In a significant relief for Hind Samachar Ltd. (Delhi Unit), the Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside the Delhi High Court’s “pay and recover” direction in a decades-old motor accident case. The ruling comes after over three decades of litigation revolving around a fatal 1993 road accident that killed nine and injured two.
Background
The case stemmed from a collision between a Hind Samachar truck and a Matador van on Republic Day, 1993. Nine passengers in the van died, and two sustained serious injuries. Compensation was paid by insurers after the Tribunal found both vehicles’ drivers negligent-apportioning fault 75% to the truck and 25% to the van.
However, the High Court later ruled that Hind Samachar’s truck driver had produced a fake driving licence and allowed the insurer-National Insurance Company Ltd.-to recover the compensation amount from the vehicle’s owner. The company challenged this direction in the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observations
Justice K. Vinod Chandran, speaking for the bench, remarked that the High Court had acted on “surmises and conjectures” and failed to appreciate established legal precedents. The Court noted that the insurance company had not proven that the owner knowingly employed a driver with a fake licence.
“The bench observed, ‘It is not enough to show that the licence was fake; the insurer must prove that the owner deliberately violated the policy condition.’”
The Court also pointed out inconsistencies in the High Court’s reliance on records from the District Transport Office (DTO) in Gurdaspur and the RTO in Alwar. The original licence, allegedly seized from the accident spot, was not backed by proper seizure records or witness testimony.
Importantly, the bench emphasized that Hind Samachar Ltd., being a corporate entity, had exercised due diligence by producing the licence before the Tribunal. “There can be no suspicion merely because the company produced the licence,” Justice Chandran said, adding that the act “only shows diligence, not collusion.”
Read also:- Supreme Court Upholds Futala Lake Project in Nagpur, Rejects NGO Plea Alleging Violation of Wetland Rules
The Supreme Court also cited previous judgments-Lehru, Swaran Singh, PEPSU RTC, and Geeta Devi-to underline that a vehicle owner is not expected to verify the authenticity of a driver’s licence with the transport authority unless there are clear signs of forgery.
Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that there was no evidence of negligence or collusion by Hind Samachar Ltd. The Court quashed the High Court’s direction allowing the insurance company to recover compensation from the owner.
Read also:- Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Bank to Pay Gratuity to Dismissed Officer's Widow, Rules
“The insurer failed to establish any breach on part of the insured,” the bench concluded, restoring the Tribunal’s award and ruling that the insurer must bear the compensation liability without recovery rights.
With that, a 32-year legal chapter finally closed—clearing Hind Samachar Ltd. of wrongdoing and reinforcing the Supreme Court’s stance that mere suspicion cannot substitute proof in insurance liability cases.
Case: Hind Samachar Ltd. (Delhi Unit) vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Others
Case Type: Civil Appeal Nos. 12442–12446 of 2024 (and connected appeals)
Date of Judgment: October 8, 2025
