Standard of proof and importance of eye-witness cross-examination in MACT claims
Tags: Insurance, Motor Accident, Law, India, Legal

Standard of proof before MACT

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (MACT) adjudicate on claims for compensation in respect of motor vehicle accidents causing death or bodily injury, or damages to property of a third party.

The standard of proof on the claimant(s) in MACT adjudications is the “preponderance of probability”, and not “proof beyond reasonable doubt” applicable to criminal matters. Thus, where there are minor discrepancies in facts or absence of information due to the circumstances of the accident, the finding (excerpt below) of the Supreme Court in Bimla Devi[1] may help establish the credibility of the claimant’s evidence in support of the claim—

“In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied.”

Eye-witness cross-examination

The Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (MV Act) as amended[2] imposes a statutory duty[3] on the concerned police officer (the Investigating Officer) investigating a motor vehicle accident to prepare an accident information report (the report) after collecting evidence in support thereof in the prescribed form and manner and submit the same to the MACT to facilitate the adjudication of the claim. The MACT is required to satisfy itself that the statements made in the report are true, as it otherwise merely represents the opinion of the Investigating Officer and not legal evidence or proof of allegations made therein.

The MV Act also imposes a statutory duty on the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station[4] and the person[5] against whom a claim is made to provide the prescribed information pertaining to the accident and applicable insurance (if any) respectively.

However, the testimony of an independent eye-witness, especially if the same survives cross-examination or is not subject to the same despite opportunity given in MACT proceedings or related criminal proceedings, may bolster the claimant’s case or help overcome shortcomings in the investigation of the accident to establish the claim to the requisite standard of proof, as recently held by the Supreme Court in Anita Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.[6] as follows —

“19. The failure of the respondents to cross examine the solitary eye­ witness or confront him with their version, despite adequate opportunity, must lead to an inference of tacit admission on their part. They did not even suggest the witness that he was siding with the claimants. The High Court has failed to appreciate the legal effect of this absence of cross­examination of a crucial witness.”

To highlight the importance of cross-­examination, the Court further cited its Constitution Bench decision in Kartar Singh[7] , wherein it was stated as follows —

“278. Section 137 of the Evidence Act defines what cross­ examination means and Sections 139 and 145 speak of the mode of cross ­examination with reference to the documents as well as oral evidence. It is the jurisprudence of law that cross­ examination is an acid­ test of the truthfulness of the statement made by a witness on oath in examination ­in­ chief, the objects of which are: (1) to destroy or weaken the evidentiary value of the witness of his adversary; (2) to elicit facts in favour of the cross ­examining lawyer’s client from the mouth of the witness of the adversary party; (3) to show that the witness is unworthy of belief by impeaching the credit of the said witness; and the questions to be addressed in the course of cross­ examination are to test his veracity; to discover who he is and what is his position in life; and to shake his credit by injuring his character.”

Furthermore, the Court in Anita Sharma(supra) has held that even non-examination of one or more (best) eye-witnesses may also not harm the claim —

“22…………………… One needs to be mindful that the approach and role of Courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault with non­examination of some best eye­witnesses, as may happen in a criminal trial; but, instead should be only to analyze the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimant’s version is more likely than not true.”

In motor vehicle accident cases and claims before the MACT, credible and independent proof of events or facts pertaining to the accident is crucial to the successful prosecution of a claim or in defence against it. Where such evidence is in the form of an eye-witness statement, case law above cited underscores the importance of cross-examining such witness. Failure to cross-examine, or to do so unsuccessfully where the eye-witness’ recollection of the events or facts remains dislodged, may prove fatal for the party so failing. Therefore, when prosecuting or defending against a claim, mere reliance on accidental reports by the investigating authorities may not suffice in the presence of contrary eye-witness statements, requiring a thorough assessment of the contents and its cross-examination.

References

[1] Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others (2009) 13 SCC 530

[2] Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act 2019

[3] section 159 of MV Act

[4] section 160 of MV Act

[5] section 152 of MV Act

[6] Anita Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. in Civil Appeal №4010–11 of 2020, decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 8 December 2020

[7] Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab 1994 SCC (3) 569