Supreme Court appeal concerning a motor vehicle accident. The case involves an appellant, SrikrishnaKanta Singh, who, as a pillion rider, sustained severe injuries, including the amputation of both legs, due to a collision. The core of the appeal addresses the compensation awarded by a lower tribunal and confirmed by the High Court, as well as findings of contributory negligence attributed to the scooter driver and, by extension, the appellant. The Supreme Court reviews the evidence, challenging the previous findings on negligence, particularly regarding the scooter driver’s learner’s licence and the appellant’s alleged coercion, ultimately revising the compensation amount and apportioning full liability to the trailer’s insurer.
(A) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Section 166 – MACT – Injury case – Amputation of both his legs – Contributory negligence – Held that in a motor accident claim, there is no adversarial litigation and it is the preponderance of probabilities which reign supreme in adjudication of the tortious liability flowing from it – Police after investigation, charge-sheeted the driver of the trailer finding clear negligence on him, which led to the accident – This has not been controverted by the respondents before the Tribunal by any valid evidence nor even a pleading – In fact, the Tribunal, on a mere imaginative surmise, found that since the scooter collided with the tail-end of the trailer, it can be presumed that the driver of the scooter was not cautious, which in any event is not a finding of negligence – Prima facie, the negligence was on the trailer driver as discernible from the evidence recorded before the Tribunal; standard of proof required being preponderance of probability – Having found the trailer to be driven rashly and negligently, do not think that the mere fact that the driver of the scooter had only a learners licence would necessarily lead to a conclusion of contributory negligence on the part of the scooter driver – There can be no negligence found on the scooter driver also by the mere fact that the accident occurred on a collision at the tail-end of a long trailer, when the scooter driver had better visibility; which is a question of fact liable to be proved and not merely presumed – Held that the Tribunal erred in finding contributory negligence of the scooter driver and the High Court too committed a similar error in affirming it – As we noticed, absolving the scooter owner/driver of the contributory negligence is perfectly valid even without his presence in the present proceedings or in the appeal before the High Court since it does not, at all, prejudice him. The appellant is entitled to compensation from the insurer of the offending vehicle, which is unequivocally found to be the trailer; which is covered by a valid policy as admitted by the respondent-insurance company.
(Para 13 and 14)
(B) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Section 166 – MACT– Injury case – Amputation of both his legs – Permanent disablement – It has been proved that the appellant lost both his legs; one from above the knee and the other from below the knee – It is trite that there cannot be separate compensation awarded for permanent disability, physical discomfort and loss of amenities of life – The claim of the appellant is Rs.9,00,000/- under the separate heads – Held that it can be restricted to Rs.5,00,000/- under the common heads of permanent disability, physical discomfort and loss of amenities of life; considering the amputation suffered of both his legs – The cost of medical treatment has been claimed as Rs.2,00,000/- – However, the claim petition does not bind the Court in granting just compensation – Considering the use of prosthetics; which is also subject to wear and tear, it is only proper that an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- be granted on a composite basis for both medical treatment and artificial limbs – The cost of a personal attendant, at least for a period of time, has to be allowed at Rs.2,00,000/- as claimed by the appellant – Held that the entire amount of Rs.16,00,000/- has to be awarded as compensation – The amounts awarded, after deducting Rs.25,000/- received under Section 140 of the Act shall be paid to the appellant with 7% simple interest per annum from the date of the award – Insurance company directed to compute the amounts and intimate the same to the appellant.
(Para 16 and 17)
Srikrishna Kanta Singh V. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 394: (DoJ 25-03-2025)
