Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently stated that driving without a licence is an offence, but it does not automatically lead to a finding of negligence in an accident case. Court enhanced compensation to Rs 16 lakh for an IAS officer.

At the time of the accident in 1999, the IAS officer was serving as a Block Development Officer. He lost both his legs when the scooter he was riding pillion on, driven by a man with a learner’s licence, collided with a trailer.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran allowed an appeal filed by the officer namely Srikrishna Kanta Singh.

Court observed that finding that the driver was not cautious is one thing and finding negligence is quite another in such cases.

In a motor accident claim, there is no adversarial litigation, and it is the preponderance of probabilities that reigns supreme in adjudicating the tortious liability flowing from it, as held in Sunita Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (2020), the bench said.

In the present case, the court noted that after investigation, the police chargesheeted the driver of the trailer, finding clear negligence on his part, which led to the accident. This was not controverted by the respondents before the tribunal with any valid evidence or even a pleading, court pointed out. 

In fact, the tribunal, on a mere imaginative surmise, found that since the scooter collided with the tail-end of the trailer, it could be presumed that the driver of the scooter was not cautious. However, in any event, this is not a finding of negligence, the bench said.

"Finding that the driver was not cautious is one thing and finding negligence is quite another thing. Prima facie, we are satisfied that the negligence was on the trailer driver as discernible from the evidence recorded before the Tribunal," the bench said.

Regarding whether negligence could be attributed to the scooter driver solely on the ground of having only a learner’s licence, the bench said, "We have already found that the finding of the High Court that the BDO had exercised his authority to travel pillion, despite being aware of the driver holding only a learners licence, besides being farfetched is not supported by any evidence".

Citing Sudhir Kumar Rana Vs Surinder Singh (2008), the bench pointed out that when a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence, which by itself cannot lead to a finding of negligence concerning the accident.

"Having found the trailer to be driven rashly and negligently, we 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," the bench said.

The court also held that the tribunal erred in finding contributory negligence on the part of the scooter driver, and the high court too committed a similar error in affirming it.

The bench said absolving the scooter owner/driver of 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 prejudice him in any way.

The appellant is entitled to compensation from the insurer of the offending vehicle, which is unequivocally found to be the trailer and is covered by a valid policy, as admitted by the respondent-insurance company, the bench held.

In the case, the officer, on November 3, 1999, had met an accident leading to the amputation of both his legs.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded him a sum of Rs 7.5 lakh. Of this amount, Rs 3 lakh was to be paid by the scooter driver. The high court dismissed the appeal, finding that the scooter driver had only a learner’s licence, which did not entitle him to carry a pillion rider. It also found that the BDO had abused his authority and forced the commission of an illegal act, due to which he suffered the amputation of his legs in an accident involving the scooter he had forcefully mounted.

Before the apex court, on the question of compensation, the insurance company argued that there was no scope for any permanent disablement since the appellant, who was a BDO, had been confirmed as an IAS officer despite the disability.

"However, this contention would only deprive the claim of loss of income but the compensation for permanent disablement definitely has to be considered since it would necessarily lead to loss of life’s amenities. It has been proved that the appellant lost both his legs; one from above the knee and the other from below the knee," the bench said.

The court awarded him Rs 5,00,000 under the common heads of permanent disability, physical discomfort, and loss of amenities of life.

"We are of the opinion that 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 bench said, awarding a sum of Rs 16 lakh to him, with 7% simple interest per annum from the date of the award.

Case Title: Srikrishna Kanta Singh Vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd & Ors