Tribunal must freshly adjudicate claims where vehicle involvement is disputed and material evidence remains unexamined.

On 21 January 1999, the appellant was travelling in an auto-rickshaw allegedly driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1. When the driver abruptly applied the brakes, the appellant was thrown from the vehicle and sustained multiple injuries, requiring 15 days of indoor treatment at S.S.G. Hospital

She filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the driver, owner and insurer of the auto-rickshaw bearing registration No. GJ-17-U-244

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, principally finding that the initial documents referred to vehicle No. GRY-1217, which was subsequently changed to GJ-17-U-244, and that the delayed FIR appeared to have been lodged after legal consultation

In the appeal, the claimant relied on the subsequent FIR but did not examine the Investigating Officer, the witnesses connected with the spot panchnama and charge-sheet, or the doctor who recorded her first statement

Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition on the basis of the discrepancy between the vehicle numbers GRY-1217 and GJ-17-U-244 and the delayed registration of the FIR?

Whether, in the interests of justice, the matter required remand to the Tribunal to permit the parties to lead further evidence regarding the involvement of the vehicle and the claimant’s injuries?

The appeal was entertained under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for an appeal against an award of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

The Court applied the procedural principle that, where material factual issues require further evidentiary examination, the appellate court may set aside the award and remand the claim for fresh consideration, allowing the parties an opportunity to lead relevant evidence.

The Tribunal was required to decide the claim strictly on the evidence and in accordance with law, without being influenced by the earlier decision or the High Court’s observations

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the judgment.

The Court noted that all undisputed documents preceding the FIR referred to auto-rickshaw No. GRY-1217, while the vehicle was subsequently shown as GJ-17-U-244, allegedly because the former vehicle was uninsured

Since the claimant relied substantially on the later FIR but failed to examine the Investigating Officer, the relevant spot-panchnama and charge-sheet witnesses, and the treating doctor who recorded her initial statement, the evidentiary controversy could not be conclusively resolved on the existing record

Rather than affirming the dismissal or deciding the merits without complete evidence, the Court considered remand necessary to enable both parties to adduce further evidence and for the Tribunal to undertake a fresh assessment.

The claim proceedings were restored to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, with liberty to both parties to lead further evidence, including the evidence of the Investigating Officer and the treating doctor

The Tribunal was directed to decide the claim within six months, independently and strictly on the evidence and in accordance with law

The parties were directed to remain present before the Tribunal on 01 October 2026, and the Registry was directed to transmit the record and proceedings before that date