‘Court is no ostrich’: Punjab and Haryana High Court raps family for flip-flopping on claims in accident case to hike payout

Accident, death and claim

• The present appeal was filed by the husband and children of the woman who died in an accident, seeking enhancement of the compensation of Rs 3.61 lakh awarded by the MACT.
• The three claimants are the woman’s 64-year-old husband, 22-year-old son, and 24-year-old daughter.
• The tribunal previously concluded that Kaur had died due to the injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident that took place on May 7, 2020, due to the rash and negligent driving of a car that was driven by one person but was owned by another person. The insurance company was held liable for payment of the compensation.

Justice Nidhi Gupta refused to entertain the plea of delay in filing the appeal.

‘Court not deaf-mute spectator’

• The high court cannot be a deaf-mute spectator to the two contradictory versions given by the claimant.
• It would therefore appear that the claimant had deposed falsely before the tribunal only to get the compensation.
• The facts of this case show that the claimant’s side has turned turtle on its previous statement.
• It is found that the present claim petition was filed by the claimants with the positive averments that the accident in question had been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by Harjeet Singh.
• However, in the criminal trial against this driver, the complainant, Joga Singh, took a diametrically opposite stand.
• Before the tribunal, the complainant had blamed the driver and mentioned that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving, but in the criminal court, he failed to identify the accused driver and did not back his earlier version of the incident.
• The court refused to entertain the plea of delay in filing this appeal, saying it is a cardinal principle of law that the delay of each day has to be explained.
• The record reveals that it was the pleaded case of the family of the victim before the tribunal that the victim was 55 years old at the time of the accident.

• However, no concrete evidence was placed on record by the claimants to prove their said assertion.
• Accordingly, the tribunal had determined the age of the victim to be 62 years old at the time of the accident based on the post-mortem report.
• Further, contrary to the statements of the claimants concerning Kaur’s income, no evidence in this regard was led by her family.
• The high court also noted and upheld that the tribunal had accepted the contention of the claimants that Kaur was working in a government organisation as a volunteer and had a monthly salary of Rs 3,500.
• The court also pointed out that as the victim was between 61 and 65 years old, there were no prospects that were liable to be added, and the multiplier of seven was correctly applied.
• A total compensation of Rs 3.61 lakh has been granted to her family as per the structured formula laid down by the Supreme Court.

‘Income of victim wrongly assessed’

• The counsel for Kaur’s family sought enhancement of the compensation by submitting that her monthly income was wrongly assessed as only Rs 3,500.
• It is submitted that the victim was working as a helper in an Anganwadi and earned Rs 6,000 monthly. She also did other domestic work, like stitching, agricultural work, etc.
• The counsel, therefore, submitted that the victim’s income has been wrongly assessed.
• It is further submitted that the amounts granted under the conventional heads are also liable to be enhanced.