Home
Injured by truck, warehouse worker tried to claim £3 million in bogus damages

A man from Camberley in Surrey who was hit by a lorry while riding his bike has been jailed for fraud after claiming more than £3 million in damages.

Get Hampshire’s James Chapple reports that Majid Khan, 36 was aided by wife Humaira, 29, and father-in-law Atlaf Kiani, 61 in telling his insurers that he had brain injuries so severe he couldn’t feed himself, work or recognise his own mother.

But private investigators videoed Khan leading a normal life. On Wednesday, Judge Andrew Collender QC upheld an application by Lloyds of London insurers to jail Khan for nine months for civil contempt after admitting lying about his condition.

Kiani was also jailed for nine months, while Mrs Khan’s seven-month sentence was suspended for two years.

A warehouse worker at Penta Foods in Farnborough, Khan sustained severe brain injuries when he was hit by an articulated lory while riding to work in August 2008.

Returning from Pakistan in early 2010, Khan convinced a doctor he had reduced brain function and mobility following the accident and refused to settle his compensation claim for £75,000.

Judge Collender said: “Aided and abetted by Mr Kiani and your wife, you embarked upon a deliberate fraud, seriously exaggerating the effect of your injuries to obtain a greater sum of damages to that which you would have been legitimately entitled.”

Khan claimed he needed 24-hour care, an extension to his house to accommodate his disability, holidays, travel and language therapy costs and launched a damages claim to cover a total of over £3 million. 

“You made a good recovery and the damages to which you were entitled were relatively modest,” Judge Collender told Khan. “However, both you and Mr Kiani tried to take advantage of the situation for financial gain.”

Kiani and Mrs Khan swore witness statements supporting the claim, asserting Khan could not communicate, have social life or “recognise his mother”.

“They were a pack of lies,” said the judge. “This was a planned, relatively sophisticated fraud carried out over three months. I have no doubt, if not for surveillance, you would have persisted with this deception.

“The law makes it clear, because of the damage done by false claims, those who make them can expect to go to prison if their conduct is discovered. No other punishment will do.”

Our official grumpy Northerner, John has been riding bikes for over 30 years since discovering as an uncoordinated teen that a sport could be fun if it didn't require you to catch a ball or get in the way of a hulking prop forward.

Road touring was followed by mountain biking and a career racing in the mud that was as brief as it was unsuccessful.

Somewhere along the line came the discovery that he could string a few words together, followed by the even more remarkable discovery that people were mug enough to pay for this rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work. He's pretty certain he's worked for even more bike publications than Mat Brett.

The inevitable 30-something MAMIL transition saw him shift to skinny tyres and these days he lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.

20 comments

Avatar
levermonkey [682 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

I wonder if this story is in the Daily Mail yet!  39

Avatar
MrGear [86 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

This guys actions are an insult to those who legitimately need financial help after an accident.

Avatar
oldstrath [895 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

Sure, he's a man who did a bad thing. But two points. First, he apparently was injured quite badly in the first place, and second this guy, who actually didn't cause physical harm to anyone, has been jailed for longer than many of the motorists who kill cyclists and pedestrians.

I do also wonder what happened to the lorry driver who hit him.

Avatar
cidermart [501 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

The reason it was a longer sentence is because it was for financial gain. If a driver was to take your money after killing you on your bike there is more of a chance they would get charged for robbery than the loss of your life, well that's how it seems at least.

Avatar
Gkam84 [9111 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

Oldstrath, don't try and defend his actions.

This guy is SCUM.

Now every single cyclist who tried to claim any damages after being injured will be watched like a hawk and have to go through tests and consultations to prove then need the help that should rightfully be theirs.

His actions are that of a con man and he should have been jailed for YEARS

Avatar
oldstrath [895 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
Gkam84 wrote:

Oldstrath, don't try and defend his actions.

This guy is SCUM.

Now every single cyclist who tried to claim any damages after being injured will be watched like a hawk and have to go through tests and consultations to prove then need the help that should rightfully be theirs.

His actions are that of a con man and he should have been jailed for YEARS

Worse than minibus drivers who kill cyclists? I think not. Worse than porsche drivers who can't be bothered checking whether they've actually passed the cyclist? I think not.

I'm not defending him - I started by saying he did a bad thing. I just am bewildered by the contrast between our enthusiasm to punish someone whose crime was to steal money, and our reluctance to punish killers.

Avatar
jacknorell [975 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

Thefts of even very small amounts of money have always been punished more harshly in England than violence or murder...

Unless, of course, you're a bank and steal tens of billions, in which case you'll get a reward for achievement...!

Avatar
andylul [410 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

Just out of interest, what makes him a 'cyclist' as opposed to 'man who cycled to work'?

Why not 'warehouse worker', 'man' or 'Camberley resident' - surely those define his identity just as much as his mode of transport to work that day.

I believe the culture that actively promotes injury litigation is partially to blame. Endless commercials on TV promising life changing amounts of money without any apparent victim, except yourself.

Avatar
Gkam84 [9111 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

Drivers are starting to get harsher sentences. I'm surprised this hasn't hit the roadcc headlines yet http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-26085400

Avatar
WolfieSmith [1382 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

The anti cyclist Daily Mail brigade will love this. Not content with being a cheating work shy foreigner - he's also a cyclist! Shame. On. Him.

Avatar
workhard [400 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
MercuryOne wrote:

The anti cyclist Daily Mail brigade will love this. Not content with being a cheating work shy foreigner - he's also a cyclist! Shame. On. Him.

But does he eat swans and cause cancer?

Avatar
workhard [400 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
Gkam84 wrote:

Drivers are starting to get harsher sentences. I'm surprised this hasn't hit the roadcc headlines yet http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-26085400

What should the headlines is this...

In July 2013, Wrathall had been been on trial for causing death by dangerous driving at Preston Crown Court. But police said the jury in the case were discharged.

A new trial date was set for January where Wrathall pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving.

he killed someone whilst on his mobile FFS!

Avatar
james-o [239 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

The intent and premeditation of insurance fraud for ex is very different in the law to the outcome of driving mistakes that cause injury so the sentence won't compare.
I'd agree that the end result should play a much bigger part in sentencing in traffic incidents but the law seems to work on intent first.

Avatar
oldstrath [895 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
james-o wrote:

The intent and premeditation of insurance fraud for ex is very different in the law to the outcome of driving mistakes that cause injury so the sentence won't compare.
I'd agree that the end result should play a much bigger part in sentencing in traffic incidents but the law seems to work on intent first.

I imagine this nonsense is believed by lawyers, but it is still nonsense. Mr Wrathall referred to above was on his phone when he killed someone, the minibus driver was clearly driving without being able to stop in the distance he could see to be clear. These are just as contrary to law as the insurance scam. And by the way, they are not mistakes, they are just as deliberate as the fraud.

Avatar
james-o [239 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

But it isn't nonsense, it's how the law has worked for a very long time. Driving while on the phone and causing a fatal collision is not 'intent' to kill another road user, it's stupidity and lack of responsibility. Don't get me wrong, I think the end result should be in mind from the start (that's expecting too much of people though), it deserves stiffer sentencing and it's a technicality, the law here may be an ass, all I'm saying is that the intent is what the law is based on. ie murder and manslaughter, there's a difference, the intent. The mistake or error of judgement is a deliberate action, but the end result I'm sure wasn't intended.

I'm not supporting this, I'm simply highlighting why what we see as anti-cyclist injustices are down to a poor legal system in this area that doesn't do enough to make people think through their actions, where responsibility can be absolved too easily. (edit to add, there also seems to be a general belief that we all accept some risk when using the roads and do so knowing those risks - I don't agree with how far that idea seems to extend either and I don't think juries should be used in RTI cases for that reason)

Avatar
jacknorell [975 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
james-o wrote:

But it isn't nonsense, it's how the law has worked for a very long time. Driving while on the phone and causing a fatal collision is not 'intent' to kill another road user, it's stupidity and lack of responsibility...

What you're saying is true, legally. But morally, why is this different from foreseeable and preventable (potential) harm, as is the case when driving in a way that's incompatible with the prevailing conditions?

I.e. if you keep driving as normal when you can't see the road in front of you...

Avatar
james-o [239 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

jacknorell, I agree, morally and end result, there's no difference. No difference to the victim and their families. I wish the people's thought processes and the law would take that more into account.

Avatar
AyBee [85 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
oldstrath wrote:

Sure, he's a man who did a bad thing. But two points. First, he apparently was injured quite badly in the first place, and second this guy, who actually didn't cause physical harm to anyone, has been jailed for longer than many of the motorists who kill cyclists and pedestrians.

I do also wonder what happened to the lorry driver who hit him.

This is the post which has the most "likes" on this page - what an absolute joke! What the guy tried to do was fraudulent to the extreme. All those who liked this comment should be ashamed of themselves, there's no excuse!

Avatar
fret [37 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

It's the fraud aspect that is wrong. Nobody is saying it is because he is or was a cyclist or where he comes from or the colour of his skin.
This idiot deserves the punishment he got for defrauding ME and YOU and subsequently it is WE who have to pay through our own insurances and taxes.

Avatar
DAG on a bike [81 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
MrGear wrote:

This guys actions are an insult to those who legitimately need financial help after an accident.

Couldn't agree more.

Working as a personal injury litigation executive assisting my clients seek their due compensation I am so frustrated about this type of situation that portrays genuine victims in a bad light unjustly.

There is a lot of biased reporting, and the fact that there is a cyclist (or person riding a bike) is irrelevant. If the claim is fraudulent then action should be taken.

Over time the insurance industry has been banging on about fraudulent or exaggerated claims while really doing nothing to combat it. If they could persuade the claimant to 'go away' they were happy because they would avoid paying any compensation. However, until they actually do something about it such as here by raising an issue of contempt of court and the court imposes penalties what was the disincentive to a fraudulent claimant? Nothing. They would just walk away and no doubt say to themselves that they didn't get away with it - until the next time.

Sadly, again due to strong lobbying by the insurers to protect their pockets, the law has changed and the genuine accident victims will find few, if any, solicitors to assist them on a #no win, no fee' basis. This, I am sure, is as a reaction to fraudulent or exaggerated claims. Rightly or wrongly, there is no such thing as a 'free lunch'. Unless an accident victim already has legal expenses insurance, almost inevitably they will have to contribute perhaps as much as 25% (or more) from their compensation to cover their solicitor's costs.