Motor accident claims must assess vehicle involvement on a preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad, dismissed MACP No. 429 of 2014 because it found that the involvement of the vehicle in the accident had not been established.

The claimant appealed, contending that the Tribunal had applied an unduly stringent standard of proof.

The High Court identified the Tribunal’s finding in paragraph 13 of its award as resting solely on non-involvement of the vehicle.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred by assessing the claim on a criminal standard of proof, rather than on the balance of probabilities, when deciding whether the vehicle was involved in the accident.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s dismissal should be set aside and the claim petition remitted for fresh consideration.

Claims under Sections 166 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are adjudicated on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt; criminal-trial standards should not be imported into the Tribunal’s assessment.

The Court relied on Sunita v. Rajasthan SRTC, (2020) 13 SCC 468, Sithara N.S. v. Sai Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2793, Prabhavathi v. Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 455, and Rajwati alias Rajjo v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699, for that standard.

It also relied on N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal, (1980) 3 SCC 457, cautioning Tribunals against allowing technicalities and doubts to defeat accident claims.

It also relied on Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 656, on applying the probability standard in claims under Section 166.

The Tribunal dismissed the petition solely because it considered the vehicle’s involvement unproved.

The High Court held that the Tribunal’s approach reflected application of the criminal standard rather than the required balance of probabilities and was contrary to the principles governing motor-accident claims.

It characterised the Tribunal’s reliance on technicalities, conjectures and surmises as a manifest error.

The Court did not determine the vehicle’s involvement on the merits; instead, it directed the Tribunal to reconsider the claim on the evidence and in accordance with law, without being influenced by the High Court’s observations.

MACP No. 429 of 2014 was restored to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, to be completed within six months of receipt of the order.

Both parties may lead further evidence; they were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 19 October 2026, and the Registry was directed to transmit the record and proceedings before that date.