Chandigarh, Jan. 29 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court has dismissed a petition from a senior citizen couple from Kurukshetra seeking compensation in the death of their 24-year-old in 2015 in an accident reported in Kalka. The bench of Justice Nidhi Gupta while taking note of the facts of the case observed that the claimant side is liable for "perjury" for making contradictory statements before two courts of law. The accident had taken place in May 2015 on a highway near Kalka. In 2019, the MACT Kurukshetra had dismissed a claim petition of Rs.60 lakh compensation from the parents of the deceased, Sumit, who was 24-year-old at the time of accident. The FIR was registered against one Surender with whom the deceased was travelling with one more person named Prabhjot. The FIR was registered against Surender on the complaint of Prabhjot on the allegations that Surender was driving in a rash and negligent manner and rammed the car into a tipper. However, Prabhjot changed his stand in the criminal trial and had deposed that the accident was not caused by the accused. Hence, he was acquitted. In the claim petition the parents had submitted that Sumit had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident due to the rash and negligent driving of a car being driven by one Surender. However, MACT had concluded that appellants had failed to prove the accident in question had been caused by Surender. In high court it was argued that the tribunal has not appreciated the testimony of Prabhjot, who has specifically deposed that the accident occurred on account of Surender's rash and negligent driving. The court noted that since there were two vehicles involved in the accident, the FIR could have been easily lodged against the driver of the other vehicle, but the same was not done. The court took note of a totally different version of the accident presented by Prabhjot before the trial court and observed it could not be a deaf-mute spectator to the two contradictory versions given by the claimant side. "..this court cannot shut its eyes in an ostrich like manner, to the starkly diametrically opposite stances taken by the claimants' side in the criminal trial. Thus, no credence can be attributed to the subsequent statements made by the claimant side before the learned Tribunal (MACT). Therefore, it cannot be said that the accident in question was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1; as the same would be contrary to the own statements made by the claimant side," the bench observed further adding that it appeared that the claimant had deposed falsely before the tribunal only to get the compensation. "In such a situation, I find no error in the impugned award," it said while dismissing the claim by the MACT, Kurukshetra. The court also did not agree with the request from the lawyer that as the claimants are aged parents, the court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant Rs.5 lakh to the appellants by way of 'no fault liability'....