P&H: Sets aside Rs 4 lakh award in vehicle damage claim, says ownership and loss were not proved

punjab-haryana
⚖️ Order Date: 24 Sep 2026
Headnotes

(i) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166 — Ownership of motor vehicle — Registration in purchaser's name — Transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle is not necessarily dependent upon mutation of the registration certificate — Sale of a motor vehicle, being movable property, is governed...

(ii) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166 — Claim for damage to vehicle — Locus standi of claimant — Proof of sale - Mere possession of vehicle, in itself, cannot conclusively establish title when factum of sale is disputed — Receipt which does not disclose sale...

(iii) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166 — Rash and negligent driving — Non-examination of material witness — Non-examination of the witness, whose presence was relevant to claimant's version regarding circumstances in which respondent obtained possession of vehicle, would not by itself defeat claim where rash...

(iv) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166 — Compensation for property damage — Proof and assessment of loss — An award of compensation for property damage must be founded on evidence of loss actually suffered or on reliable material permitting a reasonable assessment thereof — Mathematical...

(v) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166 — Compensation for property damage — Proof and assessment of loss — In absence of evidence from a loss assessor, proved repair bills establishing actual expenditure, or reliable evidence of cost of repairs or diminution in value, compensation cannot...

(vi) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166 - Damage to vehicle — Claimant failing to establish ownership and actual loss — Claimant failed to establish that he had acquired ownership of the vehicle from registered owner before accident, and amount of ₹4,00,000 awarded was not founded...


Facts of the Case

P&H: Sets aside Rs 4 lakh award in vehicle damage claim, says ownership and loss were not proved

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside an award of Rs 4 lakh passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri Muktsar Sahib, in a claim arising out of damage to a Mitsubishi Pajero vehicle. The Court said the claimant failed to prove that he had actually purchased the vehicle from the registered owner before the accident and also failed to prove the quantum of loss with reliable evidence.

The case arose from an accident dated 2 August 2013. The claimant said that his driver had taken the vehicle to village Badal with DSP Gagandeep Singh Bhullar and...

Login required to open full judgment PDF
Login to Access File