The Supreme Court has raised serious concerns over the quality of orders being passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs), warning that simply reproducing the pleadings and evidence on record cannot substitute for proper judicial reasoning.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed that people approach MACTs after suffering accidents or losing family members—circumstances that are already deeply distressing. In such cases, the Court said, the decision that follows must clearly explain how the evidence and facts support the final conclusion.
The Court made the observations while dismissing an appeal filed by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and upholding the insurer’s liability to pay compensation arising from a bus accident in Nepal.
Although the dispute primarily involved the insurer’s liability under a motor insurance policy for an accident occurring outside India, the judgment also highlighted broader concerns over the manner in which motor accident claims are adjudicated.
The Court noted that it had come across several tribunal orders that meticulously set out the parties’ arguments and evidence but failed to analyse their relevance or explain their impact on the outcome.
“In this case for example, the Tribunal elaborately recorded the submissions and evidence. However, its correlation with the facts of the case and effect of this correlation on the end result was lacking,” the Court observed.
The bench stressed that MACT decisions must contain clear and cogent reasoning. A reasoned order, it said, not only demonstrates how the tribunal reached its conclusion but also enables an aggrieved party to understand and effectively challenge the decision, or helps bring the dispute to a close.
The Court also expressed concern over the “tone, tenor and extent” of certain tribunal orders that had come before it.
It said that stronger reasoning and closer adherence to the law laid down by the Supreme Court could help reduce the gap between the filing and disposal of compensation claims, as well as the number of appeals arising from such cases.
The message from the Court was clear: recording evidence is only part of the judicial task. The crucial step is explaining, in a legally coherent manner, how that material leads to the result.
