Non-production of a victim’s driving licence cannot establish contributory negligence absent a causal nexus.

On 6 January 2023, a TATA ACC Gold Tempo collided with the scooter of Sanjeev Kumar, aged 48 years, causing fatal injuries.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, awarded compensation of ₹35,50,792 with interest at 6% per annum by award dated 12 April 2024.

The insurer challenged the award, contending that the deceased’s driving licence had not been produced and that the licence of the offending vehicle’s driver was valid only for the LMV (NT) category, whereas the vehicle was commercial.

The High Court noted that the issue concerning the offending driver’s licence was settled by Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC 663, and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi, (2025) 3 SCC 95.

The Court applied the principle that contributory negligence requires proof that the victim’s negligent act or omission materially contributed to the accident or resulting injury, and that apportionment of damages is impermissible in the absence of such negligence, as explained in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer, 2003 (8) SCC 731.

Under Mohd. Siddique v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 3 SCC 57, a statutory violation does not, by itself, constitute contributory negligence unless a causal connection is shown between the violation and the accident or the impact of the injuries.

The burden of proving contributory negligence lies on the party alleging it and must be discharged through cogent evidence, as reaffirmed in Yashwant Krishna Kumbar v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., SLP (C) No. 22599/2024, order dated 25 November 2025.

Applying Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh, (2008) 12 SCC 436, Dinesh Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 1 SCC 750, Saraswati Palariya v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3988, and Srikrishna Kanta Singh v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 INSC 394, the Court held that driving without a licence, possessing an invalid or learner’s licence, or non-production of a licence may entail statutory consequences but does not, without more, establish contributory negligence.

The Court also relied on Mukund Dewangan and Bajaj Allianz v. Rambha Devi regarding the scope of an LMV licence.

The Court held that the insurer’s objection regarding the offending driver’s LMV (NT) licence was no longer legally sustainable in view of the binding Supreme Court precedents.

As to the deceased, the insurer relied only on the absence of a driving licence and did not produce evidence showing that the deceased drove rashly or negligently, or that the absence of a licence caused or contributed to the accident or aggravated the injuries.

Consistent with Sudhir Kumar Rana, Dinesh Kumar, Saraswati Palariya, and Srikrishna Kanta Singh, the Court distinguished a statutory infraction from actionable contributory negligence.

Since the insurer failed to establish the required causal nexus through cogent evidence, no deduction from the compensation could be made.

The Court therefore found no infirmity in the Tribunal’s award.

It directed that the balance compensation lying deposited with the Registrar General, together with applicable interest, be released to respondents 1–4 in accordance with the scheme in the Tribunal’s award.

Any statutory deposit was directed to be refunded to the insurer, subject to compliance with the deposit order, and pending applications were rendered infructuous.