- (1.) THIS appeal is at the instance of a claimant under Section 166 of the motor Vehicles Act and is directed against an award dated 30th July, 2002 passed by the learned Judge, Twelfth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in M. J. C. Case no. 317 of 1995 thereby dismissing the said proceeding and at the same time, directing refund of Rs. 25,000/- received by the appellant pursuant to an award passed in an earlier proceeding under Section 140 of the Act against which no appeal was preferred.
(2.) ACCORDING to the appellant, he was involved in a road-accident by which he was seriously injured and was immediately admitted to the Medical College hospital and subsequently, was transferred to the Woodland Nursing Home. After a prolonged treatment, he was discharged from the said Nursing Home and in the process, he totally lost his vision of the left eye. According to the medical certificate produced on his behalf, his permanent disablement was to the extent of 55 percent. He also produced the document showing his income at the relevant point of time by production of the income-tax return. As the said income-tax return was filed after the accident, we, on the application of the appellant under order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, accepted the earlier income-tax returns for the period prior to the accident by way of additional evidence. In spite of giving opportunity of filing evidence in rebuttal, the Insurance Company decided not to give any evidence in rebuttal.
(3.) IT appears from the award impugned that the Tribunal disbelieved the factum of the accident itself and concluded that there was no such accident based on which the claim application under Section 166 of the Act was filed. The owner of the vehicle in this case specifically stated that her Omni Bus did not ply at the relevant point of time and had never gone to the alleged place of accident on that day. It appears that police case was initiated after about two months from the date of the accident after the claimant was released from the Nursing Home. The Tribunal, therefore, disbelieved the version of the accident and thus, rejected the claim application and at the same time, directed the claimant to return the amount of Rs. 25,000/- received by him in the earlier proceeding under Section 140 of the Act.;