Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Raman Bhagwandas Vanjani, filed a claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, alleging that on 13/10/1996, while riding his motorcycle, he was hit by an autorickshaw coming from the opposite direction, causing head injuries and hospitalization. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola, by judgment dated 31/01/2005, dismissed the claim, holding that the appellant had not approached the Tribunal with clean hands because two medical bills (Exhibits 56 and 59) were fabricated. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court framed the issue of whether the entire claim could be rejected due to fabrication of two bills. The court noted that the Tribunal had already decided Issues 1 to 4 in favor of the appellant, finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw driver and that the appellant suffered 10% permanent disability. The court held that the fabrication of two bills does not justify dismissal of the entire claim; the Tribunal should have assessed compensation after excluding the fabricated bills. The court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter for fresh assessment of compensation, directing the Tribunal to compute compensation for the proved disability and other heads, excluding the fabricated bills. The appeal was allowed.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Compensation - Fabrication of Evidence - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The claimant sustained 10% permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, but the Claims Tribunal dismissed the entire claim because two medical bills were fabricated. The High Court held that the fabrication of two bills does not disentitle the claimant to compensation for the proved disability and other heads of claim, and that the Tribunal should have assessed compensation after excluding the fabricated bills. (Paras 5-7) B) Motor Accident Claims - Clean Hands Doctrine - Proportionality - Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The principle that a claimant must approach the court with clean hands does not justify rejection of the entire claim when the claimant has proved the accident and disability. The court may disallow the fabricated part but must award compensation for the genuine loss. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the entire claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was liable to be rejected on the ground that two medical bills were found to be manipulated?
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola dated 31/01/2005 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Claims Tribunal for fresh assessment of compensation in accordance with law, after excluding the fabricated bills. The Tribunal shall decide the claim expeditiously.
Law Points
- Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Section 166
- Compensation
- Clean Hands Doctrine
- Fabrication of Evidence
- Proportionality
