A pillion rider’s claim must be assessed separately from the driver’s alleged felonious act.

The appellant was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle when it was hit by a tractor, causing him injuries; an FIR was registered concerning the incident.

He filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Tribunal dismissed MACP Nos. 91 and 92 of 2007, treating the incident as an attempted felonious act rather than a road accident, based on the FIR’s account of prior enmity between the tractor driver and the motorcycle driver.

The appellant challenged the dismissal of MACP No. 91 of 2007.

Whether the Tribunal erred by applying its finding of a felonious act to the pillion rider’s claim without separately considering the circumstances in which he was injured.

Whether MACP No. 91 of 2007 should be remanded for fresh consideration on its merits.

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides the basis for a claim petition concerning injury arising from a motor-vehicle accident; Section 173 provides for an appeal against an award of the Claims Tribunal.

It directs that the claim be determined afresh in accordance with the evidence and law.

The Court considered that the FIR could support the Tribunal’s view that the motorcycle driver was targeted because of prior enmity.

However, the appellant was a pillion rider and could have been an unintended victim; the Tribunal therefore erred in applying the same reasoning to both occupants without examining the pillion rider’s distinct circumstances.

Because that question required assessment by the Tribunal, the High Court remitted the claim without deciding its merits.

The claim was restored to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, with liberty for both parties to lead further evidence.

The Tribunal was directed to decide the matter as early as possible, preferably within six months of receiving the order, uninfluenced by the earlier award or the High Court’s observations.