,,
1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988)",,
questioning the legality and propriety of the award dated 24.12.2014 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Bastar, Kanker (CG) (for",,
short 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.63/2013 whereby, the Claims Tribunal, while allowing the claim in part, awarded a total sum of",,
Rs.1,55,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim Petition till its realization, by exonerating the Insurance company from its",,
liability. The parties to this Appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description in the Claims Tribunal.,,
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 31.10.2011 at 10.30 a.m, Applicant Trilochan Sahu, a sikshakarmi was going by his motorcycle to his",,
school. At the relevant time, he was dashed vehemently in front of one Indian Rice Mill from its opposite side by the offending vehicle 'Bolero' bearing",,
its Registration No.CG 19 BA 6025, owned by Non-Applicant No.2-Shrawan Kumar Yadav, insured with Non-Applicant No.3-Bajaj Alliance General",,
Insurance Company Limited, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, Non-Applicant No.1-Rajesh Mandavi. Owing to the",,
alleged accident, the Applicant was injured badly wherein, his ankle and femur bone of the right leg got fractured, as a result of which, he suffered",,
permanent disability to the extent of 40% giving rise to the institution of the claim under Section 166 of the Act of 1988, claiming a total amount of",,
compensation to the tune of Rs.8,36,000/- under various heads.",,
3. The aforesaid claim has been contested by the Non-Applicants and the Claims Tribunal, upon considering the evidence led by the parties, arrived at",,
a conclusion that the alleged accident has occurred on 31.10.2011 due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle, in which, the",,
Applicant has sustained grievous injuries as his ankle and femur bone of the right leg got fractured and by relying upon the disability certificate (Ex.P-,,
7), it has been held that he suffered physical disability to the extent of 40%. It has been held further that the vehicle in question insured as a",,
'Passenger Carrying Commercial Vehicle' was being used without any permit in violation of the provision prescribed under Section 66 of the Act of,,
1988 and thus, by exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability, awarded a total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,55,000/- with 6%",,
interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim Petition till its realization.,,
4. Being aggrieved, the Claimant has preferred this Appeal. Shri Pravin Kumar Tulsiyan, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the award",,
impugned as passed by the Claims Tribunal, while disbelieving expenses of Rs.51,830/- as incurred by the Applicant towards medicines by discarding",,
certain medical bills like Ex.P-8, Ex.P-19 to Ex.P-23, Ex.P-25, Ex.P-26, Ex.P-39 and Ex.P-40, is apparently contrary to law. According to him, once",,
these bills and receipts are exhibited without any objection being raised, then its authenticity ought not to have been disbelieved. The Claims Tribunal,",,
therefore, erred in disbelieving these medical bills by awarding a meager amount of compensation to the Claimant. It is contended that a sum of",,
Rs.36,000/- and Rs.15,000/- was incurred by the Claimant towards attendant and travelling expenses respectively. However, the receipts and/or bills",,
i.e. Ex.P-75 to Ex.P-79 and Ex.P-80, Ex.P-81 and Ex.P-83 furnished by the Applicant have not been accepted without any sufficient reasons being",,
assigned. It is contended further that the Applicant while residing in a rented premises at Bhilai for the purposes of carrying out of his physiotherapy,",,
he incurred Rs.52,000/- towards house rent vide Ex.P-69 to Ex.P-74, however, these rent receipts have not been taken into consideration while",,
passing the award impugned. At last, it is contended that the Claims Tribunal, while exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability on finding",,
that the vehicle in question was being used without any permit in violation of the statutory provision, ought to have applied the principles of 'pay and",,
recover'. In support, he placed his reliance upon the decision rendered in the matter of R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Vishwesaraswami",,
& V.P. Temple and Another reported in (2003) 8 Supreme Court Cases 752.,,
5. On the other hand, Shri Ghanshyam Patel, learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 has supported the award under Appeal.",,
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record carefully.,,
7. It appears from perusal of the record that the Applicant got injured badly on account of the alleged accident occurred on 31.10.2011 and was,,
admitted immediately into the Government Hospital, Kanker and was referred thereafter to Suraj Hospital at Bhilai after his preliminary examination.",,
He was admitted in the said hospital for a period of eleven days commencing w.e.f 31.10.2011 upto 11.11.2011 for his treatment. His ankle and femur,,
bone of the right leg got fractured and was advised bed rest for three months. He suffered physical disability to the extent of 40% as evidenced by the,,
disability certificate marked as Ex.P-7, duly corroborated by Dr. JS. Sahu, Member of the District Medical Board, who was examined as AW-2.",,
8. According to the Applicant, he incurred a sum of Rs.1,40,830/- for his treatment and produced medical bills, which were marked as Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-",,
68, however, the Claims Tribunal has accepted a sum of Rs.89,000/- only out of it while disbelieving the medical bills, like Ex.P-8, Ex.P-19 to Ex.P-23,",,
Ex.P-25, Ex.P-26, Ex.P-39 and Ex.P-40, which are amounting to Rs.51,829/-. The medical bills i.e. Ex.P-39 and Ex.P-40 are more or less pertaining",,
to one bill and have been disbelieved by the Claims Tribunal while comparing with another bills of said Suraj Hospital i.e. Ex.P-33, Ex.P-38 and by",,
observing further that there is some overwriting on it and were not duly certified as none of the doctors of the said hospital were examined. Likewise,",,
it appears further that the other medical bills amounting to Rs.12,729/- incurred under Ex.P-8, Ex.P-19 to Ex.P-23, Ex.P-25 and Ex.P-26 were",,
disbelieved on the ground that the Claimant was neither in hospital at the relevant time nor has furnished the prescription based upon which, the",,
alleged medicines were purchased. The Claims Tribunal has thus disbelieved a total sum of Rs.51,830/- incurred by the Applicant towards his",,
treatment. The approach of the Claims Tribunal, while disbelieving all these medical bills appears to be hyper-technical in nature and cannot be held to",,
be sustainable. It is true that there are some over writings in Ex.P-39 and Ex.P-40 but that by itself would not be sufficient to hold that its authenticity,,
is doubtful. Likewise, other medical bills amounting to Rs.12,729/- ought not to have been disbelieved merely on the ground that he was neither in",,
hospital nor has submitted the prescription as the same were not questioned as such during his (Claimant) cross-examination. That apart, all these",,
medical bills were issued in the printed form of said Suraj Hospital, where he has undergone treatment for a considerable period of eleven days and",,
was also advised bed rest for a period of three months. All these bills were duly exhibited without any objection being raised about its admissibility and,,
therefore, its authenticity cannot be doubted subsequently as such. At this juncture, the principles laid down in the matter of R.V.E. Venkatachala",,
Gounder vs. Arulmigu Vishwesaraswami & V.P. Temple and Another (supra) are to be seen where at paragraph-20, it has been observed as under:-",,
“20…....................Ordinarily, an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. The",,
objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes: (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be,,
proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed,,
towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as “an",,
exhibitâ€, an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter",,
case, the objection should be taken when the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the",,
objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be,,
raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. The latter proposition is a rule of fair play. The crucial test is whether an,,
objection, if taken at the appropriate point of time, would have enabled the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of",,
proof as would be regular. The omission to object becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitled to object allows the party tendering the,,
evidence to act on an assumption that the opposite party is not serious about the mode of proof. On the other hand, a prompt objection does not",,
prejudice the party tendering the evidence, for two reasons: firstly, it enables the Court to apply its mind and pronounce its decision on the question of",,
,Mode of Compensation,"Amount
Rs.
i.,Medical expenses under Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-68,"1,40,830/-
ii.,"Expenses incurred by the Applicant during
examination in hospital as awarded by the
Tribunal","11,000/-
iii.,"Expenses incurred towards transportation
(under Ex.P-80 and Ex.P-81)","8,000/-
iv.,"Towards physical and mental agony owing to
injury and disability suffered by the Claimant
to the extent of 40%, as awarded by the
Tribunal","50,000/- (40,000/- + 10,000/-)
,Total,"2,09,830/-
of the claim Petition till its realization in the first instance to the Claimant, with liberty to recover the same from the driver and owner (Respondent",,
Nos.1 & 2 respectively) of the vehicle in question in accordance with law.,,
15. The Appeal is allowed in part with the aforesaid observation. No order as to costs.,,
