Motor accident tribunals must properly consider certified police papers when determining vehicle involvement.

The appellants, the deceased Vikas Patil’s parents, appealed the MACT’s dismissal of their death-claim petition.

The deceased’s wife and children were also respondents and had joined the proceedings after withdrawing a separate petition filed before the Dhule Court.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim in part because of discrepancies in the offending vehicle’s registration number and the evidence identifying the vehicle.

The claimants relied on police papers, including the final report/chargesheet, and an insurance policy; the High Court noted that the final report identified the vehicle as MP-09-FA-0292, while the record contained inconsistent number entries.

The father was not an eyewitness.

The Tribunal had found the Maxi-Cab driver negligent, but dismissed the claim on the vehicle-identification issue.

Whether the Tribunal erred in its treatment of the certified police papers and insurance policy when assessing whether the identified Maxi-Cab was involved in the accident.

Whether the High Court should decide the claim on appeal or remand it for the Tribunal to reassess the evidence.

The Court treated a motor-accident claim as a summary inquiry in which certified copies of police papers, as public documents, may be read in evidence.

It also held that an investigating officer need not be an eyewitness for the police papers to be relevant, and that a vehicle’s non-attachment does not by itself prevent consideration of its involvement in the accident.

The Court referred to National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, for the Tribunal’s reassessment of the income-related evidence.

The other authorities cited by the appellants were distinguished as concerning inconsistencies about the manner of an accident, rather than the identity of the vehicle.

The Tribunal had acknowledged that certified police papers were in evidence and declined to examine the investigating officer because he was not an eyewitness, yet it failed to give proper weight to the final report identifying the Maxi-Cab and to the insurance-policy evidence.

Although the FIR did not identify the vehicle, the Court noted that the vehicle and driver were identified in the subsequent investigation; it considered the Tribunal’s treatment of that material and the registration-number discrepancies inadequate.

Because the dispute concerned vehicle identity and the Court considered the Tribunal’s assessment of the record incomplete, it remanded the matter rather than finally determining the claim on appeal.

The Tribunal’s judgment dismissing the claim was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the MACT, Malegaon, for decision on the existing evidence, with no fresh evidence to be adduced.

The Tribunal was directed not to revisit the finding on the driver’s negligence and to reassess the income evidence, having regard to Pranay Sethi.

The parties were directed to appear on 5 October 2026, and the Tribunal was asked to decide the matter preferably within two months thereafter.