Admissibility of Eyewitness Testimony in MACT Claims Validated by Criminal Conviction Standards and Preponderance of Probabilities

The appellant, Oriental Insurance Company, challenged an award dated 29th October 2013 passed by the MACT, Rohini, which granted ₹32,97,187 with 9% interest to the respondents/claimants

The claim arose from a fatal accident on 21st August 2012, where the deceased, Niraj Kumar Jindal, was hit by a bus (DL-1PB-8516) while cycling

An eyewitness, Sachin Singhal, reported the incident to the police after a four-day delay, citing his wife’s illness as the reason for the lapse

Parallel to the MACT proceedings, the driver was charge-sheeted and convicted by a Metropolitan Magistrate on 24th September 2019

The Insurance Company challenged the award on grounds of the unreliability of the eyewitness, improper income assessment, and excessive future prospects

1. Whether the testimony of the eyewitness (PW2) was reliable despite a four-day delay in reporting the accident

2. Whether the income of the deceased was correctly assessed based on the ITR filed after the death

3. Whether future prospects and conventional heads of compensation were calculated in accordance with established legal principles

The Court primarily relied on the principles of "preponderance of probabilities" in motor accident claims as established in Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (P) Ltd. (1977), which holds that an FIR and charge-sheet are relevant factors for finding negligence

It applied the binding guidelines from National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) regarding the quantification of future prospects (40% for self-employed individuals under age 40) and standardized amounts for conventional heads: Loss of Estate (₹15,000), Funeral Expenses (₹15,000), and Loss of Consortium (₹40,000 per dependent)

The Court rejected the appellant's challenge to the eyewitness testimony, noting that while there was a delay, the witness provided a plausible explanation and his testimony remained consistent throughout cross-examination

Crucially, the Court observed that the driver’s conviction in a criminal trial—meeting the higher "beyond reasonable doubt" standard—solidified the finding of negligence under the lower "preponderance of probabilities" standard required for MACT cases

Regarding income, the Court upheld the use of the AY 2012-2013 ITR, as it reflected the deceased's actual earnings in the financial year immediately preceding the accident

However, the Court agreed with the appellant that the Tribunal erred in awarding 50% future prospects, as Pranay Sethi mandates 40% for a self-employed person aged 39

The Court further recalculated the conventional heads (consortium, estate, and funeral) and removed "loss of gratuitous services," which is not recognized under the Pranay Sethi framework

The total compensation was reduced from ₹32,97,187 to ₹30,01,375 (a reduction of ₹2,95,812) following the downward revision of future prospects to 40% and adjustment of conventional heads

The Court dismissed the appeal regarding liability but modified the compensation amount and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the balance amount within six weeks and ordered apportionment among the claimants: 54% to the wife, and 23% each to the two children