- (1.) AGGRIEVED by the award dated 12.07.2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.7,32,500/- in favour of the claimant-respondent No.1, while exonerating the Insurance Company, the appellants, who are the owners and driver, have approached this Court.
(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that while the claimant, Jeevan Singh, was standing on the side of the road, a tractor, bearing registration No. RJ-01-R-7604, being driven by the appellant No.3, Kailash, in a rash and negligent manner, hit the claimant. Due to the said accident, the claimant suffered a number of injuries. Therefore, the claimant filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal. The appellants and the Insurance Company filed their separate replies to the claim petition and denied the averments made therein. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues. In support of their case, the claimant-respondent No.1 examined three witnesses including himself and exhibited 106 documents. On the contrary, the appellants examined only a single witness and the Insurance Company examined two witnesses. After going through the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, vide award dated 12.02.2010, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded the compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court. Mr. Neeraj K. Tiwari, the learned counsel for the appellants, has vehemently, contended that the reasons given by the learned Tribunal for exonerating the Insurance Company is untenable. The learned Tribunal has relied upon the fact that there is a contradiction between the claimant's Parchabayan which was recorded by the Police, and the FIR which was based on the Parchabayan, on the one hand, and the testimony of the claimant given before the Tribunal, on the other hand. According to the learned Tribunal, in order to impose the liability on the Insurance company, the claimant-respondent, in fact, has changed his entire story. According to the learned counsel, this reasoning is unfounded. Secondly, the amount of compensation is too high to be given to the claimant-respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned award. According to the claimant, he had met with an accident on 21.2.2010. Immediately after the accident, his Parchabayan was recorded by the Police. The FIR was lodged on the basis of the said Parchabayan. The statement given by the claimant in the Parchabayan was that he was travelling in the tractor as a labourer. When the tractor turned turtle, he was injured. However, in his testimony before the learned Tribunal, he claims that he was standing by the side of the road when he was hit by the tractor. The learned Tribunal has carefully noted the fact that the said Parchabayan and the FIR were submitted by the claimant himself. Moreover, during the course of investigation, he did not allege that the Parchabayan was recorded incorrectly. Although in his testimony, he claims that the Parchabayan was recorded incorrectly, but this is a mere ploy to change and to justify the change in his story. Moreover, once a document has been produced by the claimant, he cannot resile from the contents of the said document. The moment he does so, his creditworthiness as a witness becomes questionable. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in exonerating the Insurance Company. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has given valid reason for awarding the compensation as it has correctly applied the multiplier and has seen the nature of the injury suffered by the claimant.
(3.) THUS, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned award. Hence, this appeal is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.;