New Delhi, Aug 28 A Motor Accident Claims Tribunal here has dismissed a motor accident compensation claim, saying the injured worker's version blaming the truck driver for the accident was an "afterthought" aimed at extracting compensation from the insurer.
Presiding Officer Deepika Singh was hearing a claim petition filed by Sakal Dev Singh, who suffered injuries after a truck carrying cement bags overturned in Delhi's Rohini area on March 7, 2012. He had sought Rs 10 lakh as compensation from the driver, the owner and the insurer of the vehicle.
In an order dated August 24, the court said, "The version of the petitioner is merely an afterthought just to get false compensation from the insurance company even when the petitioner would have known about the fact that they have given the statement to police that Respondent 1 was not negligent while driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident."
The tribunal said the claimant's testimony was "inherently unbelievable" when tested against the material available on record.
The claimant and another injured labourer told the tribunal that the truck driver was driving rashly and at a high speed when he lost control of the vehicle, causing it to hit the footpath and overturn.
However, the court noted that the injured persons had initially refused to give statements to police, saying they could not tell why the vehicle had overturned.
Their subsequent statements, recorded by police in Bihar, said the driver tried to avoid a pothole and a bicycle rider coming from the wrong side and that he was not at fault. A cancellation report was thereafter filed by the investigating officer.
The tribunal also took note of Singh's statement before a magistrate in April 2013, in which he said he had no objection to the acceptance of the cancellation report and was satisfied with the investigation. He had also not filed any protest petition against the cancellation report.
The court rejected the contention that the claimant was pressured or coerced by the investigating officer, observing that had that happened, he could have complained to senior police authorities or approached a criminal court, particularly since the claim proceedings were filed much later.
"The testimonies of PW1 (prosecution witness 1) and PW2 are inherently unbelievable when tested at the anvil of the material available on record," the tribunal said.
It held that the claimant had failed to prove even on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that his injuries were caused by rash and negligent driving of the truck.
Consequently, the tribunal ruled that he was not entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and dismissed his plea.
