The Supreme Court of India has ruled that merely holding a learner’s licence does not automatically establish contributory negligence in motor accident claims. This judgment was pronounced in the case of Srikrishna Kanta Singh v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., where the apex court overturned lower court decisions that had reduced the victim’s compensation based on an assumption of negligence.
A young Block Development Officer (B.D.O.) was riding pillion on a scooter when it collided with a rashly driven trailer. The accident resulted in the amputation of both his legs. The victim subsequently filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking ₹16 lakhs in compensation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded ₹7.5 lakhs, attributing 40% negligence to the scooter driver for carrying a pillion rider on a learner’s licence. The Tribunal directed the insurance company to pay ₹4.5 lakhs and allowed recovery from the scooter owner for the remaining amount.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Rejects Reduction in Compensation Multiplier for Foreign Earners in Accident Claims
The High Court upheld this decision, reasoning that the scooter driver had "better visibility" since the accident occurred at the tail-end of the trailer. The High Court also noted that the scooter driver was not legally permitted to carry a pillion rider due to holding only a learner’s licence.
On appeal, the Supreme Court set aside these findings, making it clear that the presence of a learner’s licence alone does not amount to contributory negligence.
“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 learner’s licence would necessarily lead to a conclusion of contributory negligence on the part of the scooter driver.”
The Court highlighted that negligence must be proven with factual evidence and not presumed. Referring to Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh (2008), the justices reaffirmed that simply driving without a full licence does not automatically establish fault unless it is proven that the lack of a valid licence directly caused the accident.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case: No Evidence of Fraudulent Intent Behind Consent
The Court also noted that the burden of proof was on the insurance company to establish negligence on the part of the scooter driver, which it failed to do. The evidence, including the First Information Report (FIR), clearly pointed to the trailer driver’s rash driving as the primary cause of the accident.
Considering the victim’s severe disability, the Supreme Court increased the compensation to ₹16 lakhs from ₹7.5 lakhs. The insurance company was directed to pay the full amount, as the trailer was covered under a valid policy. The judgment also corrected an oversight in awarding 7% simple interest per annum from the date of the award.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Rules on Govt Employee Seniority After Request-Based Transfer
The revised compensation breakdown was as follows:
Medical treatment and transport expenses were revised to ₹9,00,000 to account for prosthetic costs and necessary future treatments. The claimant was awarded ₹5,00,000 for permanent disability, physical discomfort, and loss of life’s amenities. Compensation for pain and suffering was kept at ₹2,00,000, while ₹2,00,000 was granted for the cost of a personal attendant.
Case Title: SRIKRISHNA KANTA SINGH VERSUS THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, AOR Ms. K Enatoli Sema, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Mr. Hiren Dasan, AOR
