Jat Technical Services Vs Hari Singh and Ors.

The pre s ent appeal has been filed by the claimant—M/s Jat Techni c al Services, against the award dated 10.04.20 0 3 passed by the learned Mo t or Accidents Clai m s Tribunal, Karnal, whereby it s claim petition for compensati o n on account of damage to its Maruti car was dis m issed.

¶14

Th e undisputed facts are that o n 30.10.1999, a Tata Sumo N o. CH01Y-1232, d r iven rashly and negligently, c a used a motor vehicular accide n t, resulting in inj u ries to several occupants of th e Maruti car and total damage to the said vehicl e . Various claim petitions under S ection 166 of the Motor Vehic l es Act, 1988 wer e filed by the injured and by the owner of the Maruti car, the present appellant.

¶15

Th e appellant pleaded that the car was brand new, purchased fo r a sum of ₹2,86, 0 00/-, and was completely d a maged in the accident. It w as contended tha t although the car was insured with Oriental Insurance Company

¶16

JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.10 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

FAO No. 3173 of 2003

¶19

Ltd., the insurer had paid only ₹1,72,000/under the own-damage poli c y. Therefore, the respondent—National Insurance Company Ltd., insurer of the offending Tata S umo, was liable to pay the bal a nce amount.

¶20

Le a rned counsel for the responde n t-insurer controverted the claim, submitting that the appellant had not proved e ither the extent of damage or the residual (salva g e) value of the car. It was further urged that the appellant had already receiv e d full and final compensation from its own insurer and, in the absence of credible proof of further loss, no additional claim could be maintained.

¶21

Th e learned Tribunal, upon appr a isal of the evidence, found t h at except for the bald statement of PW7 Jogind e r Singh, Director of the appell a nt firm, no docu m entary or expert evidence had been led to establish total loss or the cost of re p airs. The appellant had produ c ed only a job estimate (Mark C) purportedly iss u ed by Karnal Motor Garage, which neither proved actual repairs nor bore ackno w ledgment of payment.

¶22

Th e Tribunal also noted that during cross-examination, P W admitted to having received ₹1,72,000/- a s full and final settlement fr o Oriental Insura n ce Company towards the sam e damage. No evidence was led to show that thi s amount was inadequate o r that additional loss had be sustained. Con s equently, the Tribunal conclud e d that there was no cogent pr o of of actual dam a ge exceeding the insured a m ount, and therefore, the claim against the res p ondent-insurer could not be sustained.

¶23

As s ailing the above finding, Le a rned counsel for the appell a reiterated that the car was completely damag e d and the compensation already received did n ot cover the full loss. However, no additional document a evidence or a s sessment report has been s h own to demonstrate either the market value o f the car at the time of accident or the residual value after the damage.

¶24

JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.10 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

FAO No. 3173 of 2003

¶27

Having heard both sides and peru s ed the record, this Court finds no reason to differ with the Tribunal’s well-reas o ned conclusion. It is settled l a w that the burden of proving the quantum of l o ss lies upon the claimant. M e re assertion of to t al damage, without proof of the extent of repairs or the salvage value, cannot j u stify a further award of compe n sation.

¶28

In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 and B.V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (1996) 4 SCC 647 , the Hon’ b le Supreme Court emphasized that compensation must be based on credible and substantiated evidence, and not on speculativ e claims.

¶29

Th e production of repair bills, exp e rt assessment, or surveyor rep o rt is essential to prove the actual quantum of los s in property-damage claims.

¶30

In the present case, the appellant failed to produce any sur v ey report, payme n t receipt, or evidence from the w orkshop to substantiate that the loss exceeded the amount already received un d er its own insurance policy. O n ce the claimant h a s accepted full and final settle m ent from its own insurer, and no independent e v idence of further loss is availa b le, a second claim against the insurer of the off e nding vehicle would amount t o unjust enrichment.

¶31

In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal has correctly held that there was no p roof of damage beyond what had already been c o mpensated by the insurer of t h e car. The findings suffer from no legal infirmit y or perversity warranting interference under appell a jurisdiction. Ac c ordingly, the appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

¶32

(DEEPAK GUPTA) 10.11.2025 JUDGE Jiten Whether speaking/reasoned : Y e s/No Whether reportable : Y e s/No

¶33

JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.10 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

Page 3 of 3

Jat Technical Services v. Hari Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

Jat Technical Services v. Hari Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sajeb Ali Vs Purkan and Others

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Rohtas Singh and Others

Satish Kumar Vs Asha Rani and Others

(O&M) Chandgi Ram Vs Panchayat Naian Palwal

Nathu Singh and Others Vs Kude Ram and Another

Raj Rani Vs Ram Sarup