Dileep Singh Barla vs Ghatge Vidhya Bharat And Anr.

CNR No : HCBM010241592006

2026:BHC-AS:42758
3-FA-1766-06.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.1766 OF 2006
Dileep Singh Barla (Deceased) ]
Son of Sujanmal Bherulal Barla, ]
Aged: 57 years, Occ: Management Consultant, ]
Residing at 15, Mukti 9, Samarth Nagar, ]
Nasik-422 005 ]
through his Legal Heirs- ]
1a) Son-Vibhor Dileep Barla, ]
aged 54 years ]
1b) Wife-Smt. Tara Dileep Barla, ]
aged 74 years and ]
1c) Son- Surbhit Dileep Barla, ]
aged 50 years and ]
All the above three legal heirs being the ]
resident of Flat No.15, Mukti Co-operative ]
Housing Society, 9 Samarth Nagar, ]
Nashik-422 005. ] ...Appellants
Vs.
1. Ghatge Vidhya Bharat ]
Car owner, ]
R/o. Building No.3, Flat No.9, ]
Radha Apt., Narsimha Nagar, ]
Gangapur Road, Nashik-422 005 ]
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ]
Sarda Sankul, M. G. Road, ]
Nashik-422 001 ] ...Respondents
rsk
1/11
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:34:31

3-FA-1766-06.doc
*
Mr. Vibhor D. Barla Appellant in person.
Mr. Ketan Joshi a/w. Ms. Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Kanak Upadhyay
*
CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.
th
DATE : 14 OCTOBER 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. I have heard the appellant in person. He is a legal representative
of the deceased/Appellant. I have also heard Mr. Joshi, learned
advocate for Respondent No.2- Insurance Company. Notice is served
on Respondent No.1, who is the owner of another motorcar. It is
th
served by way of publication, as per the order dated 12 August 2024
in Interim Application (St) No.19728 of 2024. No one has appeared.
th
2. The Tribunal as per the judgment dated 24 April 2006 has
dismissed the claim petition filed by one Dileep Barla. It is for damages
to the extent of Rs.15,140/- for damage of the car and for Rs.5000/- for
mental, pain and agony.
3. The relevant facts for consideration of the appeal are as follows:
rsk
2/11
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:34:31

3-FA-1766-06.doc
th
a. On 8 November 2001, at about 10 am, the original
applicant was driving his motor car registration
No.MAE-8100, on the main road, that is called as
Krushinagar Road.
b. When he reaches at the Krushinagar junction point, at that
junction, there are two roads which are interjecting. One is
the main road, and another is parallel road going towards
White Town School.
c. When his car crossed half of the junction, the car bearing
registration number MH-15R-4432 owned by Respondent
No.1 came in a high speed and it was about to go towards
White Town School Approach Road.
d. The car driver gave a dash to the car, driven by the original
claimant, and dashed front right hand side of the car. The
driver of that offending car has not even cared to allow the
car driven by the original claimant to pass away.
e. That is how the glasses of the lamp was scattered, and there
is a damage to the front side of the car driven by the
original claimant.
rsk
3/11
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:34:31

3-FA-1766-06.doc
f. The claimant complained to Gangapur Police Station and
police have recorded his statement which is on page
number 110. Even the original claimant has written to the
th
Gangapur Police Station, as per his letter dated 8
November 2001, page 107. The police have registered it in
Accident Register. There is no FIR registered.
th
g. The claimant has filed a copy of panchanama dated 8
November 2001 on page 111. There is reference that
intimation is recorded in Motor Accident Register No.57
of 2001.
h. The Panchanama mentions that there is a damage of the
car belonging to the original claimant to the extent of
Rs.10,000/-. The damage, if any, to the car owned by
Respondent No.1 could not be ascertained because the car
was not found at the spot.
4. On this background, the original claimant has obtained the
estimate, has appointed R. K. Narode, a Surveyor, and he has given a
rd
report dated 23 November 2001. On page 77, he has assessed the cost
of the repair of the car belonging to the original claimant to the extent
rsk
4/11
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:34:31

3-FA-1766-06.doc
of Rs,10,600/-.
5. On this background, the claim petition was filed before the
Tribunal at Nashik. It was filed against Respondent No. 1 who is the
owner of the offending car and against the insurance company. It has
come in evidence that on the date of accident, there was no existing
policy for said vehicle. Earlier, there was a policy issued by Respondent
th th
No. 2. The period of that policy was 8 September, 1999 till 7
th
September, 2000, whereas the date of accident is 8 November, 2001.
It is recorded in the impugned Judgment in paragraph 15. Though the
appellant has tried to impress upon me that still Court can allow the
claim against Respondent No. 2. It is on the basis of a judgment
referred in paragraph 15. Admittedly, when there is no insurance policy
existing, it cannot be said that there was a contract of insurance in
force. So, the decision to dismiss the petition against the Insurance
Company cannot be interfered with.
6. During evidence, the original claimant has examined himself and
relied upon certain documents. It is very well true that none of the
documents were exhibited and they were not proved except the police
papers. Tribunal has dismissed the petition on following grounds:
rsk
5/11
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:34:31

3-FA-1766-06.doc
i. There was no charge-sheet filed by the police. Respondent
No. 1 was also recalled. However, nothing has come in her
evidence that she was charge-sheeted, para 12.
ii. Respondent No. 1-Vidhya has given evidence and she has
pleaded that on the date of accident, she was travelling in
the car which is driven by her husband. When they reached
the Krushinagar square, they heard a noise. They learnt
that one car dashed to rare side door of their car. From
there, they went to police station.
iii. Police visited the spot and advised them to settle the matter
as there was minor damage. Admittedly, she has not
produced any photographs of the damaged car.
7. It is true, the complaint which is lodged by the original claimant
is on record and there is nothing on record to suggest that Respondent
No.1 has lodged a complaint. The learned Judge has raised a doubt that
why the driver of car owned by Respondent No. 1 was not prosecuted.
There can be prosecution if criminal negligence is involved. It is true
that in a damage claim, the claimant has proved damage to his car
occurred due to a vehicular accident. It is not always necessary that the
rsk
6/11
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:34:31

3-FA-1766-06.doc
driver of offending vehicle should be prosecuted. The learned judge
has overlooked this aspect.
8. It is true that front side portion of the car belonging to the
original claimant from driver side was damaged. The Tribunal
observed in Paragraph No.17 that valuer’s report is not proved.
However, the Tribunal gave a finding as order:
“Though petitioner has not proved the report, damages
caused to car bearing Registration No.MAE-8100 is assessed
at Rs.10,600/-.”
9. On this background, the Tribunal opined that when the driver of
the car owned by Respondent No. 1 was not negligent and hence the
Petitioner is not entitled for compensation. This finding require
interference.
10. As such for succeeding in the claim petition for damages it is not
necessary that the driver of the offending car should be prosecuted. On
the basis of evidence, it can very well be said that original claimant has
informed the police about the accident and that report is on record. It
can very well be said that there is a damage to his car. If the evidence of
the original claimant and that of Respondent No. 1 are perused
rsk
7/11
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:34:31

3-FA-1766-06.doc
together, we can find that it was the fault of the driver of Respondent
No.1’s car in giving dash to the car of original claimant. He relied upon
the Rule No. 9, “ giving way to traffic at road junction ” from (Rules of
the Road Regulations 1989) Appendix B to Central Motor Vehicles
Rules 1989. It reads thus:
“9. Giving way to traffic at road junction
The driver of a motor vehicle shall, on entering road
intersection at which traffic is not being regulated, if the
road entered is a main road designated as such, give way
to the vehicles proceeding along that the road, and in any
other case give way to all traffic approaching the
intersection on his right hand.”
11. When this Rule is perused we can find that when two roads are
there and out of them one is main Road and another road is
interjecting, the driver of the main road has to be given a preference.
In this case the original claimant was driving on the main road. From
this evidence it is clear that there is a damage to the front side on
driver’s side of the car owned by the original claimant. As against this,
admittedly there is no evidence on record except the evidence of
rsk
8/11
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:34:31

3-FA-1766-06.doc
Respondent No.1 about which portion of her car is damaged. Even her
evidence does not specify about damage to her car.
12. Now the question is about the quantum of the compensation.
Admittedly valuer’s report is not proved. According to the Supreme
Court in the case of Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors. vs. United India Insurance
1
Company Ltd. & Ors. has opined that Motor Vehicle Act is a
beneficial piece of legislation. In paragraph 18, it is observed that
claimants are not required to prove the case as it is required to be done
in a criminal trial. In paragraph 19 it is observed that strict rules of
evidence as applicable in criminal trial are not applicable under motor
accident compensation cases. The submission is the Tribunal ought to
have considered the valuer’s report even though the valuer is not
examined. I am not agreeable to this submission. It is for the reason
when there is death claim the deceased is not available before the Court
and the Petition is prosecuted by his legal representatives. It stands on a
footing different from a damage claim.
13. At the same time it is material to note that in the panchanama at
page 111 the police have assessed the damage to the car belonging to
1 Civil Appeal No.8179 of 2022
rsk
9/11
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:34:31

3-FA-1766-06.doc
the original claimant to the extent of Rs.10,000/-. This is a public
document, Court can consider it, the Tribunal has overlooked this
piece of evidence.
14. Additionally, Rs.5000 is being claimed on account of mental
agony, I am inclined to consider the claim of the appellant to the extent
of Rs.10,000/- on both heads. The findings given by the Tribunal
needs to be set aside. Claim petition needs to be allowed.
15. In view of that, following order is passed :-
ORDER
a. The Appeal is allowed.
th
b. The Award dated 24 April 2006 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal–Nashik is set aside:
c. Respondent No.1 is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- on all
heads to the Appellant within 8 weeks from today.
d. Respondent No.1 is directed to pay interest along with 6%
on that amount from the date of filing of petition till the
amount is deposited.
e. In view of the above, parties to bear their own costs. Cost if
any paid by the appellant as per the impugned judgment
rsk
10/11
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:34:31

3-FA-1766-06.doc
be returned to him.
f. Appellant is directed to serve copy of this order on
Respondent No.1.
16. In the light of the above observations, the Appeal is disposed of.
17. Pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
[S. M. MODAK, J.]
rsk
11/11
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:34:31
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)