JUDGMENT 1. - With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the appeal is being disposed off at admission stage. 2. Heard.This appeal has been preferred by the injured claimant appellant Smt. Meera Yadav, against the award and judgment dated 9th August 2007, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track), Kotputli district Jaipur, in Claim Petition No. 1255/2005 (76/04), which was dismissed on the basis of finding on Issue Nos. 1 and 2 wherein the Court gave a finding that claimants could not prove that the offending vehicle scooter was involved the accident. 3. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the injured is a lady; who was a pedestrian and was dashed alongwith Budhram, while she was sitting by the side of the road. It was further submitted that on account of the injury caused, her right hand was imputed. The learned counsel submitted that a notice was given under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act to the owner and driver of the scooter and he admitted that he was driving offending vehicle scooter at the time of accident. The learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective and it was also submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged after nine days which is fatal. The learned counsel further submitted that after due investigation, police submitted challan against the offending vehicle scooter and its driver in the Court and hence the matter deserves to be remanded for fresh trial for all the issues after according opportunity to lead evidence, if any. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company submitted that the treatment record of the injured claimant after the accident was not submitted during the enquiry and the Tribunal had taken a justified view, in view of the evidence adduced during the enquiry and the same calls for no interference. 5. In view of the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel and on perusal of the record of the case, it is revealed that the claimant injured and Budhram were injured in the accident and Budhram was examined for his injuries on the following day while the report of the case could not be lodged as the injured appellant was seriously injured and she had to undergo a treatment and her hand was ultimately imputed on account of the injury sustained. After investigation the police submitted challenge against the driver of the offending vehicle and the police had also collected the reply of the owner-cum-driver of the scooter under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein he admitted that he was driving the scooter at the time of accident. In view of the evidence adduced it is revealed that the Tribunal has based its finding on the fact that no sufficient evidence was led in support of the involvement of the scooter as well as the injury sustained by her in the accident. However, in a motor accident claim case, the evidence is to be appreciated on the basis of broad probabilities and the case is not required to be proved beyond doubt as in criminal cases. Therefore, the matter requires to be remanded for fresh decision in right perspective. 6. Accordingly, the judgment and Award passed by the learned Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh decision on all the issues after giving opportunity of hearing and to lead evidence if any, to both sides. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 22nd April, 2009. Record be sent back forthwith.The appeal stands disposed off.Appeal disposed off. *******