Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Motor Accident Claim Where Claimants Took Contradictory Stands; Holds Perjury Cannot Be Rewarded With Compensation
Case Name: Jog Dhian and Another v. Surender Kumar and Others
Date of Judgment: 21 January 2026
Citation: FAO-4206-2019
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the parents of a deceased victim and upheld the dismissal of the motor accident claim petition, holding that where the claimants themselves take diametrically opposite stands before the criminal court and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, no reliance can be placed on their version to establish rash and negligent driving. The Court further held that compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be granted where the claim is founded on falsehood and contradictory testimony.
Summary: The appellants, parents of the deceased Sumit aged 24 years, filed a claim petition under Sections 166, 140 and 141 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of ₹60 lakhs on account of his death in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27.05.2015. It was alleged that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of a car bearing registration No. HR-07V-3303 by respondent No.1, Surender Kumar.
The claim petition was dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, on the ground that the appellants failed to prove the occurrence of the accident due to rash and negligent driving. Aggrieved, the claimants preferred the present appeal.
Before the High Court, the appellants argued that although the sole eye-witness Prabhjot Singh had turned hostile in the criminal trial, his testimony before the Tribunal established negligence. It was also argued that findings of the criminal court were not binding on claim proceedings and, alternatively, compensation ought to be awarded on the principle of no-fault liability considering the advanced age of the parents.
The High Court examined the pleadings and evidence and noted that the claimants had taken a categorical stand in the criminal trial that the accident was not caused due to rash or negligent driving by respondent No.1, resulting in his acquittal. The Court observed that the same witness could not be permitted to assert a completely opposite version before the Tribunal merely to secure compensation.
Relying on earlier decisions including United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamla Devi and Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jeeto Devi, the Court held that a witness who gives contradictory versions on oath before two courts renders himself unworthy of belief, and such testimony must be rejected in toto. The Court further observed that while MACT proceedings are decided on the preponderance of probabilities, courts cannot shut their eyes to deliberate falsehood or perjury.
The plea for grant of compensation under no-fault liability was also rejected, the Court holding that the appellants could not derive benefit after having failed to establish the foundational facts of the accident itself.
Decision: The appeal was dismissed. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissing the claim petition.