Nishan Perera

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a reported motor vehicle collision.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Schedule, alleging it was staged.

The Tribunal reviewed extensive accident reconstruction evidence and found that the physical damage to the vehicles was incompatible with the applicant's and passengers' consistent reports that the other vehicle had turned right into their path.

Given the significant inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence and the lack of corroborating witnesses, the Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden to prove the incident occurred as reported.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant insurer sought repayment of medical and rehabilitation benefits paid to the respondent, arguing that the motor vehicle collision was not an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal assessed the credibility of the respondent and related witnesses, noting numerous inconsistencies in their accounts of the collision.

Relying on expert collision reconstruction evidence that contradicted the claimants' narrative, the Tribunal found the respondent failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the incident occurred as reported.

The Tribunal concluded the respondent was not involved in an accident and is not entitled to accident benefits.

The applicant insurer sought repayment of medical and rehabilitation benefits paid to the respondent, arguing that the motor vehicle collision was staged and therefore not an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent and other occupants claimed the collision occurred when another vehicle suddenly turned right into their path.

However, expert accident reconstruction evidence from both parties concluded that the physical damage to the vehicles was incompatible with the reported sequence of events.

The adjudicator found the respondent's evidence lacked credibility due to numerous inconsistencies and the failure to call the other driver as a witness.

The Tribunal concluded the respondent failed to meet his evidentiary burden to prove the incident was an accident, and he was therefore not entitled to claim accident benefits.