RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED V. SWATI SHARMA AND ORS 2025 INSC 487:

DATE: 16/04/2025

COURT: Supreme Court of India

BENCH: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran

FACTS:

The present case arises from a motor vehicle accident involving a collision between a truck and a motorbike, which resulted in the death of the bike rider. The truck was insured by the petitioner, an insurance company. Following the accident, the wife and mother of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking compensation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), while considering the evidence on record, found that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased bike rider. Consequently, the Tribunal apportioned 50% of the liability on the insurer of the truck and accordingly passed an award for compensation.

Aggrieved by the apportionment and quantum of compensation, both the claimants and the insurance company filed appeals before the High Court. Upon re-evaluation, the High Court held that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the truck driver and accordingly set aside the finding of contributory negligence. It also enhanced the compensation amount awarded to the claimants. Challenging this decision, particularly the finding of sole negligence and the enhancement of compensation, the insurance company filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

The key issues before the Court were whether the High Court rightly set aside the Tribunal's finding of contributory negligence by the deceased and whether the enhanced compensation awarded to the claimants was justified against the insurer.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Insurance Company, upholding the High Court’s decision that fixed full liability for the accident on the truck driver, its owner, and insurer. The Court directed that the compensation amounts deposited in court be disbursed to the claimants along with interest, and any remaining amounts be paid within one month via RTGS.

The Court found inconsistencies in the testimony of the truck driver (RW1) and the Investigating Officer (RW3), which undermined their credibility. RW1 claimed there was no collision and that the case was filed against him only because he drove a larger vehicle, while RW3 admitted a collision had occurred and initially alleged contributory negligence on both parties. However, in cross-examination, RW3 conceded that the position of the motorcycle might have been altered before he arrived and that a chargesheet was filed solely against the truck driver. The Bench observed that RW3’s statements were inconsistent with the official findings of his investigation, rendering his testimony unreliable.

The Court gave weight to the testimony of the eyewitness (PW3), who was riding alongside the deceased and confirmed that both bikes were moving at normal speed when the truck approached from the wrong side and hit the deceased's motorcycle. PW3 also stated that the truck driver fled the scene post-collision, which further supported the conclusion of rash and negligent driving. Given the unreliability of the defense witnesses and the consistent, credible evidence of the eyewitness, the Court concluded that the High Court was right in holding the truck driver solely liable. The insurer, being bound to indemnify the owner for the driver’s negligence, was held responsible for the compensation.

ANALYSIS:

In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling that the motor accident was caused solely due to the negligence of the truck driver, rejecting the earlier finding of contributory negligence by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). The decision was primarily influenced by the unreliable and contradictory testimonies of the truck driver and the Investigating Officer, which failed to establish any fault on the part of the deceased bike rider. Instead, the Court gave significant credence to the consistent and credible testimony of the eyewitness, who corroborated that the truck approached from the wrong side and collided with the deceased’s motorcycle. This supported the High Court’s conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver.

The Supreme Court also found no fault in the High Court’s enhancement of the compensation awarded to the claimants. Given the clear evidence of negligence and the binding responsibility of the insurer to indemnify the owner and driver, the Court confirmed the full liability of the insurer to pay the enhanced compensation. The Court emphasized the importance of credible eyewitness testimony over conflicting and unsupported defense claims, reinforcing the principle that compensation must be just and commensurate with the loss suffered due to another’s negligence.