RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. V. OM PARKASH & ORS. 2026 INSC 767:

DATE: 31.07.2026

COURT: Supreme Court of India

BENCH: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

FACTS:

On 14 October 2009, a motor vehicle driven by Om Prakash (respondent No. 1) and owned by Rajinder Singh (respondent No. 2) hit a two-wheeler, causing injuries to the claimant. Rash and negligent driving was not disputed. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panipat, quantified compensation at ₹86,95,947 with interest at 7.5% (9% if delayed beyond two months) but held only the driver and owner liable. It found that on the date of the accident the driver did not possess a valid driving licence, relying on the testimony of Transport Department officials (RW1 and RW2) and noting contradictions in the evidence of RW3 (Motor Licensing Officer). The insurer (appellant) was therefore exonerated.

On appeals by the claimants, driver and owner, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana reversed this finding. It held that the license stood renewed from 22 June 2007 to 21 June 2010, accepting RW3’s oral evidence and a 2015 letter (Ex. RW3/B) that attributed the absence of records for 2007–2010 to a technical data-transfer error. The High Court enhanced compensation to ₹1,08,08,909 with 8% interest and fastened liability on the insurer. The insurer challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

The limited issue was whether the driver, Om Prakash, possessed a valid driving licence on the date of the accident (14 October 2009). Resolution of this question determined whether the insurer was liable to pay the compensation or whether liability rested solely on the driver and owner.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Supreme Court allowed the insurer’s appeals, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and restored the Tribunal’s finding that the insurer was not liable. It directed that the principle of “pay and recover” would apply: the insurer would pay the compensation already ordered to be released to the claimants but would be entitled to recover the amount from the driver and owner. Pending applications were disposed of.

A driving licence is an official document that must ordinarily be proved by primary evidence under Sections 61–64 of the Indian Evidence Act. Secondary evidence is admissible only after the party lays a proper foundation by proving that the original existed and explaining its non-production in terms of Section 65. In the present case the official records produced by RW1 and RW2 established that the licence was not valid on 14 October 2009. Even RW3’s documentary extract (Ex. RW3/A) showed validity only up to 21 June 2007 and from 25 August 2010 onwards; the intervening period was covered by a penalty paid later. The High Court relied heavily on RW3’s oral statement and the 2015 letter (Ex. RW3/B) attributing a data gap to a technical error. That letter, however, merely recorded the absence of records for 2007–2010; it did not affirmatively certify that the license was valid on the accident date. No official record of the alleged data loss, of recovery steps taken by the Authority, or of similar cases was produced. Consequently, the secondary evidence relied upon by the High Court failed to meet the statutory requirements and could not override the clear official extracts.

The Court further emphasised the owner’s statutory duty under Sections 3 and 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act to ensure that only a person holding an effective licence drives the vehicle. Relying on Beli Ram v. Rajinder Kumar and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hem Raj, it held that once a license expires, the owner cannot remain passive; he must verify renewal. Payment of penalty for the intervening period itself indicated a break in validity. Because the driver lacked a valid license and the owner had failed to discharge his responsibility, the insurer was not liable. The principle of “pay and recover” was applied to protect the claimants while preserving the insurer’s right of recovery. The Court also underscored the broader public importance of valid licenses and suggested systemic measures for awareness, compliance and streamlining of issuance and renewal.

ANALYSIS:

This judgment firmly reasserts the primacy of primary evidence when the validity of an official document such as a driving license is in dispute. By holding that secondary evidence here, an oral statement of a licensing officer and a 2015 letter attributing a data gap to a technical error, cannot displace clear official extracts showing a break in license validity, the Court has applied the well-settled principles under Sections 61–65 of the Indian Evidence Act with rigour. The decision underscores that a party seeking to rely on secondary evidence must first prove the existence of the original and satisfactorily explain its non-production; mere assertions of data loss, unaccompanied by institutional records of the loss or recovery measures, are insufficient. In doing so, the Court protected the insurer from liability arising from an unproved renewal while simultaneously recognising the practical hardship that a large award would impose on the driver and owner, and therefore invoked the equitable “pay and recover” doctrine to safeguard the claimants’ interests.

Beyond the immediate evidentiary ruling, the judgment reinforces the statutory duty cast on vehicle owners under Sections 3 and 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Drawing on Beli Ram v. Rajinder Kumar and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hem Raj, it clarifies that an owner cannot remain passive once a license expires; verification of renewal is part of the “basic care” expected of him. Payment of a penalty for the intervening period itself constituted strong evidence of a break in continuity. The Court’s concluding observations on the public importance of valid licenses, and its suggestions for awareness campaigns, streamlined renewal processes and regulation of driving schools, elevate the decision from a routine insurance dispute to a broader call for systemic improvement in road-safety compliance. The ruling thus balances the rights of third-party claimants, the contractual limits of insurance cover, and the imperative of ensuring that only duly licensed drivers operate motor vehicles on public roads.