Supreme Court Holds Trailer Driver Solely Negligent and Enhances Compensation to ₹16 Lakh

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal by Srikrishna Kanta Singh against awards under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 arising from a 1999 accident in which the claimant, then a Block Development Officer, suffered amputation of both legs. The appeal challenged concurrent findings of contributory negligence on the scooter driver and sought enhancement of compensation and interest.

The Court allowed the appeal, held that the Tribunal and the High Court erred in finding contributory negligence on the scooter driver, and directed the insurer of the offending trailer to pay the enhanced compensation of ₹16,00,000 with 7% simple interest per annum from the date of the award, subject to deduction of ₹25,000 received under Section 140 of the Act. The Court noted that the police had charge-sheeted the trailer driver for rash and negligent driving and that the insurer had not challenged the policy coverage. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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 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.” The Court further recorded that “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.”

Background The claimant rode pillion on a scooter that collided with a long trailer on 03.11.1999. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹7,50,000, allocating ₹4,50,000 to the insurer and directing recovery of the balance from the scooter owner/driver on a finding of contributory negligence. The High Court affirmed the apportionment after reviewing a sketch map and witness depositions, concluding the vehicles were in opposite directions and that the scooter driver ought to have been more cautious; it also accepted the scooter owner’s plea that the claimant insisted on being carried despite the driver having only a learner’s licence.

On appeal, the claimant argued that the award was insufficient given bilateral amputation, prosthetic costs, attendant expenses and absence of interest; the insurer relied on the finding of contributory negligence and the deletion of the trailer and scooter owners from the High Court party array. The Supreme Court noted that the insurer had not pleaded contributory negligence before the Tribunal and that the police investigation had charge‑sheeted the trailer driver, which prima facie supported negligence on the trailer’s part. Relying on the test of preponderance of probabilities and authorities distinguishing criminal culpability and tortious negligence, the Court held that driving without a licence was an offence but not determinative of contributory negligence absent proof that it caused the collision (citing Sudhir Kumar Rana and other precedents). The Court found no reliable evidence to sustain the High Court’s inference that the scooter driver contributed to the accident and concluded the Tribunal erred in apportioning fault.

The Supreme Court computed compensation afresh: a composite ₹9,00,000 for medical treatment and artificial limbs, ₹5,00,000 for permanent disability, physical discomfort and loss of amenities, and ₹2,00,000 for a personal attendant — aggregating to ₹16,00,000. After deducting ₹25,000 under Section 140, the balance was to be paid with 7% interest from the date of the original award. The insurer was directed to compute the amounts, intimate the same to the appellant, and deposit the sum by RTGS/NEFT within two months of receipt of the order.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 394 (Special Leave Petition (C) No.12459 of 2019) Case Title: Srikrishna Kanta Singh v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kunal Chatterji, Advocate (learned counsel for the appellant) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate (learned counsel for the insurance company)