Lack of Valid Driving licence Not Sole Basis for Negligence in Motor Accident: Supreme Court Grants Full Compensation

In a landmark ruling clarifying the principles of negligence in motor accident claims, the Supreme Court has held that merely riding with a learner’s licence does not establish negligence. Overturning the decisions of the lower courts, the apex court awarded full compensation of ₹16 lakh to an IAS officer who lost both legs in a road accident 25 years ago, ruling that “lack of caution is not the same as negligence.”

The judgment in Srikrishna Kanta Singh vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2025 @ SLP (C) No. 12459 of 2019] was delivered on March 25, 2025, by a bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

Background

In 1999, Srikrishna Kanta Singh was serving as a young Block Development Officer (BDO) when he was riding pillion on a scooter that collided with the tail-end of a trailer. The accident caused catastrophic injuries, leading to amputation of both legs—one above the knee, the other below.

Despite the life-altering disability, Singh rose through the ranks to become an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer. However, the legal fight for fair compensation dragged on for over two decades.

Tribunal and High Court: Partial Fault, Partial Relief

Singh had filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking ₹16 lakh in compensation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded only ₹7.5 lakh, attributing 60% liability to the trailer driver and 40% to the scooter driver—citing that he had only a learner’s licence and should have been more cautious.

The High Court upheld this finding, going a step further by accepting a claim from the scooter driver’s written statement (never tested in court) that Singh, being a government officer, had “insisted” on riding pillion, despite knowing the driver held only a learner’s licence.

Arguments Presented

Appearing for Singh, Advocate Kunal Chatterji challenged the basis of the lower courts’ rulings. He argued:

• The insurance company never pleaded contributory negligence before the Tribunal.
  
• Police investigation—including FIR and charge sheet—squarely blamed the trailer driver for rash and negligent driving.
  
• The Tribunal disbelieved eye-witnesses solely because they weren’t listed in the criminal case, while accepting speculative assumptions without supporting testimony.
  
• Singh incurred massive recurring costs for prosthetics, mobility, and daily assistance.
  

On the other hand, Advocate Amit Kumar Singh, representing the Oriental Insurance Company, argued that:

• The scooter driver was not licenced to carry a pillion rider and Singh, being a BDO, knew this.
  
• The impact occurred at the trailer’s rear, suggesting lack of vigilance by the scooter driver.
  
• With the scooter owner/driver not being a party to the High Court appeal, the insurer’s liability should not be increased.
  
• Medical bills submitted later should be disregarded.
  

Key Observations

The bench sharply criticized the findings of the lower courts, calling them speculative and unsupported. The Court made several key observations:

• On presumed negligence due to learner’s licence:
  
  
  “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 untested claims in written statements:
  
  
  “The High Court ought not to have given any credence to the version of the owner/driver of the scooter, which the claimant had no opportunity to dispute by way of cross-examination.”
  
  
• On the distinction between lack of caution and legal negligence:
  
  
  “Finding that the driver was not cautious is one thing and finding negligence is quite another thing.”
  
  
• On the purpose of motor accident claims:
  
  
  “In a motor accident claim, there is no adversarial litigation and it is the preponderance of probabilities which reign supreme.”
  
  

Citing precedent (Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh), the Court held that driving without a licence is an offence under the Motor Vehicles Act but cannot, by itself, prove negligence in an accident.

It also pointed out that the insurer had never appealed against the Tribunal’s findings and remained liable under a valid insurance policy.

Full Compensation Awarded

The Court awarded the full ₹16 lakh compensation originally claimed by Singh, breaking it down as follows:

The Court rejected the argument that Singh’s professional success negated his disability:

“This contention would only deprive the claim of loss of income but the compensation for permanent disablement definitely has to be considered.”

Additionally, the Court directed the insurer to pay interest at 7% per annum from the date of the Tribunal’s original award. The amount must be deposited to Singh’s bank account within two months.