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

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar, dismissed MACP No. 136 of 2023 because it found that the involvement of the vehicle in the accident had not been established.

The claimants appealed, contending that the Tribunal had assessed the evidence using an impermissibly strict standard of proof.

Whether the Tribunal erred by assessing the vehicle’s involvement under the criminal standard of proof rather than the civil standard of preponderance of probabilities.

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

In adjudicating motor-accident claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, the applicable standard is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt; the Tribunal must assess the evidence pragmatically and in light of the Act’s compensatory purpose.

The Court relied on Manju Singh and Avinash Singh, Sithara N.S. v. Sai Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Prabhavathi v. Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Sunita v. Rajasthan SRTC, and Rajwati alias Rajjo v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. for these principles.

It also relied on N.K.V. Bros. Pvt. Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal, which cautions Tribunals against allowing technicalities, conjectures, or doubts to defeat legitimate accident claims.

The Court referred to Reena v. Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on applying the probability standard and carefully evaluating evidence in appellate review.

The Tribunal had dismissed the claim solely for non-involvement of the vehicle.

The High Court concluded that its approach reflected the strict standard applicable to criminal trials rather than the preponderance-of-probabilities standard governing motor-accident claims.

The Court considered that approach contrary to settled law and inconsistent with the beneficial purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act; it therefore found a manifest error warranting the award’s setting aside.

It did not determine the vehicle’s involvement on the merits, directing the Tribunal to reconsider the evidence afresh.

MACP No. 136 of 2023 was restored to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law, to be decided within six months.

Both parties may lead further evidence; the Tribunal must decide the claim on its merits without being influenced by the earlier award or the High Court’s observations.

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 19 October 2026, and the Registry was directed to transmit the record before that date.