Supreme Court Upholds High Court's Finding of Sole Negligence Against Truck in Fatal Accident.


16 April 2025 Motor Accident >> Family Law  

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by an insurance company challenging the High Court's judgment that held the insurer liable for the entire compensation awarded to the family of a deceased motorbike rider. 

The motorbike rider died in a collision with an insured truck.

Initially, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had found contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, apportioning 50% of the liability to the truck's insurer. Both the claimants (wife and mother of the deceased) and the insurer appealed to the High Court.

The High Court overturned the Tribunal's finding of contributory negligence, holding the truck driver solely responsible for the accident and subsequently enhanced the compensation amount. The insurance company then filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.

The insurance company's counsel argued that the truck driver's deposition and the Investigating Officer's testimony indicated negligence on the part of the deceased bike rider. They sought to discredit the eyewitness's testimony, who was a friend of the deceased.

 

 

However, the Supreme Court scrutinized the evidence. The truck driver (RW1) initially denied any collision, contradicting the Investigating Officer's (RW3) admission of a collision. While RW3 suggested contributory negligence based on the accident site, he conceded in cross-examination that the motorcycle's position could have been altered before his arrival. Notably, RW3's opinion on the bike rider's negligence conflicted with the charge sheet he himself filed against the truck driver, which he explained away by the bike rider's death. The Supreme Court rejected the Investigating Officer's inconsistent statements.

The eyewitness (PW3), riding another bike behind the deceased, testified that both bikes were moving at a normal speed when the truck came from the wrong side and hit the deceased's bike rashly and negligently. He also stated that the truck driver fled the scene and did not report the accident, which was instead reported by PW3. The Supreme Court found the truck driver's claim of fleeing due to fear of being beaten and his alleged subsequent reporting to the police unreliable, especially since PW3 reported the incident.

Based on the totality of the evidence, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment that the entire liability rested with the offending truck, its owner (due to vicarious liability for the driver's negligence), and the insurer. Since the insurance company's argument was solely on contributory negligence, the Supreme Court did not comment on the enhanced compensation, which it found to be appropriate anyway.

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition and directed the court to disburse the deposited amount with interest to the claimants within one month, along with any remaining balance and interest via RTGS transfer upon the claimants providing their bank details.