Bombay HC Orders Other Car’s Owner To Pay ₹10,000 After Junction Crash, Finding Main-Road Driver Had Right Of Way

On 8 November 2001, the original claimant was driving on Krushinagar Road when, at a junction, his car was struck by a car owned by Respondent No. 1.

The claimant’s police complaint and the police panchanama recorded damage to his car, assessed at Rs. 10,000; a surveyor separately assessed repair costs at Rs. 10,600.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed his claim for vehicle damage and mental agony, finding negligence unproved.

The claimant appealed.

The insurer’s policy had expired before the accident, and no policy was in force on the accident date.

1. Whether the claimant could establish Respondent No. 1’s driver’s negligence and liability for the collision without proof of prosecution or a charge-sheet.

2. Whether compensation for the vehicle damage could be assessed despite the surveyor’s report not being proved, and whether compensation was payable for mental agony.

3. Whether the insurer could be held liable when no insurance policy was in force on the date of the accident.

Rule 9 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, in Appendix B to the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, requires a driver entering an unregulated intersection to give way to traffic on a designated main road; otherwise, the driver must give way to traffic approaching from the right.

In a claim for vehicle damage, proof of prosecution or a charge-sheet is not a prerequisite to establishing negligence; the court may determine fault from the evidence.

The Court considered Rajwati @ Rajjo v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 8179 of 2022, on the beneficial character of motor accident legislation and the inapplicability of criminal-trial standards of proof, but distinguished a death claim from a claim for damage to property when considering the unproved surveyor’s report.

An insurer is not liable where no policy of insurance was in force on the accident date.

The Court found that the claimant was travelling on the main road and that Respondent No. 1’s car entered from the intersecting road. Applying Rule 9, it concluded that the claimant had priority and that the evidence—including the parties’ accounts and the damage to the claimant’s car—supported a finding that Respondent No. 1’s driver caused the collision. The absence of a charge-sheet did not defeat the civil claim.

Although the surveyor’s report was not proved, the Court relied on the police panchanama, which recorded damage assessed at Rs. 10,000, and considered that evidence sufficient to award compensation.

The insurer was not liable because its policy had expired before the accident.

It directed Respondent No. 1 to pay the appellant Rs. 10,000 on all heads, with interest at 6% from the date the claim petition was filed until deposit, within eight weeks.

The insurer was not held liable; the parties were ordered to bear their own costs.