2025 INSC 394 Page 1 of 19

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.

2. A young Block Development Officer

1,

riding pillion, met with an accident leading to

1

“B.D.O.”

Page 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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

upon which a First Information Report

2 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

which was the 1

st respondent before the Tribunal and

the insurer, the 3

rd 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 9 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 10 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 11 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

Corporation

3. Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier

Cruz

4 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 12 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. Prima facie, we are satisfied that the

negligence was on the trailer driver as discernible

Page 13 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.

Oriental Insurance Company Limited

5.

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

Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh

6 was a case in which

the claimant, a minor of 17

1/2 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 14 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 15 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:

Sr.No. Different heads Claim Awarded

1. Cost of treatment

including cost of

transportation.

₹2,00,000 /- ₹1,10,000/-

Page 16 of 19

Hospital charges,

Medicines, etc.

2. Artificial limbs

(both legs)

approx.

₹3,00,000/- ₹1,20,000/-

3. Permanent

disablement

₹4,00,000/- ₹2,00,000/-

4. Pain and

suffering through

out life

₹2,00,000 /- ₹2,00,000/-

5. Physical

discomfort & loss

of amenities of

life.

₹3,00,000 /-

6. Cost of one

personal

attendant

through out of life

₹2,00000/- ₹1,20,000/-

Total ₹16,00,000/- ₹7,50,000/-

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 17 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 18 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 amount s awarded, after

deducting ₹25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand

only) received under Section 140 of the Act shall be

Page 19 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.