Supreme Court Calls for Clear Reasoning in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Judgments

On July 20, 2026, the Supreme Court of India expressed concern over the quality of judgments delivered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs), calling for clear and reasoned findings in cases involving accident victims. A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed that many tribunal orders merely reproduce pleadings and evidence without adequately explaining how the facts lead to the ultimate conclusion on liability and compensation. The Court stressed that claimants who approach MACTs after suffering accidents or losing loved ones are entitled to decisions supported by cogent reasoning, not mechanical reproduction of the record.

The Problem with MACT Judgments Today

MACTs are constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to adjudicate claims for compensation arising from motor accidents. Section 166 of the Act allows victims or their legal representatives to file applications for compensation, while Section 168 mandates the tribunal to make an award determining the amount of compensation that appears to be just. Section 169 grants these tribunals powers akin to those of civil courts, including the power to summon witnesses, take evidence on oath, and order production of documents.

Despite these statutory powers, the Supreme Court has repeatedly noted that MACT judgments often fail to meet the standards expected of judicial orders. In many cases, tribunals simply reproduce the pleadings of both sides, summarise the evidence, and arrive at a conclusion without explaining the reasoning that connects evidence to outcome. This mechanical approach does a disservice to accident victims and their families who depend on these tribunals as their primary avenue for justice. Those who have been involved in road accidents can benefit from understanding the procedure for filing motor insurance claims as a preliminary step before approaching the tribunal.

What the Supreme Court Observed

Justice Sanjay Karol, delivering the observations on behalf of the bench, highlighted that tribunal orders must contain clear findings on each disputed issue, particularly on negligence, contributory negligence, the quantum of compensation, and the multiplier to be applied. The Court emphasised that the inquiry under Sections 168 and 169 is different from a criminal trial, and tribunals must decide claims on the preponderance of probabilities rather than the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The bench further noted that inadequate reasoning in MACT orders often leads to unnecessary appeals and delays, adding to the already significant burden on the higher judiciary. When either party appeals a poorly reasoned order, the appellate court is forced to re-examine the evidence from scratch rather than reviewing the tribunal's reasoning. This not only wastes judicial resources but also prolongs the agony of accident victims and their families.

Standards for Just Compensation

The concept of just compensation under Section 168 requires the tribunal to consider all relevant factors, including the victim's age, income, future prospects, and the impact of the injury on their earning capacity. For fatality cases, the multiplier method prescribed by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) provides a structured framework for computing loss of dependency. However, the mechanical application of formulas without reasoned analysis of the underlying facts has been a persistent problem.

The Court has also clarified in recent years that income assessment should not rely solely on Income Tax Returns. For salaried individuals, the last ITR ordinarily suffices, while for self-employed persons and business owners, an average of up to three years of returns should serve as the reference point. The key message is that tribunals must exercise their powers of inquiry with care and apply their mind independently to the evidence before them. Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as Lok Adalats, often provide a faster resolution for motor accident claims.

The Broader Impact on Access to Justice

The observations carry significance beyond individual motor accident cases. They speak to the quality of justice delivered by tribunals across India, many of which handle large volumes of cases with limited resources. When tribunals fail to provide reasoned orders, they undermine public confidence in the justice system and force parties to incur additional costs in pursuing appeals. For accident victims, who are often from economically weaker sections of society, a poorly reasoned adverse order can effectively deny them access to justice.

The Supreme Court's call for improvement should be seen in the context of a broader push toward strengthening the quality of adjudication in India's quasi-judicial bodies. The Mediation Act 2023 has introduced new mechanisms for dispute resolution outside the courtroom, and these are particularly relevant for cases where parties seek to avoid prolonged litigation. Similarly, understanding the procedure for filing civil suits in district courts can help claimants pursue additional remedies when tribunal proceedings prove inadequate.

Related Reading

When High Courts can and cannot reweigh evidence under certiorari jurisdiction

Supreme Court on earnest money refund clauses and specific performance

How to file a suit for specific performance of contract in India

Key Takeaways

Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed that MACT orders frequently reproduce pleadings and evidence without clear reasoning connecting facts to conclusions.

Claimants who suffer accidents or lose loved ones are entitled to decisions supported by clear and cogent reasoning from the tribunal.

The inquiry under Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is different from a criminal trial; tribunals must decide claims on the preponderance of probabilities.

Inadequate reasoning in MACT orders leads to unnecessary appeals, burdening higher courts and prolonging the agony of accident victims.

The observations reflect the Supreme Court's broader concern about the quality of adjudication in India's quasi-judicial bodies and the need for reasoned justice.