Full Judgment Text
Non-Reportable
2025 INSC 487
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.24959 OF 2019
RELIANCE GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
SWATI SHARMA AND ORS.
...RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.04.16
16:30:55 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 5
SLP (C) No.24959/2019
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
Page 2 of 5
SLP (C) No.24959/2019
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
Page 3 of 5
SLP (C) No.24959/2019
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
Page 4 of 5
SLP (C) No.24959/2019
driver. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued only
on the question of contributory negligence and hence we
say nothing on the enhancement of the award amounts;
which in any event, we find to be proper.
7. We dismiss the Special Leave Petition and direct that
the amounts deposited in Court shall be disbursed along
with interest to the claimants, if not already done and the
balance amounts, if any, with interest shall also be paid
through RTGS transfer, on the claimants furnishing their
account details, within a period of one month from the date
of this order.
8. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
………….……………………. J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 16, 2025.
Page 5 of 5
SLP (C) No.24959/2019
2025 INSC 487
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.24959 OF 2019
RELIANCE GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
SWATI SHARMA AND ORS.
...RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.04.16
16:30:55 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 5
SLP (C) No.24959/2019
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
Page 2 of 5
SLP (C) No.24959/2019
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
Page 3 of 5
SLP (C) No.24959/2019
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
Page 4 of 5
SLP (C) No.24959/2019
driver. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued only
on the question of contributory negligence and hence we
say nothing on the enhancement of the award amounts;
which in any event, we find to be proper.
7. We dismiss the Special Leave Petition and direct that
the amounts deposited in Court shall be disbursed along
with interest to the claimants, if not already done and the
balance amounts, if any, with interest shall also be paid
through RTGS transfer, on the claimants furnishing their
account details, within a period of one month from the date
of this order.
8. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
………….……………………. J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 16, 2025.
Page 5 of 5
SLP (C) No.24959/2019