JUDGMENT : R.K. Deshpande, J. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Gondia has dismissed the Claim Petition No. 262 of 2003 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on 02.08.2004 for the damage caused to the vehicle i.e. Maruti Car No. MP23/L7758 owned by the appellant. The claim was for total amount of Rs. 31,221/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The Tribunal has rejected it on the sole ground that the claimant has failed to produce on record the spot panchnama which would have indicated the negligence, whether it was of the husband of the appellant who was driving the Maruti Car or was of the driver of the Tractor bearing No. MP50M0271. 2. The points for determination are as under; (i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in rejecting the claim for compensation made by the appellant. (ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to damages?. If yes, to what extent? 3. Assailing the findings recorded by the Tribunal to reject the claim, Ms. Rohini Jaiswal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has invited my attention to Rules 254 and 255 of the Motor Vehicle Rules to urge that filing of spot panchnama is not the requirement to substantiate the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Relying upon two decisions of this Court i.e. (I) in case of Narayan Kothiramji Bhawane v. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Nagpur reported in 2004 (3) MhLJ 1072 and (II) in case of Rangnath Trimbak Sonawane v. Baban Ganpat Mhaske and others reported in 2009 (4) MhLJ 88 , she has urged that this Court has taken a view that the Rules are handmade of justice and have to be considered and interpreted for advancing the cause of justice, rather to defeat the same. The Court has held that Rules 254(5) and 255(1) are directory in nature and have to be held as an aid to the substantive provision and cannot be used to destroy or deteriorate the claim under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. 4. The question involved as to whether the Tribunal was right in rejecting the claim on the finding that the spot panchnama was not produced, is taken care of by the aforesaid two decisions cited by Ms. Rohini Jaiswal appearing for the appellant. 4. The question involved as to whether the Tribunal was right in rejecting the claim on the finding that the spot panchnama was not produced, is taken care of by the aforesaid two decisions cited by Ms. Rohini Jaiswal appearing for the appellant. The decisions take a clear view that the Rules 254 and 255 are directory in nature and they are handmade of justice and cannot be construed to defeat the justice or to destroy the claim, but have to be construed for advancing the cause of justice. If the claimant brings on record the other admissible evidence to substantiate his claim, that has to be considered in its proper perspective and failure to file spot panchnama cannot destroy the claim made under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. The Tribunal has, therefore, committed an error in holding that in the absence of spot panchnama, the negligence cannot be proved. 5. Ms. Rohini Jaiswal, the learned counsel has invited my attention to the oral evidence of Dr. Nikhilesh Mukundrao Trivedi, the husband of the claimant, who was at the relevant time driving the Maruti Car. This witness has stated in para 3 of his evidence that on 19.06.2001 he was returning to Balaghat from Gondia by the said Car MP23/L7758 and was himself driving the said Car and at that time the respondent No.2 Sukhdeo Baburao Neware, who was rashly and negligently driving the Tractor bearing No. MH35/B9050 along with Trolly No. MH35/5788, coming from the opposite direction, dashed the Maruti Car on the front right portion. His evidence is not shaken in cross examination. The learned counsel has further invited my attention to para 3 of the cross examination of the driver of the Tractor, who has admitted that the car driver was driving the car by the left side of the road. She has also invited my attention to the First Information Report at Exh. 31, wherein the witness examined by the claimant has described the accident, clearly indicating that it was the driver of the Tractor who was negligent in driving the Tractor, which resulted in the accident. 6. The Tribunal has not considered the other evidence available on record brought by the claimant to establish the negligence on the part of the driver of the Tractor. 6. The Tribunal has not considered the other evidence available on record brought by the claimant to establish the negligence on the part of the driver of the Tractor. The admission given by the driver of the Tractor is vital and changes the complexion clearly indicating that the husband of the claimant was driving the vehicle from the left side and it cannot be said that he was driving from the wrong side. The Tractor coming from the opposite direction has cross-travelled and dashed the Maruti Car on the right side causing damage to the head light, bumper, air conditioner compressor and wind shield. It was not for the claimant to prepare the spot panchnama and merely because the spot panchnama is not prepared and filed by the police, that cannot prevent the claimant from establishing the claim by bringing on record the other evidence. The evidence on record has clearly established that the driver of the Tractor was rash and negligent in driving the Tractor which has resulted in the accident in question. The Tribunal has committed an error in rejecting the claim for compensation by holding that the negligence has not been proved. The point No.(i) is answered accordingly. 7. On the question of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has accepted the proof of bills and receipts to the extent of Rs.31,221/. The Tribunal has ignored two bills at Exh. 40 and 41 on the ground that Exh.40 is the payment made to the driver Firoz Khan for taking the damaged vehicle to Nagpur and Exh. 41 in respect of charges for hiring of another vehicle for the period from 20.06.2001 to 03.07.2001. The total of these two bills comes to Rs.11,400/-. The contention is that the Tribunal has committed an error in ignoring these two bills on the ground that they do not pertain to the damage to the vehicle. Ms. Rohini Jaiswal for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and another reported in (2009) 13 SCC 422 . 8. Para 41 of the said decision being relevant, is reproduced below. 41. Indisputably, grant of compensation involving an accident is within the realm of law of tors. It is based on the principle of restitutio in integrum. 8. Para 41 of the said decision being relevant, is reproduced below. 41. Indisputably, grant of compensation involving an accident is within the realm of law of tors. It is based on the principle of restitutio in integrum. The said principle provides that a person entitled to damages should, as nearly as possible, get that sum of money which would put him in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong. The Apex Court has laid down the principle that the person entitled to damages should, as nearly as possible, get that sum of money which would put him in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong. It is rightly urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant would not have incurred the said expenditure, but for the accident which had occurred and such claim would, therefore, be covered by incidental damage which has occurred. The Tribunal has, therefore, committed an error in ignoring those two bills. Taking into consideration the amount of these two bills, the claimant is held entitled to compensation of Rs.42,621/-. Point No. (ii) is answered accordingly. 9. It is an undisputed position on record that the offending vehicle which is the Tractor in question was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company, which is the respondent no.3 in the present appeal. The insurance policy is placed on record at Exh. 32. It was valid for the period from 02.06.2001 to 01.06.2002. The accident occurred on 19.06.2001. There was no other defence raised by the Insurance Company, except that the driver of the Tractor was not rash and negligent in driving the tractor. It is not the case that the damage to the vehicle of the third party is not covered by the policy of insurance at Exh. 32. Once, it is established that the driver of the Tractor was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle, the Insurance Company cannot be absolved from its liability to pay the compensation. 10. In the result, the first appeal is allowed. The appellant is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 42,621/- and the respondent Nos. 32. Once, it is established that the driver of the Tractor was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle, the Insurance Company cannot be absolved from its liability to pay the compensation. 10. In the result, the first appeal is allowed. The appellant is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 42,621/- and the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 namely the driver, owner and Insurance Company are held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.