Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Compensation Appeal in Fatal Accident Case, Finds Claim Based on False and Unreliable Evidence
Case Name: Mrs. Manju Khurana and Others v. Nagic Ahmad @ Nafis Ahmad and Others
Date of Judgment: January 5, 2015
Citation: FAO No. 3887 of 2010
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Fateh Deep Singh
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the legal representatives of a deceased accident victim, upholding the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s finding that the claim was false and fabricated. Justice Fateh Deep Singh held that the evidence presented by the claimants was inconsistent and unreliable, noting that the alleged involvement of one vehicle had been introduced later to create grounds for compensation. The Court observed that insurance cover documents produced by the claimants were found fake, and proceedings under Section 340 CrPC had already been initiated for perjury. It reiterated that public funds cannot be disbursed on the basis of false evidence and that courts must remain vigilant against fraudulent compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Summary: The appellants, Mrs. Manju Khurana and others, had filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, seeking compensation for the death of Narinder Khurana, who was allegedly killed in a road accident on May 22, 1999. It was claimed that the deceased, while traveling in a jeep from Delhi towards Shahabad, was hit by a truck (No. USP-4208) coming on the wrong side, followed by a collision with a canter vehicle (No. HR-38-D-2407). The appellants asserted that the deceased was earning ₹10,000 per month from his business and that his wife, children, and mother were dependent on him.
The Tribunal, through a common award dated January 29, 2005, dismissed the claim after finding that the presence of the canter was missing from the FIR and the police investigation report under Section 173 CrPC. The testimony of the alleged eyewitness, Jatinder Kumar (brother of the deceased), was found to be contradictory, as he admitted during cross-examination that he could not tell how the accident occurred as it happened in a fraction of a second. The Tribunal also found that photographs of the accident site were not produced and that the jeep had struck the right side of the truck, contrary to the pleaded version.
On appeal, the High Court upheld these findings, noting that the insurance cover note produced by the claimants was confirmed by the insurance company to be fake, and that the claim petition was a product of deliberate falsehood. The Court observed that introducing a non-existent vehicle into the claim petition amounted to fraud on the tribunal. Justice Fateh Deep Singh emphasized that compensation claims must be founded on truthful and cogent evidence, and that attempts to secure public money through misrepresentation deserved strict judicial condemnation.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal with costs, affirming the Tribunal’s conclusion that the claim was based on fabricated evidence and manipulation of facts, and therefore wholly devoid of merit.