Srikrishna Kanta Singh vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

2025 INSC 394
REPORTABLE


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (C) No.12459 of 2019)

SRIKRISHNA KANTA SINGH …Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD. & ORS. …Respondent(s)


J U D G M E N T

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

1
2. A young Block Development Officer ,
riding pillion, met with an accident leading to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Nirmala Negi
Date: 2025.03.25
18:28:12 IST
Reason:

1
“B.D.O.”
Page 1 of 19



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.

Page 2 of 19



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
Page 3 of 19



scooter driver/owner that despite 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
Page 4 of 19



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
Page 5 of 19



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
Page 6 of 19



the scooter. The finding of 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
Page 7 of 19



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
2
upon which a First Information Report 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
st
which was the 1 respondent before the Tribunal and
rd
the insurer, the 3 respondent. The charge sheet has
also been filed which is produced as Annexure P-9.
After investigation, the charge sheet clearly found

2
“F.I.R.”
Page 8 of 19



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, there was no reason for the High Court to
Page 9 of 19



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
Page 10 of 19



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
3
Corporation . Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier
4
Cruz 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

3
(2020) 13 SCC 486
4
(2013) 10 SCC 646
Page 11 of 19



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.

12. Finding that the driver was not
cautious is one thing and finding negligence is quite
another thing. , we are satisfied that the
Prima facie
negligence was on the trailer driver as discernible
Page 12 of 19



from the evidence recorded before the Tribunal;
standard of proof required being preponderance of
probability as has been reiterated in Mangla Ram v.
5
Oriental Insurance Company Limited .

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
6
Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh was a case in which
1/2
the claimant, a minor of 17 years, met with an
accident while riding a two wheeler, which collided
with a mini truck. Holding that ordinarily, negligence

5
(2018) 5 SCC 656
6
(2008) 12 SCC 436
Page 13 of 19



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
Page 14 of 19



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; 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:

Page 15 of 19

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
Page 16 of 19



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 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
Page 17 of 19



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
Page 18 of 19



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.

……………………..……………, J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]



……………………..……………, J.
[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 25, 2025.
Page 19 of 19