ORAL ORDER

1. This appear, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arises from the impugned judgment and award dated 19.10.2006 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Panchmahals at Godhra in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1056 of 1996, wherein the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition of the claimant.

2. The short facts of the case are that on 12.05.1996 at about 9:00 a.m., the claimant, who is doing the work of motor mechanic, was going to his garage situated on Halol- Vadodara Road, Near Archi Cinema, as a pedestrian, on the left side of the road, at that time, one tempo bearing registration No.GRY-5304 came from Halol side in rash and negligent manner, with full speed and without blowing horn and dashed with him. The claimant was fallen down on the road and back wheel of the tempo ran over the palm of his left hand. Initially, he was treated at Halol and thereafter at Vadodara. Therefore, the appellant – claimant has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.5 lakhs.

3. Heard learned advocates.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Dave has strongly relied upon the depositions and other documents and has submitted that the Tribunal has taken hyper technical view by misinterpreting the deposition given by the claimant. He has submitted that the Tribunal ought to have taken liberal view by keeping in mind that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial Act; and further that the injuries received to the claimant in a vehicular accident; and that irrespective of the dispute about the identity of the vehicle, the Tribunal ought to have granted the claim petition. The Tribunal ought to have awarded reasonable amount of compensation and has failed to award compensation on the hyper technical ground though the issue of negligence established satisfactory by the claimant and therefore, the claim petition is wrongly rejected. He, therefore, prays to allow the appeal and direct the respondents to pay the compensation.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Prajapati for learned advocate Mr. V.C. Thomas for the respondent – insurance company has strongly objected the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the appellant / claimant and has drawn my attention towards the findings of the Tribunal, more particularly, the finding on issue No.1 and has submitted that major contradictions are there in the version at Exh.27 to 29. He has submitted that there are contradictory story shown in these documents. With regard to the injuries, he has also submitted that as per the narration of the applicant, though the injuries received in the vehicular accident are caused by a heavy vehicle, except the injury in palm portion of the left hand, no other injury is found on the body of the applicant. Therefore, he has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly observed against the present appellant / claimant and has rightly rejected the claim petition as an attempt was made by the claimant to concoct the case and create a story of the accident is suspicious. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

6. I have heard rival submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have considered the documents available on record. I have perused the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal. I have also considered the observations made by the learned Tribunal in paras 7 to 9 of the impugned award. The Tribunal has not committed any error while coming to the conclusion that the applicant is a motor mechanic and during the repairing work, his palm of the hand must be crushed out and the applicant has filed a false complaint after 15 days to get compensation from the insurance company. From the record, it also transpires that as per the documents produced at Exh.27 to 29, in one document, it is indicated that the vehicle is a loaded heavy vehicle and in another document, it is indicated that the vehicle is a motor car. As per the claim petition, the vehicle is described as a tempo. Therefore, there are