Claimants' Contradictory Statements Lead to Dismissal and Perjury Charges
In a recent decision, the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the dismissal of a motor accident claim by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Kurukshetra, highlighting the importance of consistent and credible testimonies in legal proceedings. The case, involving the parents of the deceased Sumit, was dismissed due to contradictory statements made by a key witness, Prabhjot Singh, both in the criminal trial and before the Tribunal.
The case stemmed from a tragic motor vehicle accident on May 27, 2015, where Sumit lost his life. The appellants, Sumit's parents, had filed for compensation under Sections 166, 140, and 141 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, alleging rash and negligent driving by Surender Kumar, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. However, the claim was dismissed by the Tribunal due to inconsistent testimonies.
During the criminal proceedings, witness Prabhjot Singh initially claimed that the accident was not caused by any negligence on Surender's part, contradicting his earlier statement to the police and the Tribunal. This inconsistency led the Tribunal to question the credibility of the evidence presented by the claimants. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the accident could not be attributed to Surender's driving and dismissed the claim petition.
Justice Nidhi Gupta, presiding over the appeal, emphasized that the Tribunal's role is to independently assess evidence based on the preponderance of probabilities, and it is not bound by findings from criminal courts. The contradictory statements by Prabhjot Singh rendered his testimony unreliable, leading to the dismissal of the claim and highlighting the serious implications of perjury.
The court referenced similar judgments, including "United India Insurance Company Limited v. Kamla Devi" and "Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited v. Jeeto Devi," reinforcing the principle that contradictory witness testimonies undermine the credibility of a case and justify dismissal.
The appellants' counsel argued for compensation based on 'no fault liability,' referencing a Supreme Court judgment, but the court found no merit in these submissions. The appeal was consequently dismissed, and the appellants' request for compensation was denied.
Bottom Line:
Motor Accident Claims - Dismissal of claim petition - Contradictory statements made by claimant side in criminal trial and before Tribunal - Claimant side liable for perjury - Tribunal's decision upheld.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 166, 140, and 141 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Jog Dhian v. Surender Kumar, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2845244
