Hon'ble Anil Kumar Sharma, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This FAFO has been filed for enhancement against the impugned award dated 2.3.2012 passed by MACT/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Mainpuri in M.A.C.P. No. 483 of 2005, whereby compensation of a sum of Rs. 2,000/- along with 6% interest only have been awarded to the appellant/claimant in severe injuries case.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusal of record, it appears that after accident, the deceased-appellant had gone to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIMS), New Delhi for treatment and was relieved on the next day as it was found from the injury report that he had received superficial injuries on his left thigh, hands, upper lips, left cheek & shoulder. There was tenderness in left thigh and abrasion in the hands and left chest and swelling in upper lips. In the X-ray done in AIIMS, no fracture was found and he was discharged on the same day after prescribing medicines. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the Insurance Company regarding injuries caused to the deceased-appellant reads thus:
"chek dEiuh ds vf/koDrk ds rdksZa dks lquus ds ckn i=koyh ij nkf[ky nLrkosth lk{; ds voyksdu ds ckn U;k;kf/kdj.k dk fu"d"kZ gS fd 35 [email protected] dh tks bUtjh fjiksVZ gS ftlesa left thigh, hands, upper lips, left cheek, & shoulder esa pksVs ikbZ xbZ left thigh esa tenderness gkFk esa rFkk ysQ~V psLV esa ,ojstu upper lips esa lwtu rFkk shoulder esa ,cjstu ik;sA ,Dljs Hkh fd;k x;k ij dksbZ VwVQwV gMMh ds lEcU/k esa ugha ikbZ xbZ vkSj nokbZ nsdj fMlpktZ dj fn;k x;kA lk{kh&la0&1 jkts'k dqekj ls ftjg gqbZ rks bl xokg us Lohdkj fd;k fd esjs iwjs 'kjhj esa dgha Hkh QSDpj ugha FkkA nq/kZVuk ds ckn loZizFke ,El esa HkrhZ fd;k vkSj ,d fnu ckn fMLpktZ dj fn;k x;kA vr% U;k;kf/kdj ds fu"d"kZ esa ,El dh nLrkosth lk{; dkxt la0 [email protected] vkSj bl izfrijh{kk ds c;ku ls ;g Li"V gks jgk gS fd jkts'k dqekj ds nq?kZVuk esa lk/kkj.k pksV vkbZ Fkh ftlesa ,El esa nokbZ nsus ds ckn mldks fMLpktZ dj fn;k x;kA Thereafter, the appellant contacted Dr. J.P. Dixit, who treated the appellant and prepared medical bills for Rs.1,55,000/- regarding medical consultant, investigations, medicines, nursing care, bed charges etc. The Tribunal has disbelieved the medical bills filed by the claimant on the basis of the report of AIMS and has recorded its view as under:
izkadqj Dyhfud esa Mk0 ts0ih0nhf{kr us 1]55][email protected]& :0 ysus ds lEcU/k esa lk{; nh gSa vkSj [email protected] jlhn dks lkfcr fd;k gS blesa esMhdy dUlyVs'ku] tkWap] nokbZ;kWa] uflZx ds;j csM pkftZt ,oa izdh.kZ [kpsZ 'kkfey gS tcfd ;kph dh vksj ls Hkkjr QkekZD;wVhdYl feJk ekdsZV jsyos jksM Q:[kkckn ls nokbZ;kWa [kjhnus ds ipsZ nkf[ky fd;s gS tks dkxt la0 [email protected] yxk;r [email protected] gS U;k;kf/kdkj.k ds fu"d"kZ esa ;g lEHko gS fd fdlh O;fDr dk bykt] fNcjkem] dUukSt Hkh gks jgk gS vkSj og yxHkx 50 fdeh0 nwj nokb;kWa [kjhnus Q:[kkckn tk;sxkA ;g ml n'kk esa drbZ lEHko ugha gS tc nokb;ksa ds [kpsZ Hkh MkDVj us vius fcy esa tksM jgk gks rc vyx ls nokb;kWa [kjhnh tk jgh gksaA U;k;kf/kdj.k ds fu"d"kZ esa ;s lHkh nLrkosth lk{;k >wBh blfy;s rS;kj dh xbZ gS fd lk/kkj.k pksV ds fy;s vf/kd ls vf/kd eqvkotk U;k;kf/kdj.k ls izkIr dj fy;k tk;sA okLro esa jkts'k dqekj ds lk/kkj.k pksV FkhA vf/kd ls vf/kd eqvkotk izkIr djus ds fy;s ;g nLrkosth lk{; rS;kj dh xbZ gSA U;k;kf/kdj.k dk ,slk fu"d"kZ blfy;s Hkh vk;k gS fd f'koe ,Dljs ls.Vj ij tks ,Dljs gqvk gS mlesa [email protected] fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj 8ch o 9 ch fjc VwVh gqbZ fn[kkbZ gS tcfd ,El esa ,slh dksbZ pksV gh ugha ikbZ xbZA bruk gh ugha ,El esa Nkrh esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dh dksbZ pksV gh ugha ikbZ xbZ vkSj u gh fdlh Hkh izdkj dk dksbZ QsDpj ik;k x;k FkkA blds vykok Lo;a jkts'k dqekj us Lohdkj fd;k gS fd iwjs 'kjhj esa QsDpj ugha FkkA Mk0 ts0ih0 nhf{kr ch0,0,e0,l0 gS tks gM~Mh jksx fo'ks"kK Hkh ugha gSaA bu lc n'kkvksa esa U;k;kf/kdj.k ;kph }kjk nkf[ky nLrkosth lk{; ij drbZ fo'okl ugha djrk gS ;g lk{; dsoy vf/kd ls vf/kd eqvkotk ikus ds fy;s rS;kj dh xbZ gSA jkts'k dqekj ds lk/kkj.k pksV gSA bl izdkj okgu vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr ,slh pksV lk/kkj.k pksV ekuh tkrh gS vkSj U;k;kf/kdj.k lk/kkj.k pksV ds lUnHkZ esa d"V o ihMk ds en esa ,d gtkj :i;s vkSj nokbZ rFkk iksf"Vd vkgkj ds en esa ,d gtkj :i;s dqy nks gtkj :i;s foi{kh la0&2 bQDks Vksfd;ks tujy ba';ksjsa'k dEiuh ls fnyk;k tkuk mfpr ikrk gSA"
In his cross-examination, Sri Rajesh Kumar admitted that there was no fracture on any part of his body when he had been examined in AIIMS by doctors and that after completing investigation he had been discharged on the next day. The Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that it was clear from paper no.35-ga/11 that Sri Rajesh Kumar had received only simple injuries. The investigations and documents showing fracture in his ribs and showing him in incentive care and also the medical consultancy, medicines, nursing care, bed charges etc., incurring more than 1,55,000/- were prepared only for the purpose of claim.
It is noteworthy that in the investigations at AIIMS done immediately after the said accident, the Doctors did not find any injury in the nature of fracture on any part of body of the appellant. However, it appears that the appellant in connivance with Dr. Dixit fabricated x-ray plates and report showing fracture in the ribs. It is also noteworthy that Dr. Dixit who was appeared as P.W. 2 before the Tribunal is not Orthopaedic Surgeon, but have B.A.M.S. degree.
For all the reasons stated above, the Court is of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned award, awarding compensation of Rs.2,000/-.
The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed having no force. No order as to costs.
Dated: 17.7.2012 RCT/-