Unresolved vehicle involvement and insurance coverage warrant remand for fresh adjudication of a motor accident claim.

The appellants, children of Anjinappa, sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, alleging that an Eicher lorry struck and killed their father while he was walking beside NH-207 on 2 December 2009.

The Tribunal found that the claimants had not proved that the accident resulted from the lorry driver’s negligence or that the lorry was involved, and awarded only ₹50,000 under Section 140 of the Act.

On appeal, the claimants sought to produce police-recorded statements of two alleged eyewitnesses as additional evidence.

The insurer opposed the appeal and contended, among other things, that the policy in evidence did not cover the accident date.

The High Court found that both the vehicle’s involvement and the existence of insurance coverage on the accident date required further determination.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s award warranted interference in light of the proposed additional eyewitness statements and the uncertainty about insurance coverage on the accident date.

2. Whether the matter should be remitted for further evidence and fresh determination of vehicle involvement and insurance coverage.

The Court considered Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: a claim for fault-based compensation under Section 166 requires determination of the alleged accident and the driver’s negligence, while Section 140 provides no-fault compensation.

The insurer’s liability also depended on whether the vehicle was insured on the date of the accident.

The Court cited no precedent or separate statutory test for admitting additional evidence; it treated the proposed eyewitness statements and the policy-date discrepancy as matters requiring further evidence and determination by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal had rejected the death claim because the complaint was made against an unknown vehicle and the claimants had not otherwise established the insured vehicle’s involvement.

The proposed eyewitness statements could be relevant to that question, but the policy produced by the insurer covered a period subsequent to the accident, leaving the insurer’s coverage on the relevant date unresolved.

Because both matters were material and had not been properly determined, the High Court considered a limited remand inadequate and set aside the award for fresh consideration, permitting further evidence.

The matter was remitted for fresh consideration, with liberty to the parties to lead additional evidence on the lorry’s involvement and whether it was insured on the accident date, so that liability could be determined accordingly.

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 23 November 2026 without awaiting fresh notice; the Tribunal was also directed to consider whether the claimants’ conduct warranted denying interest for the entire period.