LexSRIKRISHNA KANTA SINGH versus THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1113 : 2025 INSC 394 Srikrishna Kanta Singh v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 4380 of 2025) 25 March 2025 [Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether on facts, the Tribunal and the High Court erred in finding contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the scooter; whether contributory negligence could have been concluded on the ground of the scooter driver having only a learner’s license. Headnotes† Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Motor accident claim – Contributory negligence – When not – Appellant, riding pillion on a scooter met with an accident with a trailer leading to amputation of his legs – Tribunal and the High Court found contributory negligence on the part of the scooter owner-driver too holding that the negligence on the part of the trailer driver was only partial – Interference with: Held: Tribunal and the High Court erred in finding contributory negligence of the scooter driver – The trailer was being driven rashly and negligently – Thus, the mere fact that the driver of the scooter had only a learners licence would not necessarily lead to a conclusion of contributory negligence on his part – 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 –The scooter driver absolved of the contributory negligence – On the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, compensation of ₹16,00,000/- awarded – Appellant entitled to compensation from the insurer of the offending vehicle-trailer – Just compensation. [Paras 13, 14, 16] Motor accident claims – Just compensation – Grant of: Held: The claim petition does not bind the Court in granting just compensation. [Para 16] * Author 1114 [2025] 3 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Motor accident claims – Standard of proof – Preponderance of probabilities: Held: 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. [Para 11] Case Law Cited Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh [2008] 7 SCR 871 : (2008) 12 SCC 436 – relied on. Sunita v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation [2019] 3 SCR 329 : (2020) 13 SCC 486; Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz [2013] 10 SCR 480 : (2013) 10 SCC 646; Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [2018] 5 SCR 287 : (2018) 5 SCC 656 – referred to. List of Acts Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. List of Keywords Motor accident claim; Contributory negligence; Learners license; Pillion rider; Block Development Officer; Amputation of legs; Scooter; Owner/Driver of scooter; Trailer; Offending vehicle; Rashly and negligently; Tail-end of the trailer; Collision; Question of fact; Insurer; Insurance company; Preponderance of probability; Just Compensation; Illegal act; Insurer’s liability; Tortious liability. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4380 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 04.05.2018 of the High Court at Calcutta in FMA No. 857 of 2012 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Kunal Chatterji, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Rohit Bansal. Advs. for the Respondents: Amit Kumar Singh, Ms. K Enatoli Sema, Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, Hiren Dasan. [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1115 Srikrishna Kanta Singh v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment K. Vinod Chandran, J. Leave granted. 2. A young Block Development Officer1, riding pillion, met with an accident leading to 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 th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.