A third-party vehicle-damage claim cannot be rejected solely for failure to produce the claimant’s own insurance policy.

The appellant claimed that his Omni car was damaged when a lorry owned by respondent No. 1 struck it on NH-66 near Madanageri Cross, Ankola, on 8 December 2023.

He alleged that the accident resulted from the lorry driver’s rash and negligent driving and sought compensation for damage to the car.

The MACT dismissed the claim, noting that the appellant had not produced the Omni car’s insurance policy and observing that a valid policy was required for him to claim damages from the lorry’s insurer.

The appellant appealed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

1. Whether the appellant was entitled to compensation for damage to his Omni car

2. What order should follow

The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The judgment does not identify or apply any further statutory provision or precedent establishing a substantive rule on vehicle-damage compensation.

It holds that a claim should not be dismissed without addressing the damage caused to the claimant’s vehicle and the compensation, if any, payable.

The High Court noted that the accident was undisputed and that the investigating officer had filed a charge sheet against the lorry driver.

It found that the Tribunal had focused on the absence of the Omni car’s insurance policy but had not considered the damage to the car or assessed the claim on its merits.

The Tribunal’s dismissal was therefore improper, and the matter required fresh consideration, including quantification of any compensation due.

It set aside the MACT’s judgment and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the Tribunal to quantify the compensation, if any, to which the appellant was entitled, and to dispose of the matter expeditiously.