1. Fatal motor vehicle accident involving a truck and motorcycle — Claim for compensation — Dispute over contributory negligence and award enhancement. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 633
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sudhanshu Dhulia, K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited – Petitioner
Versus
Swati Sharma And Ors. – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 24959 of 2019
Decided On : 16-04-2025
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Death in motor accident – Insurer who has insured vehicle is bound to indemnify owner of vehicle who has vicarious liability as against negligence of his employee-driver.
Death in motor accident – Insurer who has insured vehicle is bound to indemnify owner of vehicle who has vicarious liability as against negligence of his employee-driver.
Subject
Civil Law - Motor Accident Claims
Act Referred
Headnote
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Death in motor accident – Enhanced compensation awarded by High Court – Plea of contributory negligence negated by High Court – Truck was driven in a rash and negligent manner – After accident truck was not stopped – It was taken to a distance and driver fled from spot of accident – Judgment of High Court fixing entire liability on offending vehicle, its owner and driver is perfectly in order – Petitioner-insurer, who has insured vehicle is bound to indemnify owner of vehicle who has vicarious liability as against negligence of his employee-driver – Amounts deposited in Court shall be disbursed along with interest to claimants. (Paras 5, 6 and 7)
Facts of the case:
Instant petition is filed by Insurance Company, insurer of a truck which collided with a motor bike leading to fatal injuries to the bike rider. Wife and mother of deceased filed claim petition, in which, Tribunal while making the award found contributory negligence on the deceased. Liability of the award amounts on the insurer of truck was apportioned at 50%. Claimants and insurer filed appeals before High Court. High Court found negligence solely on part of driver of truck and enhanced award amounts, against which instant petition is filed.
Findings of Court:
Balance amounts, if any, with interest shall also be paid through RTGS transfer, on claimants furnishing their account details, within a period of one month from the date of this order.
Result : Special Leave Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Prerna Mehta, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aman Shukla, Adv. Mr. M. Chandrakanth Reddy, Adv. Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR Ms. Mamta Saxena , AOR Mr. Rajesh Kandari, Adv. Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Maitri Goal, Adv. Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Prerna Mehta, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aman Shukla, Adv. Mr. M. Chandrakanth Reddy, Adv. Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR Ms. Mamta Saxena , AOR Mr. Rajesh Kandari, Adv. Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Maitri Goal, Adv. Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Insurer contends contributory negligence of the deceased based on driver and investigating officer's testimony — Respondents seek to uphold sole negligence of the truck driver. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Investigating officer's testimony contradicted the charge sheet and the driver's denial of collision; eyewitness testimony established rash and negligent driving by the truck driver. (Para 4 , 5 )
4. An insurer is bound to indemnify the vehicle owner who bears vicarious liability for the negligence of the driver. (Para 6 )
5. Special Leave Petition dismissed; High Court judgment upheld; award amounts to be disbursed to claimants with interest. (Para 7 , 8 )
6. How does the court evaluate conflicting evidence between an investigating officer's testimony and the charge sheet?
The court may reject the testimony of an investigating officer if it conflicts with the findings in the charge sheet filed by the officer himself. (Para 4 )
7. What is the liability of an insurer regarding the negligence of a vehicle driver?
The insurer is obligated to indemnify the vehicle owner, who is vicariously liable for the negligence of their employee, the driver. (Para 6 )
8. When can the testimony of an eyewitness be preferred over the testimony of the accused driver?
Eyewitness testimony is preferred when the driver's version is contradicted by other evidence, such as the investigating officer's admission of a collision or the sequence of reporting the accident. (Para 4 , 5 )
JUDGMENT :
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. The petition is filed by the Insurance Company, insurer of a truck which collided with a motor bike leading to fatal injuries to the bike rider. The wife and mother of the deceased filed the claim petition, in which, the Tribunal while making the award found contributory negligence on the deceased. The liability of the award amounts on the insurer of the truck was apportioned at 50%. The claimants and the insurer filed appeals before the High Court. The High Court found negligence solely on the part of the driver of the truck and enhanced the award amounts, against which the instant petition is filed.
2. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that this was a unique case in which the driver of the alleged offending vehicle mounted the box and spoke of the accident, which deposition indicates negligence on the bike rider. This is amply supported by the Officer who investigated the crime. The interested testimony of the eyewitness, who was admitted to be the friend of the deceased should be eschewed considering the over- whelming evidence of negligence on the part of the bike rider.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 seeks to uphold the judgment of the High Court, which reversed the order of contributory negligence passed by the Tribunal. The learned counsel also justifies the enhancement made, relying on precedents.
4. The reliance placed is on the driver of the offending vehicle, the truck, who was examined as RW1 and the Investigating Officer who was examined as RW3. RW1 mounted the box, and his deposition was to the effect that there was no collision at all and the case was filed against him only because he was driving a bigger vehicle. However, the evidence of RW3, Investigating Officer was contrary, to the extent of admitting the collision between the bike and the truck. His evidence was that there was contributory negligence on both the drivers, on an assessment of the lie of the vehicles at the accident site. But, in cross-examination he admitted that the position of the motorcycle could have been changed by the time he reached the spot. It is also very pertinent that the deposition of RW3 about the negligence of bike driver conflicted with the charge sheet filed by him, against the truck driver. His explanation was also that the charge sheet was filed against the truck driver since the motor-cycle driver had died in the accident. We are unable to countenance the said statements of the Investigating Officer, who was examined on behalf of the respondent before the Claims Tribunal.
5. The evidence of the eyewitness, PW3, was that he was accompanying the deceased in another bike. They were proceeding to a common destination on two bikes, PW3 following the bike of the deceased. He specifically spoke of both the bikes being driven in normal speed when the offending truck came through the wrong side and hit the bike of the deceased. He has also deposed that the truck was driven in a rash and negligent manner. After the accident the truck was not stopped. It was taken to a distance and the driver fled from the spot of accident. RW1 has a case that he had fled only because people had gathered to beat him. His deposition is also that he had, after fleeing from the spot of the accident, gone to the police station to report the accident. The accident, however, was reported to the police by PW3, the eyewitness. We are unable to place any reliance on the interested testimony of RW1 and the statements made by RW3, contrary to his own findings in the investigation.
6. In the totality of the circumstances as revealed from the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court fixing the entire liability on the offending vehicle, its owner and driver is perfectly in order. The petitioner-insurer, who has insured the vehicle is bound to indemnify the owner of the vehicle who has the vicarious liability as against the negligence of his employee- the dr
