-
by sayum
04 July 2026 7:39 AM
“MACT Proceedings Are Decided On Preponderance Of Probabilities, Not Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt”, Delhi High Court has reiterated that delay in lodging an FIR cannot by itself defeat a motor accident claim where the police investigation supports the occurrence of the accident and the overall evidence establishes negligence on a balance of probabilities.
Delhi High Court partly allowing an appeal filed by the insurance company against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) award. While upholding the Tribunal’s findings on negligence and involvement of the insured vehicle, the Court modified certain components of compensation and ultimately enhanced the total award from ₹1,25,35,440 to ₹1,25,84,913 with interest at 7.5% per annum.
The case arose out of a motor accident that occurred on 13 August 2016 at about 11:00 PM near Mihir Bhoj Balika Degree College in Dadri. The claimant, Saleem Khan Mewati, was standing near the roadside along with his cousin when a Swift car bearing registration number HR-27C-5161, allegedly driven rashly and negligently, struck him with force.
Due to the impact, the claimant sustained severe head injuries and was immediately taken to hospital in a PCR van. Medical records revealed that he suffered diffuse axonal injury (traumatic brain injury) and a bimalleolar ankle fracture, requiring prolonged hospitalization and multiple medical procedures.
Subsequently, FIR No. 0460/2016 was registered on 25 August 2016 under Sections 279 and 338 IPC, and a charge-sheet was later filed against the driver.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹1,25,35,440 along with interest at 7.5% per annum. Challenging the award, the insurance company filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court.
The principal challenge raised by the Insurance Company concerned the involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident. The insurer argued that the claim lacked credibility because the FIR was lodged twelve days after the accident and the registration number of the vehicle was mentioned only in the FIR.
The insurer further relied on a discrepancy between the Medico-Legal Certificate (MLC) and the claimant’s version. While the MLC suggested that the injured was struck by a four-wheeler while travelling with a bike, the claimant and the eyewitness testified that he was standing by the roadside when the accident occurred.
It was also argued that the eyewitness testimony was unreliable because the witness admitted that he could not read English alphabets forming part of the vehicle registration number.
Finally, the insurer contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive and improperly calculated.
Court’s Observation On Delay In FIR
Justice Prateek Jalan rejected the argument that the delay in lodging the FIR undermined the credibility of the accident claim.
The Court observed:
“The delay in lodging the FIR cannot, by itself, be treated as fatal to the claim, particularly where the police investigation culminated in filing of a charge-sheet.”
The Court noted that the claimant had been taken to hospital immediately in a PCR van and that the police authorities were aware of the accident from the outset. Therefore, the delay in formally registering the FIR did not create a legitimate suspicion regarding the occurrence of the accident.
“MACT Is Not Bound By Strict Rules Of Evidence”
The Court reiterated that proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are not governed by the strict evidentiary standards applicable in criminal trials.
Justice Jalan explained:
“The Tribunal’s task is to arrive at a finding on the basis of the balance of probabilities, and not on the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.”
The Court relied on Supreme Court decisions including Anita Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Sunita v. Rajasthan SRTC, and Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC, which affirm that negligence in MACT proceedings is determined on the principle of preponderance of probabilities.
Eyewitness Testimony Cannot Be Rejected For Minor Inconsistencies
The insurer argued that the eyewitness testimony should be discarded because the witness admitted he could not read English alphabets.
The High Court, however, held that this alone could not invalidate the testimony.
Justice Jalan observed:
“While the witness could not read English alphabets, he could recognise the numerical digits of the registration number and consistently narrated the manner in which the accident occurred.”
The Court further noted that the witness’s description of the accident remained consistent and aligned with the police investigation and the charge-sheet filed against the driver.
Therefore, the Tribunal’s finding regarding negligence was upheld.
Serious Nature Of Injuries And Disability
The Court also examined the medical evidence relating to the claimant’s injuries. Medical records showed that the claimant suffered severe traumatic brain injury, underwent multiple surgical procedures, and remained hospitalised for over two months.
The disability certificate issued by the medical board recorded 90% profound disability, with severe neurological impairment affecting the claimant’s cognitive and behavioural functioning.
The Court noted that the claimant remained unable to speak due to tracheostomy, suffered psychiatric complications and required assistance for daily activities.
Attendant Charges And Multiplier Method Upheld
The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s award towards attendant charges calculated using the minimum wages in Uttar Pradesh and the multiplier method.
Justice Jalan observed that the claimant’s condition required continuous assistance for daily activities, and therefore the award of attendant charges was consistent with Supreme Court rulings in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Abhimanyu Partap Singh v. Namita Sekhon.
Recalculation Of Income And Future Earnings
However, the Court modified the assessment of income used to calculate compensation.
The Tribunal had relied on the latest income tax return filed after the accident, which showed an income of ₹3,36,759. The High Court held that the latest return reflected an abnormal variation and therefore the claimant’s income should be assessed by averaging preceding returns.
Justice Jalan observed:
“Where the latest return reflects unusual variation, the income may be moderated by taking the average of the preceding returns.”
On that basis, the annual income was recalculated and the compensation for loss of income and future earnings was revised.
Enhancement Of Non-Pecuniary Damages
While modifying some pecuniary components, the Court enhanced the compensation for loss of amenities of life, observing that the claimant’s ability to lead an independent and meaningful life had been profoundly affected.
The Court also upheld the substantial compensation awarded for pain and suffering, considering the severity of the injuries and permanent disability.
High Court Can Enhance Compensation Even Without Cross-Appeal
A notable aspect of the judgment is the Court’s clarification that the High Court may enhance compensation even in the absence of a cross-appeal by the claimant.
Justice Jalan observed:
“To ensure just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Court may enhance the award even without a cross-appeal or cross-objection by the claimant.”
This principle was supported by the Supreme Court decision in Surekha v. Santosh.
After modifying certain heads of compensation and enhancing others, the Delhi High Court revised the total award from ₹1,25,35,440 to ₹1,25,84,913, resulting in a net enhancement of ₹49,473.
The Court directed the insurance company to deposit the enhanced amount along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition and ordered that the compensation be disbursed to the claimant according to the existing disbursement scheme.
The judgment reinforces key principles governing motor accident compensation claims. The Delhi High Court clarified that delay in lodging an FIR is not fatal to a claim when supported by police investigation and other evidence, and reiterated that MACT proceedings are determined on the standard of preponderance of probabilities rather than strict criminal proof. The ruling also highlights the Court’s commitment to ensuring “just compensation” for victims of serious motor accidents, even where enhancement is required in appellate proceedings.
Date of Decision: 03 March 2026
