Motor accident claims dismissed for want of evidence may be remitted to advance substantial justice.

Susanta Mahanta died after being struck by a container truck on 12 March 2017.

An FIR was registered, and the investigation resulted in a charge-sheet against the truck’s driver for rash and negligent driving.

The claimants’ application for compensation was dismissed by the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack, with a nil award because they had adduced no evidence, despite several adjournments.

The claimants appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, with a delay of 13 days.

Whether the Tribunal’s dismissal of the compensation claim with a nil award for want of evidence should be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh disposal.

Whether the 13-day delay in filing the appeal should prevent relief, or may be considered when determining interest on any compensation eventually awarded.

The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Court stated that compensation proceedings under the Act are summary in nature and arise under beneficial social legislation; Tribunals should adopt a liberal approach and should not deprive claimants of compensation merely because they have been unable to tender evidence, while still encouraging them to prove their claims.

The Court also treated delay and laches as matters that could be considered in relation to interest on any compensation awarded.

Although the claimants had failed to adduce evidence despite several adjournments, the Court considered them victims of an accident in which their sole breadwinner had died.

It held that a hyper-technical approach would not advance substantial justice in the context of the Act’s beneficial purpose, and therefore remitted the claim for fresh disposal rather than affirming the nil award.

The 13-day appellate delay did not warrant refusing relief; instead, the Tribunal could consider the period of delay and laches when deciding whether to award interest.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law, with notice to Respondent No. 1, the vehicle owner.

The parties were directed to appear on 3 November 2026 and cooperate in expeditious disposal, preferably within six months from that date, excluding time required to serve notice on the owner.

The Tribunal may consider the period of delay and laches when determining interest, if compensation is awarded.