MACT has jurisdiction over property damage claims; total loss assessment simplifies proof by making repair bills unnecessary.

On September 4, 2006, the appellant’s Indigo car was struck by a truck driving on the wrong side at high speed, resulting in the car being declared a "total loss".

The appellant’s own insurer (Royal Sundaram) paid him ₹1,39,500 against an insured value of ₹3,12,208.

The appellant filed M.A.C.P. No. 07 of 2019 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Kheda, seeking the balance amount of ₹1,72,708 from the tortfeasor's insurer.

The Tribunal dismissed the petition on two grounds: failure to produce repair bills and lack of jurisdiction to adjudicate property damage claims.

1. Whether a claim petition for compensation on account of damage to property is maintainable before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. Whether the production of repair bills is mandatory in a case of "total loss" where the liability summary indicates 100% damage.

Section 166(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which expressly permits an application for compensation by the "owner of the property" involved in an accident.

Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. Hargovindas R. Modi & Ors. (2007) 1 GLR 369, which established that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to award compensation for three eventualities: death, bodily injury, and damage to property, including loss of business income derived from such property.

Regarding jurisdiction, the Court highlighted that Section 166 of the Act explicitly includes property owners as competent claimants, and prior jurisprudence has broadly interpreted "damage to property" to ensure speedy remedies for accident victims.

Regarding the evidence, the Court observed that since the insurer's "Liability Summary" (Exh. 29) officially classified the vehicle as a "total loss" (100% damage), the Tribunal's insistence on repair bills was illogical, as no repairs were possible or undertaken.

Consequently, the appellant was entitled to the differential amount between the total insured value and the sum already received from his own insurer.

On Issue 2, it held that repair bills are unnecessary in total loss cases.

The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal’s judgment was modified to award the appellant ₹1,72,708 with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of the petition until realization. The Respondent No. 3 (truck insurer) was directed to deposit the amount within six weeks.