Incomplete Witness Testimony Validated by Corroborative Evidence is Sufficient to Establish Negligence in Motor Accident Claims

On September 7, 2021, the deceased, Sh. Ajay Sharma, was cycling near Rithla Metro Station when he was hit from behind by a Swift car (offending vehicle).

The driver shifted the deceased to BSA Hospital, where he was declared "brought dead".

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded the claimants Rs. 5,46,71,000 at 7.5% interest.

The Insurance Company appealed this award on two grounds: first, that the negligence of the driver was not proved because the testimony of the deceased’s wife (PW-1) was incomplete; and second, that the quantum of compensation was erroneously calculated by failing to deduct tax (TDS) and specific allowances from the benchmark income.

1. Whether the finding of negligence against the driver of the offending vehicle was sustainable despite the incomplete testimony of PW-1.

2. Whether deductions toward Income Tax (TDS) and specific personal allowances should be made from the gross salary for calculating loss of dependency.

Negligence in motor accident cases can be established through a "preponderance of probabilities" using evidence such as CCTV footage and police investigation reports (FIR/DAR) rather than relying solely on oral testimony.

Mandatory deduction of income tax at applicable rates must be followed as per Manorma Sinha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2025).

Distinction between perks that benefit the entire family (included in income) and personal allowances or taxes (excluded from income) based on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava (2008) and Kavita Devi v. Sunil Kumar (2025).

General damages are governed by the principles laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017).

The Court rejected the appellant’s challenge to the finding of negligence, noting that while PW-1's testimony was deferred, the involvement of the vehicle was independently proved by CCTV footage showing the driver at the hospital in distinctive clothing, his own disclosure statement, and the mechanical repair of the car's bumper immediately after the incident.

On the issue of quantum, the Court agreed with the appellant that the MACT erred by not deducting TDS and a personal "soft furnishing allowance" from the salary.

The Court recalculated the monthly income but identified a significant arithmetical error by the Tribunal, which had incorrectly applied future prospects to the income after deducting personal expenses rather than before.

The total compensation was enhanced from Rs. 5,46,70,520 to Rs. 6,39,88,892 at 7.5% interest, after modifying the deductions for TDS and soft furnishing allowance and correcting the mathematical formula for future prospects.

The Court directed the Insurance Company to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks and provided a schedule for the release of funds and creation of Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) for the claimants.