Supreme Court of India
SRIKRISHNA KANTA SINGHversusTHE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 394
- Decided
- 25 March 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- SUDHANSHU DHULIA
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the scooter driver was not contributorily negligent; the negligence lay solely with the trailer driver, and the appellant is entitled to the full compensation of ₹16,00,000 from the insurer.
Summary
A Block Development Officer was riding pillion on a scooter when it collided with the tail‑end of a long trailer, resulting in the amputation of both his legs. The claimant sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but the Tribunal and the Calcutta High Court held that the scooter driver, who possessed only a learner's licence, was contributorily negligent and reduced the insurer's liability. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the evidence, including the police charge‑sheet that identified the trailer driver’s rash and negligent driving as the sole cause of the accident. The Court held that a learner's licence or the fact of a tail‑end collision does not, by itself, establish contributory negligence and that the finding of negligence against the scooter driver was unsupported. Consequently, the Tribunal’s and High Court’s findings of contributory negligence were set aside, and the appellant was awarded the full claimed amount of ₹16,00,000 with interest. The appeal was allowed, directing the insurer of the offending trailer to pay the compensation.
Issues considered
- Whether the scooter driver can be held contributorily negligent solely because he held a learner's licence and the collision occurred at the tail‑end of a trailer.
- Whether the Tribunal and the High Court erred in attributing contributory negligence to the scooter driver.
- What standard of proof applies in motor accident claims under the Motor Vehicles Act.
- Whether the compensation awarded should be enhanced to the full amount claimed by the appellant.
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 140, s. 166
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether on facts, the Tribunal and the High Court erred in finding contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the scooter; whether contributory negligence could have been concluded on the ground of the scooter driver having only a Act, 1988 – Motor accident claim – Contributory negligence – When not – Appellant, riding pillion on a scooter met with an accident with a trailer leading to amputation of his legs – Tribunal and the High Court found contributory negligence on the part of the scooter
Subjects
Motor accident claimContributory negligenceLearners licensePillion riderBlock Development OfficerAmputation of legsScooterTrailerRash drivingTail‑end collisionPreponderance of probabilityJust compensationInsurer liabilityTortious liability
Judgment
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1113 : 2025 INSC 394
Srikrishna Kanta Singh
v.
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 4380 of 2025)
25 March 2025
[Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether on facts, the Tribunal and the High Court erred in finding
contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the scooter;
whether contributory negligence could have been concluded on
the ground of the scooter driver having only a learner’s license.
Headnotes†
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Motor accident claim – Contributory
negligence – When not – Appellant, riding pillion on a scooter
met with an accident with a trailer leading to amputation of
his legs – Tribunal and the High Court found contributory
negligence on the part of the scooter owner-driver too holding
that the negligence on the part of the trailer driver was only
partial – Interference with:
Held: Tribunal and the High Court erred in finding contributory
negligence of the scooter driver – The trailer was being driven
rashly and negligently – Thus, the mere fact that the driver of the
scooter had only a learners licence would not necessarily lead to a
conclusion of contributory negligence on his part – There can be no
negligence found on the scooter driver also by the mere fact that
the accident occurred on a collision at the tail-end of a long trailer,
when the scooter driver had better visibility; which is a question
of fact liable to be proved and not merely presumed –The scooter
driver absolved of the contributory negligence – On the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case, compensation of ₹16,00,000/-
awarded – Appellant entitled to compensation from the insurer of
the offending vehicle-trailer – Just compensation. [Paras 13, 14, 16]
Motor accident claims – Just compensation – Grant of:
Held: The claim petition does not bind the Court in granting just
compensation. [Para 16]
* Author
1114 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Motor accident claims – Standard of proof – Preponderance
of probabilities:
Held: In a motor accident claim, there is no adversarial litigation
and it is the preponderance of probabilities which reign supreme
in adjudication of the tortious liability flowing from it. [Para 11]
Case Law Cited
Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh [2008] 7 SCR 871 : (2008)
12 SCC 436 – relied on.
Sunita v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation [2019] 3
SCR 329 : (2020) 13 SCC 486; Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim
Xavier Cruz [2013] 10 SCR 480 : (2013) 10 SCC 646; Mangla
Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [2018] 5 SCR 287 :
(2018) 5 SCC 656 – referred to.
List of Acts
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
List of Keywords
Motor accident claim; Contributory negligence; Learners license;
Pillion rider; Block Development Officer; Amputation of legs;
Scooter; Owner/Driver of scooter; Trailer; Offending vehicle; Rashly
and negligently; Tail-end of the trailer; Collision; Question of fact;
Insurer; Insurance company; Preponderance of probability; Just
Compensation; Illegal act; Insurer’s liability; Tortious liability.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4380 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.05.2018 of the High Court
at Calcutta in FMA No. 857 of 2012
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Kunal Chatterji, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Rohit Bansal.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Amit Kumar Singh, Ms. K Enatoli Sema, Ms. Chubalemla Chang,
Prang Newmai, Hiren Dasan.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1115
Srikrishna Kanta Singh v.
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
K. Vinod Chandran, J.
Leave granted.
2. A young Block Development Officer1, riding pillion, met with an
accident leading to amputation of both his legs. The injured/claimant
filed an application for compensation under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The claimant sought for compensation of
₹16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lacs only) under various heads. The
Tribunal found that the claimant is entitled to a sum of ₹7,50,000/-
(Rupees Seven Lacs Fifty Thousand only) and directed the insurer
of the offending vehicle to pay an amount of ₹4,50,000/- (Rupees
Four Lacs Fifty Thousand only), holding that the driver of the scooter
in which the appellant was travelling pillion should have been more
cautious. The balance liability of ₹3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs
only) was directed to be paid by the owner of the scooter who was
also driving the sooter. The insurance company was directed to
pay the entire amount and recover the liability of the owner of the
scooter, from him.
3. An appeal was unsuccessfully filed from the order of the Tribunal which
is impugned in the above appeal. On the question of contributory
negligence, the High Court directed a sketch map to be produced
and on a perusal of the same, it was found that the vehicles were
travelling in opposite directions. Considering the discrepancies in the
depositions of the claimant, PW 1 and the two eye-witnesses, PWs
2 and 3, it was held that the accident occurred after the long trailer
had almost passed the scooter and there is no head-on-collision as
deposed by PW 3. It was held that the driver of the scooter ought to
have been more careful since he had a better vision than the trailer
driver, especially since the collision occurred at the tail-end of the
trailer. It was also found that the scooter driver had only a learners
licence which does not entitle him to carry a pillion rider. It was found
from the written statement of the scooter driver/owner that despite
1 “B.D.O.”
1116 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
disclosing the fact of the scooter driver holding only a learners licence,
the claimant had insisted to be carried pillion; which the scooter driver
complied with only because the demand was made by a B.D.O. It
was found that the B.D.O. had abused his authority and forced the
commission of an illegal act by reason of which he has suffered
amputation of the legs in an accident involving the scooter on which
he had forcefully mounted. The appeal was, thus, dismissed. The
concurrent judgments thus found that the negligence on the trailer
driver was only partial and the scooter driver too contributed to the
accident, by his negligence too.
4. We heard Mr. Kunal Chatterji, learned Counsel appearing for the
applicant and Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing
for the Insurance Company.
5. The learned Counsel for the claimant/appellant argued that the
compensation was very low considering the injury caused to the
claimant who suffered amputation of both his legs. The injury
necessitated the victim to always have the help of an attendant to
ensure his mobility. The claimant had to purchase prosthetics which
were very expensive and also replace it frequently since artificial limbs
are susceptible to wear and tear. It is pointed out that the bills for the
prosthetics, which had also to be changed periodically, are produced
along with an Interlocutory Application in the appeal, along with bills
of the attendant. The claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation
even in addition to the claim made especially considering the huge
cost incurred for ensuring a semblance of normalcy to his life by the
purchase of prosthetics and its continued use. It is also argued that
the negligence found on the scooter driver was not on reasonable
grounds nor was it supported by any evidence. It was also pointed
out that the Tribunal had not granted any interest for the amounts
awarded.
6. For the insurer, it was submitted that the Tribunal, has clearly
apportioned the liability to compensation based on the finding of
contributory negligence, imposing only 60% of the compensation
as the insurer’s liability. It is pointed out that both the owner of the
trailer and owner of the driver of the scooter were deleted before the
High Court from the party array. In such circumstances, there could
not have been any enhancement of compensation since the liability
would also be imposed on the owner of the scooter. The finding of
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1117
Srikrishna Kanta Singh v.
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
contributory negligence is based on clear evidence. The scooter
driver had only a learners licence, the claimant was aware of it and
the accident occurred at the tail end of the trailer. It is argued that
there was no proof of negligence of the trailer driver. The subsequent
documents produced of medical expenses cannot be looked into.
7. We have seen from the records that the owner of the trailer and
owner/driver of the scooter were deleted from the party array in
the appeal filed before the High Court. True, if the compensation is
enhanced, the liability on the owner/driver of the scooter cannot be
directed to be paid by or recovered from the said person, since he
is not arrayed as a party in the appeal. However, we have to notice
that even in that circumstance 60% of the enhanced liability can very
well be directed to be paid by the insurer of the trailer. We hasten to
add that this is only in the context of the contributory negligence, if
affirmed by us, and if it is otherwise the claimant would be entitled
to recover the entire award amounts from the insurer, who has not
chosen to file an appeal from either the order of the Tribunal or the
High Court.
8. The accident occurred on 03.11.1999 upon which a First Information
Report2 was registered produced as Annexure P-4. Annexure P-4
clearly indicates that the trailer was found to have been driven
rashly and negligently; the owner of which was the 1st respondent
before the Tribunal and the insurer, the 3rd respondent. The charge
sheet has also been filed which is produced as Annexure P-9. After
investigation, the charge sheet clearly found that the accident was
caused due to the negligence of the driver of the trailer and arrayed
him as the accused. PW 1 who was riding pillion also spoke of the
rash and negligent driving of the trailer.
9. It is very pertinent that the insurer had not raised a contention of
contributory negligence on the scooter driver in the written statement
filed before the Tribunal which is produced as Annexure P-14. There
is also no serious challenge to the deposition of PW 1-the victim, as
to the manner in which the accident occurred; in cross-examination.
There were two eye-witnesses examined as PWs 2 and 3 whose
testimonies were disbelieved by the Tribunal on the ground that they
were not shown as witnesses in the criminal case. In that context,
2 “F.I.R.”
1118 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
there was no reason for the High Court to have laboured to harmonise
the deposition of all the three witnesses.
10. The finding of the Tribunal was also that the length of the trailer being
very long, the scooter driver should have been more cautious. The
High Court has found that since there is no head-on-collision, there
has to be some negligence found on the part of the scooter driver
also. The High Court also found that the B.D.O. misused his position
in coercing the driver/owner of the scooter to take him pillion, despite
being aware of the fact that the driver had only a learners licence.
We have to immediately notice that such a contention was taken by
the owner/driver in the written statement filed, but he never cared to
examine himself before the Tribunal. In such circumstance, the High
Court ought not to have given any credence to the version of the
owner/driver of the scooter which the claimant had no opportunity
to dispute by way of cross-examination.
11. In a motor accident claim, there is no adversarial litigation and it is the
preponderance of probabilities which reign supreme in adjudication
of the tortious liability flowing from it, as has been held in Sunita v.
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation3. Dulcina Fernandes v.
Joaquim Xavier Cruz4 is a case in which the rider, who also carried
a pillion, died in an accident involving a pick-up van. There was a
contention taken that the claimants who were the legal heirs of the
deceased had not cared to examine the pillion rider and hence the
version of the respondent in the written statement that the moving
scooter had hit the parked pick-up van, was to be accepted. It was
found, as in the present case, that the Police had charge-sheeted
the driver of the pick-up van which prima facie showed negligence
of the charge-sheeted accused. Similarly in the present case also,
the Police after investigation, charge-sheeted the driver of the trailer
finding clear negligence on him, which led to the accident. This has
not been controverted by the respondents before the Tribunal by any
valid evidence nor even a pleading. In fact, the Tribunal, on a mere
imaginative surmise, found that since the scooter collided with the
tail-end of the trailer, it can be presumed that the driver of the scooter
was not cautious, which in any event is not a finding of negligence.
3 (2020) 13 SCC 486
4 (2013) 10 SCC 646
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1119
Srikrishna Kanta Singh v.
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
12. Finding that the driver was not cautious is one thing and finding
negligence is quite another thing. Prima facie, we are satisfied that
the negligence was on the trailer driver as discernible from the
evidence recorded before the Tribunal; standard of proof required
being preponderance of probability as has been reiterated in Mangla
Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 5.
13. Now, we come to the question of whether negligence can be found
on the ground of the driver of the scooter having only a learners
licence. We have already found that the finding of the High Court
that the B.D.O. had exercised his authority to travel pillion, despite
being aware of the driver holding only a learners licence, besides
being far-fetched is not supported by any evidence. Sudhir Kumar
Rana v. Surinder Singh6 was a case in which the claimant, a minor
of 171/2 years, met with an accident while riding a two wheeler,
which collided with a mini truck. Holding that ordinarily, negligence
is only a question of fact, it was found that when a person drives
a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence, which by itself
cannot lead to a finding of negligence, leading to or as regards, the
accident. Having found the trailer to be driven rashly and negligently,
we do not think that the mere fact that the driver of the scooter had
only a learners licence would necessarily lead to a conclusion of
contributory negligence on the part of the scooter driver. There can
be no negligence found on the scooter driver also by the mere fact
that the accident occurred on a collision at the tail-end of a long trailer,
when the scooter driver had better visibility; which is a question of
fact liable to be proved and not merely presumed.
14. On the above reasoning, we find that that the Tribunal erred in finding
contributory negligence of the scooter driver and the High Court too
committed a similar error in affirming it. As we noticed, absolving
the scooter owner/driver of the contributory negligence is perfectly
valid even without his presence in the present proceedings or in
the appeal before the High Court since it does not, at all, prejudice
him. The appellant is entitled to compensation from the insurer of
the offending vehicle, which is unequivocally found to be the trailer;
5 (2018) 5 SCC 656
6 (2008) 12 SCC 436
1120 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
which is covered by a valid policy as admitted by the respondent-
insurance company.
15. Now, we come to the question of compensation payable, which was
claimed under different heads. We tabulate the amounts claimed
under different heads and those awarded by the Tribunal:
Sr.No. Different heads Claim Awarded
1. Cost of treatment including ₹2,00,000 /- ₹1,10,000/-
cost of transportation. Hospital
charges, Medicines, etc.
2. Artificial limbs (both legs) ₹3,00,000/- ₹1,20,000/-
approx.
3. Permanent disablement ₹4,00,000/- ₹2,00,000/-
4. Pain and suffering through out ₹2,00,000 /- ₹2,00,000/-
life
5. Physical discomfort & loss of ₹3,00,000 /-
amenities of life.
6. Cost of one personal ₹2,00000/- ₹1,20,000/-
attendant through out of life
Total ₹16,00,000/- ₹7,50,000/-
16. The learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company had
argued that there is no scope for any permanent disablement
since the appellant who was a B.D.O., despite the disability, has
now been confirmed as an I.A.S. Officer; which is admitted by the
learned Counsel for the appellant. However, this contention would
only deprive the claim of loss of income but the compensation for
permanent disablement definitely has to considered since it would
necessarily lead to loss of life’s amenities. It has been proved that
the appellant lost both his legs; one from above the knee and the
other from below the knee. It is trite that there cannot be separate
compensation awarded for permanent disability, physical discomfort
and loss of amenities of life. The claim of the appellant is ₹9,00,000/-
(Rupees Nine Lacs only) under the separate heads. We are of the
opinion that it can be restricted to ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs
only) under the common heads of permanent disability, physical
discomfort and loss of amenities of life; considering the amputation
suffered of both his legs. The cost of medical treatment has been
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1121
Srikrishna Kanta Singh v.
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
claimed as ₹2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only). However, the claim
petition does not bind the Court in granting just compensation. We
are of the opinion that considering the use of prosthetics; which is
also subject to wear and tear, it is only proper that an amount of
₹9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lacs only) be granted on a composite
basis for both medical treatment and artificial limbs. The cost of a
personal attendant, at least for a period of time, has to be allowed
at ₹2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) as claimed by the appellant.
We, hence, are of the opinion that the entire amount of ₹16,00,000/-
(Rupees Sixteen Lacs only) has to be awarded as compensation. We
arrive at this amount considering that the accident occurred in the
year 1999 and the award cannot have reference to the fact situation
existing today; 25 years hence. The long delay is compensated by
the interest awarded. The quantum awarded is on the peculiar facts
and circumstances of this case.
17. The amounts awarded, after deducting ₹25,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Five Thousand only) received under Section 140 of the Act shall be
paid to the appellant with 7% simple interest per annum from the
date of the award. We direct the insurance company to compute the
amounts and intimate the same to the appellant. The appellant shall
immediately on receipt of this order intimate his bank account number
to which, by RTGS/NEFT transfer, the money shall be deposited at
any rate within two months from the date of receipt of this judgment.
18. The appeal stands allowed with the above directions.
19. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Motor accident claim"Sign in to search