Overlooked repair bills must be included when assessing vehicle damage compensation.

On 20 July 2018, a truck bearing Registration No. GJ-03-BT-9714, owned by the appellant and insured with respondent No. 3, collided from behind with a trailer bearing Registration No. GJ-03-BT-5394 after the trailer allegedly applied its brakes suddenly while travelling on the Barvala–Lutavadar Village road. The truck overturned and sustained substantial damage.

The appellant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morbi, seeking ₹10,00,000 as compensation for the vehicle damage.

The Tribunal partly allowed the claim and awarded ₹1,17,600 with interest at 7% per annum and proportionate costs.

The appellant had produced two repair bills issued by the authorised Tata Motors workshop: ₹7,86,721 at Exh. 32 and ₹1,02,610 at Exh. 33.

The Tribunal, however, considered only the ₹1,02,610 bill, allegedly due to an error in identifying the exhibits.

Whether the appellant proved that the truck was damaged in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicles involved?

Whether the appellant was entitled to compensation for the repair costs reflected in both bills produced on record, including the bill for ₹7,86,721 at Exh. 32?

Whether the Tribunal erred by considering only the repair bill at Exh. 33 while determining compensation?

The Court applied the principle that compensation for damage to a motor vehicle must be determined on the basis of relevant and proved evidence, including genuine repair bills produced before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal is required to consider the entire documentary evidence on record and cannot disregard a material document due to an error in identifying or appreciating the exhibit.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was expressly cited in the judgment; the decision proceeded on the evidentiary and compensatory principles governing adjudication of claims for proven vehicle-repair expenses.

The Court found that the appellant’s affidavit established that the damaged truck had been taken to the registered Tata Motors workshop, Guru Gobind Motors, Morbi, where the repairs were carried out.

Both repair bills—₹7,86,721 at Exh. 32 and ₹1,02,610 at Exh. 33—were part of the record.

The Tribunal had mistakenly treated the ₹1,02,610 bill as Exh. 32 and, consequently, failed to consider the ₹7,86,721 bill at Exh. 32.

Since both bills were produced and the larger bill had been wholly overlooked, the Court held that the appellant was entitled to the entire amount of ₹7,86,721 as additional compensation, while noting that no other aspect of the award had been challenged.

The Tribunal’s award was modified by granting the appellant additional compensation of ₹7,86,721, with interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization, over and above the amount already awarded.

The remaining terms of the Tribunal’s judgment and award were left undisturbed.

Upon deposit, the Tribunal was directed to disburse the entire awarded amount with interest after verification and deduction of any deficit court fee, if applicable.

Any amount deposited before the High Court was directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal, and the records were ordered to be returned.