Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 600
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No…….……. of 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (C) No.3886 of 2019)
MEERA BAI & ORS.
APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD. & ANR.
RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G E M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2.
The claimants before the Tribunal have filed an appeal
from the order of the High Court which allowed the appeal
of the insurance company and dismissed the claim petition
for reason of no eyewitness having been examined to prove
the rash and negligent driving.
3. On facts, it needs to be stated that the accident
Signature Not Verified
occurred on 29.01.2015 when the deceased was travelling
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.04.30
16:14:03 IST
Reason:
pillion in a motorbike driven and owned by the second
Page 1 of 3
CA @ SLP (C) No. 3886 of 2019
respondent. The FIR was lodged against the owner driver of
the vehicle for the offence of rash and negligent driving. A
charge sheet was filed against the owner driver. The owner
driver filed a written statement before the Tribunal denying
the rash and negligent driving on his part, however he did
not mount the box to depose that it was not due to his fault
that the accident occurred.
4. As far as examining the eyewitness, such a witness will
not be available in all cases. The FIR having been lodged
and the charge sheet filed against the owner driver of the
offending vehicle, we are of the opinion that there could be
no finding that negligence was not established.
5. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that
the order of the High Court must be set aside and that of the
Tribunal restored. We do not speak on the quantum, since
there is no appeal filed by the claimants against the
quantum as determined by the Tribunal.
6. The amounts as directed by the Tribunal with interest
at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of presentation of
Page 2 of 3
CA @ SLP (C) No. 3886 of 2019
the claim petition, as directed by the Tribunal, shall be paid
expeditiously by the insurance company.
7. The appeal stands allowed on the above terms.
8. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
….……….……………………. J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 30, 2025.
Page 3 of 3
CA @ SLP (C) No. 3886 of 2019
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No…….……. of 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (C) No.3886 of 2019)
MEERA BAI & ORS.
APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD. & ANR.
RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G E M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2.
The claimants before the Tribunal have filed an appeal
from the order of the High Court which allowed the appeal
of the insurance company and dismissed the claim petition
for reason of no eyewitness having been examined to prove
the rash and negligent driving.
3. On facts, it needs to be stated that the accident
Signature Not Verified
occurred on 29.01.2015 when the deceased was travelling
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.04.30
16:14:03 IST
Reason:
pillion in a motorbike driven and owned by the second
Page 1 of 3
CA @ SLP (C) No. 3886 of 2019
respondent. The FIR was lodged against the owner driver of
the vehicle for the offence of rash and negligent driving. A
charge sheet was filed against the owner driver. The owner
driver filed a written statement before the Tribunal denying
the rash and negligent driving on his part, however he did
not mount the box to depose that it was not due to his fault
that the accident occurred.
4. As far as examining the eyewitness, such a witness will
not be available in all cases. The FIR having been lodged
and the charge sheet filed against the owner driver of the
offending vehicle, we are of the opinion that there could be
no finding that negligence was not established.
5. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that
the order of the High Court must be set aside and that of the
Tribunal restored. We do not speak on the quantum, since
there is no appeal filed by the claimants against the
quantum as determined by the Tribunal.
6. The amounts as directed by the Tribunal with interest
at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of presentation of
Page 2 of 3
CA @ SLP (C) No. 3886 of 2019
the claim petition, as directed by the Tribunal, shall be paid
expeditiously by the insurance company.
7. The appeal stands allowed on the above terms.
8. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
….……….……………………. J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 30, 2025.
Page 3 of 3
CA @ SLP (C) No. 3886 of 2019