tribunal under the said head.

The argument has been advanced only to be rejected.

Since the appellant himself failed to produce any disability certificate issued by any qualified doctor, a presumption cannot be drawn that he suffered disability in the accident.

Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that the Tribunal had not awarded any amount towards loss of income during hospitalization, loss of happiness, loss of amenities, loss of marriage prospect and future medical expenses.

From a perusal of the pleadings and the impugned award, we find that the appellant himself did not produce any evidence with respect to his income and, thus, no fault has been committed by the Tribunal if it had not awarded any compensation for loss of income during which the appellant was hospitalized. Insofar as the expenses incurred in medical treatment is concerned, the bills and vouchers, which were duly verified and validly proved, were directed to be paid to the appellant. It is only those bills and vouchers, which the Tribunal found that they were not verified or accompanied with the prescription of the doctor, the same were not relied by the Tribunal.

It was a case of only an accident. There is nothing on record to indicate that the appellant suffered any loss towards the marriage prospect. It was neither pleaded nor argued before the Tribunal. Insofar as claim of future medical expenses is concerned, again in view of the fact that the appellant did not produce any evidence of any doctor which may have gone to establish that he would require any treatment in future also.

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently relied upon a judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Dinesh Singh v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., (2014) 9 SCC 241 to support the aforesaid argument.

The said judgment is clearly distinguishable on facts, inasmuch as the accident in the said case resulted in partial disability of 60% of the appellant therein as the accident resulted into fracture of knee and the left hand and the left leg of the appellant was amputated.In the said case, the same was duly proved by producing the doctor, who established the disability.

In the present case, as already noted above, even the disability certificate was not filed. Insofar as pain and agony is concerned, a sum of Rs.5000/- was awarded by the Tribunal under the said head.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the impugned award, which may require any interference.

The appeal, accordingly, fails and stands dismissed in limine.