Supreme Court: Motor Accident Claim: No Deduction Of Employer-Provided Group Insurance Benefits From Compensation

  In view of the foregoing discussion, and in light of the settled principles laid down by this Court in Helen C. Rebello(Supra), United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and Sebastiani Lakra (Supra), It is clear that amounts received by the dependants of the deceased under employer-provided group insurance or other contractual or social security benefits cannot be treated as "pecuniary advantages" liable to be deducted from compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Such benefits arise out of an independent contractual relationship and lack the requisite nexus with the statutory compensation payable for death in a motor vehicle accident. The principle of balancing loss and gain cannot therefore be invoked to diminish the statutory entitlement of the claimants to just compensation. {Para 16}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 5490-5491 of 2025 and 5492-5493 of 2025

Decided On: 16.03.2026

The Managing Director, KSRTC Vs. P. Chandramouli and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pankaj Mithal and P.B. Varale, JJ.

Author: P.B. Varale, J.

 Citation: 2026 INSC 241, MANU/SC/0233/2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Non impleadment of driver in motor accident claim petition is not fatal

In Civil Appeal NO'S. 5492-5493 Appellant pointed out certain procedural lapses particularly for not adding driver as a party. Both tribunal and High court not accepted the said contention. This Court in Rajo Devi and Anr. Etc. v. Manjeet Kaur and Ors.   MANU/SC/0741/2025 : 2025:INSC:741 speaking through one of us (P.B Varale J) observed thus "it must be kept in mind that the provision of providing compensation to the injured/dependants in accident cases under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial provision to enhance social justice. Accordingly, the rigours of procedure cannot be allowed to defeat its purpose as the trial in such cases is summary in nature". {Para 11}

12. In view of the proposition laid down in above the tribunal and the High court rightly discarded procedural objection of Appellant.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 5490-5491 of 2025 and 5492-5493 of 2025

Decided On: 16.03.2026

The Managing Director, KSRTC Vs. P. Chandramouli and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pankaj Mithal and P.B. Varale, JJ.

Author: P.B. Varale, J.

 Citation: 2026 INSC 241, MANU/SC/0233/2026

Print Page

Supreme Court: Compensation granted on account of death of passenger can not be reduced if there was contributory negligence of driver in which deceased was travelling?

In the case of Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,   MANU/SC/1357/1997 : 1997:INSC:705 : (1997) 8 SCC 683 this Court dealt with the question whether the driver's negligence in any manner vicariously attaches to the passengers of the motor vehicle of which he was the driver, and it was held as below:

10. There is a well-known principle in the law of torts called the "doctrine of identification" or "imputation". It is to the effect that the Defendant can plead the contributory negligence of the Plaintiff or of an employee of the Plaintiff where the employee is acting in the course of employment. But, it has been also held in Mills v. Armstrong [(1888) 13 AC 1, HL] (also called The Bernina case) that that principle is not applicable to a passenger in a vehicle in the sense that the negligence of the driver of the vehicle in which the passenger is travelling, cannot be imputed to the passenger. This principle has been applied, in latter cases, to passengers travelling in a motor vehicle whose driver is found guilty of contributory negligence. In other words, the principle of contributory negligence is confined to the actual negligence of the Plaintiff or of his agents. There cannot be a fiction of the passenger sharing a "right of control" of the operation of the vehicle nor is there a fiction that the driver is an agent of the passenger. A passenger is not treated as a backseat driver. (Prosser and Keeton on Torts, 5th Ed., 1984, pp. 521-22.) It is therefore clear that even if the driver of the passenger vehicle was negligent, the Railways, if its negligence was otherwise proved - could not plead contributory negligence on the part of the passengers of the vehicle.  {Para 18}

19. It is clear from the ratio of the above judgment that the contributory negligence on the part of a driver of the vehicle involved in the accident cannot be vicariously attached to the passengers so as to reduce the compensation awarded to the passengers or their legal heirs as the case may be.

39. We are of the view that the aforesaid decision applies to the case at hand on all fours and thus, the Appellant-claimants cannot be denied their rightful compensation on the ground that the driver of the car, namely Saiprasad Karande (deceased), was jointly responsible for the accident with the person in control of the offending truck and hence, their claims should be reduced on the principle of contributory negligence.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 10648 of 2024 

Decided On: 19.09.2024

Sushma Vs. Nitin Ganapati Rangole and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Author: Sandeep Mehta, J.

Citation: 2024 INSC 706,MANU/SC/1032/2024.

Print Page

Supreme Court: If the driver of the offending vehicle does not possess a valid driving license, the principle of 'pay and recover' can be ordered

 On the issue of liability to pay the compensation awarded, we affirm the view taken by the High Court that the Respondent - Insurance Company is absolved of the liability to bear the compensation, as evidence has been produced from the office of the Regional Transport Office to prove that the drivers of the two offending trucks were driving on the basis of invalid driving licenses. It is also relevant to note that the owners and drivers of the offending trucks have not appeared at any stage of the proceedings, including this Court. {Para 7}

7.1. This Court in Shamanna and Ors. v. The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., held that if the driver of the offending vehicle does not possess a valid driving license, the principle of 'pay and recover' can be ordered to direct the insurance company to the pay the victim, and then recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.  MANU/SC/0828/2018 : (2018) 9 SCC 650.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5123 of 2019.

Decided On: 01.07.2019

Parminder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Indu Malhotra and M.R. Shah, JJ.

Author: Indu Malhotra, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0860/2019,(2019) 7 SCC 217.

Print Page

Supreme Court: The owner cannot be expected to verify the genuineness of the driving licence with the licensing authority before hiring the services of the driver, unless required by Insurance

In a claim for compensation, it is certainly open to the insurer under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) to take a defence that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not duly licensed. Once such a defence is taken, the onus is on the insurer. But even after it is proved that the licence possessed by the driver was a fake one, whether there is liability on the insurer is the moot question. As far as the owner of the vehicle is concerned, when he hires a driver, he has to check whether the driver has a valid driving licence. Thereafter he has to satisfy himself as to the competence of the driver. If satisfied in that regard also, it can be said that the owner had taken reasonable care in employing a person who is qualified and competent to drive the vehicle. The owner cannot be expected to go beyond that, to the extent of verifying the genuineness of the driving licence with the licensing authority before hiring the services of the driver. However, the situation would be different if at the time of insurance of the vehicle or thereafter the insurance company requires the owner of the vehicle to have the licence duly verified from the licensing authority or if the attention of the owner of the vehicle is otherwise invited to the allegation that the licence issued to the driver employed by him is a fake one and yet the owner does not take appropriate action for verification of the matter regarding the genuineness of the licence from the licensing authority. That is what is explained in Swaran Singh's case (supra). If despite such information with the owner that the licence possessed by his driver is fake, no action is taken by the insured for appropriate verification, then the insured will be at fault and, in such circumstances, the insurance company is not liable for the compensation. {Para 8}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 8276 of 2009

Decided On: 26.08.2013

Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Vs. National Insurance Company

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Gyan Sudha Misra and Kurian Joseph, JJ.

Author: Kurian Joseph, J.

Citation: (2013) 10 SCC 217, MANU/SC/0877/2013.

Print Page

What is the standard of proof for deciding motor accident claim petition?

 The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Anita Sharma Vs. New India Assurance Company, MANU/SC/0928/2020 : 2020:INSC:685 : (2021) 1 SCC 171, has held that nature of proceedings under Section 169 of Motor Vehicles Act are in the nature of summary proceedings and that strict principles of evidence and standard of proof like criminal trial are inapplicable. It is further held that the standard of proof on preponderance of probabilities would apply to such cases. The Hon'ble Apex Court expects form the Court to analyse the material placed on record to ascertain whether the claimant's version is more likely than not true. {Para 10}

11. No doubt, the initial burden is on claimants to prove the factum of occurrence of accident as well as negligence on the part of the driver of offending vehicle in order to make owner and insurer thereof liable for payment of compensation arising out of such accident. Here in this case, claimant No. 1 examined herself at Exhibit 23. She deposed about the accident and registration of First Information Report as well as filing of charge-sheet against the driver of Tavera jeep. Certified copies of First Information Report, Post Mortem notes (Exhibit 33), registration of vehicle bearing No. MH 26 V 4866 (Exhibit 36) and insurance policy (Exhibit 37) collectively are the part of record. In the cross-examination, no doubt, she admitted to have not witnessed occurrence of the accident however, there is nothing elicited in her cross-examination in order to create doubt about the document sought to be placed on record. Exhibition of these documents is not objected at stage of trial nor any doubt is created in respect of the same by effectively cross examining claimant No. 1. The owner has failed to cross-examine this witness. Whereas, on behalf of insurer, there is even no suggestion made to the witness that the driver of Tavera jeep was driving the vehicle by taking utmost care and the vehicle was not driven in excessive speed. Further, there is no suggestion to the effect that the accident has occurred due to mechanical fault or fault on the part of the other vehicle. Moreover, the genuineness thereof has not been challenged, except vague suggestion that by managing police, First Information Report is reported against driver of offending vehicle. The First Information Report is lodged by the police personnel at place far distant from the residence of the claimants. In such circumstances, there is no reason or justification to hold that it is registered at instance of claimants to seek compensation.

12. It is trite that claim petition is not to be tried as criminal proceeding wherein strict proof of the fact is required. In any enquiry for determination of compensation, claimants are expected to prove their case on preponderance of probabilities. First Information Report indicates that offence was registered against the driver of the offending jeep. There is nothing on record to indicate First Information Report being challenged by any one or quashment thereof is sought. In absence of any evidence to prove otherwise, the evidence on record is sufficient to hold that the accident has occurred due to negligence of the driver of offending jeep. The findings recorded by learned Tribunal with regard to the negligence therefore deserves no interference.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

First Appeal No. 4258 of 2017

Decided On: 09.01.2024

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pallavi and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.M. Joshi, J.

Citation:  MANU/MH/0129/2024,2024:BHC-AUG:315.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Under which circumstances driver of offending vehicle is not necessary party to motor accident claim petition?

 The insurer challenges maintainability of claim for non-joinder of driver to the claim petition. Needless to say that strict procedure is not applicable in the enquiry which is summary in nature. Claimants are entitled to seek compensation from driver as well as owner at first instance being joint tortfeasors. If compensation is claimed from driver, he would be necessary party as in his absence no liability can be fixed upon him. However, vicarious liability of owner to compensate victim does not get discharged in absence of driver. It is open for the claimant to raise claim against both joint tortfeasors or either of them. In any event, owner has appeared in this proceeding and it was always open for him to lead evidence to show that driver of offending jeep was not negligent and consequently driver is not liable to pay compensation on the basis of vicarious liability for act of his employee. Owner has failed to prove the same. Having regard to the nature of claim, driver is not necessary party and no prejudice is shown to have caused to the merit of the case, on account of his absence. Hence, issue raised about maintainability of claim for non joinder of necessary party, sans merit. {Para 17}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

First Appeal No. 4258 of 2017

Decided On: 09.01.2024

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pallavi and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.M. Joshi, J.

Citation:  MANU/MH/0129/2024,2024:BHC-AUG:315.

Print Page

Whether motor accident claim tribunal can dismiss claim petition on the ground that driver of offending vehicle is not added as party to the petition?

Learned Tribunal may be right in arriving at the finding that the driver of ill fated vehicle is a necessary party, however, was not justified in dismissing the claim mainly on the ground that he has not been impleaded in the proceeding. It seems that learned Member of the Tribunal was oblivious of the provisions of Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code, which reads as under :

Court may strike out or add parties The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit suit, be added. {Para 4}

5. This being the settled legal position, learned Member has committed serious error in dismissing the claim petition particularly when the claimants were unfortunate parents who lost their son aged about 22 years in motor vehicular accident. Utmost sensitivity to the cause of such nature is needed.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

First Appeal No. 115/2012

Decided On: 14.02.2012

Sahebrao Tikaramji Gakhare and Ors. Vs. Lakhotia Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.N. Gilani, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/0175/2012,2013ACJ 109 Bom

Print Page

Under which circumstances driver of the vehicle is not necessary party to motor accident claim petition?

The issue to be examined herein is whether in the claims cases before the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, the driver of a vehicle who has been accused of negligence is a necessary party to the proceedings or whether the owner alone can be impleaded.

Here, one must bifurcate the terms 'party' and 'necessary party'. 'Party' has been correctly defined by the High Court in the impugned judgment in terms of involvement in the proceedings regardless of formal impleadment. However, a necessary party has been defined in the 5th edition of Black's Law Dictionary as follows:

In pleading and practice, those persons who must be joined in an action because, inter alia, complete relief cannot be given to those already parties without their joinder. Fed. R. civil P. 19 (a)....

First and foremost, as has been stated in the body of the judgment, natural justice would mandate involvement of a driver, as an adverse finding on negligence cannot and should not be made against him without giving him the opportunity to at least make a representation as a witness.

More importantly, however, one must look at the kind of evidence which must be led in such cases. Appellants have, as noticed hereinbefore, relied on Patel Roadways (supra) to try and prove that the driver need not be a party. Firstly, this case only relates to formally impleading the driver as a party. However, the fact that joint tortfeasors have been mentioned in the judgment is relevant.

Joint tortfeasors, as per the 10th edition of Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence, have been described as under:

Wrongdoers are deemed to be joint tortfeasors, within the meaning of the rule, where the cause of action against each of them in the same, namely that the same evidence would support an action against them, individually- Accordingly, they will be jointly liable for a tort which they both commit or for which they are responsible because the law imputes the commission of the same wrongful act to two or more persons at the same time. This occurs in cases of (a) agency; (b) vicarious liability; and (c) where a tort is committed in the course of a joint act, whilst pursuing a common purpose agreed between them.

Hence, employer and employee, the former being vicariously liable while the latter being primarily liable are joint tortfeasors and are therefore jointly and severally liable. However, by virtue of the fact that the cause of action is the same and that the same evidence would support an action against either, it follows that this evidence must necessarily include an examination of the driver who is primarily liable. To make a finding on negligence without involving the driver as at least a witness would vitiate the proceedings not only on the basis of the fact that the driver has not been given an opportunity to make a representation, but also because the evidence to make a finding regarding negligence would necessarily be inadequate.

24. On this basis, a driver should be made a 'party' to the proceedings. 

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 3041 of 2008 

Decided On: 29.04.2008

Machindranath Kernath Kasar Vs. D.S. Mylarappa and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Sinha and V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.

Author: S.B. Sinha, J.

Citation:  2008 INSC 556,MANU/SC/2484/2008,AIR 2008 SC 2545.

Print Page

Whether insurance company can refuse to pay compensation if owner of vehicle has not checked authenticity of driving license of driver of vehicle?

 This Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh MANU/SC/0021/2004 : (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] has noticed the defences available to the insurance company Under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The insurance company is entitled to take a defence that the offending vehicle was driven by an unauthorised person or the person driving the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence. The onus would shift on the insurance company only after the owner of the offending vehicle pleads and proves the basic facts within his knowledge that the driver of the offending vehicle was authorised by him to drive the vehicle and was having a valid driving licence at the relevant time.

{Para 12}

17. This issue has been answered in National Insurance Co. Ltd. [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh MANU/SC/0021/2004 : (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] In that case, it was contended by the insurance company that once the defence taken by the insurer is accepted by the Tribunal, it is bound to discharge the insurer and fix the liability only on the owner and/or the driver of the vehicle. However, this Court held that even if the insurer succeeds in establishing its defence, the Tribunal or the court can direct the insurance company to pay the award amount to the claimant(s) and, in turn, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The three-Judge Bench, after analysing the earlier decisions on the point, held that there was no reason to deviate from the said well-settled principle. In para 107, the Court then observed thus: (SCC p. 340)

107. We may, however, hasten to add that the Tribunal and the court must, however, exercise their jurisdiction to issue such a direction upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case and in the event such a direction has been issued, despite arriving at a finding of fact to the effect that the insurer has been able to establish that the insured has committed a breach of contract of insurance as envisaged Under Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act, the insurance company shall be entitled to realise the awarded amount from the owner or driver of the vehicle, as the case may be, in execution of the same award having regard to the provisions of Sections 165 and 168 of the Act. However, in the event, having regard to the limited scope of inquiry in the proceedings before the Tribunal it had not been able to do so, the insurance company may initiate a separate action therefor against the owner or the driver of the vehicle or both, as the case may be. Those exceptional cases may arise when the evidence becomes available to or comes to the notice of the insurer at a subsequent stage or for one reason or the other, the insurer was not given an opportunity to defend at all. Such a course of action may also be resorted to when a fraud or collusion between the victim and the owner of the vehicle is detected or comes to the knowledge of the insurer at a later stage.

10. The owner of the vehicle is expected to verify the driving skills and not run to the licensing authority to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver. Therefore, once the owner is satisfied that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, it is not expected from the owner thereafter to verify the genuineness of the driving license issued to the driver.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 4919 of 2022 

Decided On: 26.07.2022

Rishi Pal Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath, JJ.

Author: Hemant Gupta, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1303/2022,2022 SCCONLINE SC 2119.

Print Page

Whether award passed by motor accident tribunal will be vitiated if driver is not made party to proceeding?

Thus, the law is that the claimant while filing a claim application is under no obligation to ensure that all necessary and proper parties are impleaded as opponents to the claim petition. Considering the nature of the proceedings, the responsibility is of the Tribunal to ensure that the notices are issued to all the necessary parties. This power can be exercised by the Tribunal at any stage of the proceedings.

11. It is a matter of common knowledge that while defending a claim petition, diverse defences are raised in the written statements by the owners and especially the Insurers. However, in many cases, we find that all the defences pleaded are not pressed into service at the time of final hearing. Whenever a contention is pressed into service by any of the opponents to the claim petition or the persons to whom the notice of the claim petition is issued under Rule 260 that the driver of a vehicle is a necessary party, the Tribunal is under an obligation to examine the said contention and if found correct, issue a notice to the driver. It is obvious that if such contention is not pressed by the party to whom the notice is served, the said party cannot be allowed to raise the said contention for the first time in the appeal. A claimant cannot be allowed to suffer as he is under no obligation to implead any party as the opponent to the claim petition. In such a case, if the driver is aggrieved by the adverse finding recorded against him by the award of the Tribunal, he has a remedy of preferring an appeal against the award after obtaining a leave of the Appellate Court. If neither the owner nor the Insurer raises a contention before the Tribunal regarding the non-joinder of the driver, it is not open for them to contend in the appeal that the driver was a necessary party and that the award is vitiated because of non-joinder of the driver. The observations made by this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd., Aurangabad Vs. Suman Bhaskar Pawar and others (supra) in clause (iv) of paragraph No. 16 will apply only when specific defence of non- joinder of the driver is pressed into service either by the owner or by the Insurer. If they fail to raise the said contention, the same is not available for them in the appeal. Needless to say that the same will remain available to the driver who is not made party. As the law is that the responsibility of issuing the notice to the proper parties is entrusted to the Tribunal, if a contention regarding non-joinder is not raised, the claimant cannot be allowed to suffer on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to perform its duty. Even if a contention regarding non- joinder of driver is raised at the time of final hearing of a claim petition, if the said condition is correct, the Tribunal can issue notice to the driver at any stage.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

First Appeal No. 1731 of 2010

Decided On: 21.11.2011

The New India Assurance Company Limited  Vs.  Sitaram Devidayal Jaiswal and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.

Print Page

Whether driver is necessary party in motor accident claim petition?

The analysis of our findings aforementioned is:

(i) In the first set of claims cases, the driver of the bus was held to be negligent and, therefore, a ruling that the driver is a necessary party would mean that the bus driver must necessarily be involved in these proceedings. However, the driver of the bus had sufficient opportunity to make a representation against the allegation of negligence as he was examined as RW1 in the claim cases filed by the passengers, even though he was not formally impleaded as a Respondent. Hence, the High Court has correctly held that he was a 'party' to the proceedings.

(ii) In the claims filed by the driver of the bus (namely the Appellant herein), specific allegations were made against the driver of the truck. Hence, the question is whether the driver of the truck must necessarily be made a party to the proceedings. He was not.

Here, one must bifurcate the terms 'party' and 'necessary party'. 'Party' has been correctly defined by the High Court in the impugned judgment in terms of involvement in the proceedings regardless of formal impleadment. However, a necessary party has been defined in the 5th edition of Black's Law Dictionary as follows:

In pleading and practice, those persons who must be joined in an action because, inter alia, complete relief cannot be given to those already parties without their joinder. Fed. R. civil P. 19 (a)....

First and foremost, as has been stated in the body of the judgment, natural justice would mandate involvement of a driver, as an adverse finding on negligence cannot and should not be made against him without giving him the opportunity to at least make a representation as a witness.

More importantly, however, one must look at the kind of evidence which must be led in such cases. Appellants have, as noticed hereinbefore, relied on Patel Roadways (supra) to try and prove that the driver need not be a party. Firstly, this case only relates to formally impleading the driver as a party. However, the fact that joint tortfeasors have been mentioned in the judgment is relevant.

Joint tortfeasors, as per the 10th edition of Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence, have been described as under:

Wrongdoers are deemed to be joint tortfeasors, within the meaning of the rule, where the cause of action against each of them in the same, namely that the same evidence would support an action against them, individually- Accordingly, they will be jointly liable for a tort which they both commit or for which they are responsible because the law imputes the commission of the same wrongful act to two or more persons at the same time. This occurs in cases of (a) agency; (b) vicarious liability; and (c) where a tort is committed in the course of a joint act, whilst pursuing a common purpose agreed between them.

Hence, employer and employee, the former being vicariously liable while the latter being primarily liable are joint tortfeasors and are therefore jointly and severally liable. However, by virtue of the fact that the cause of action is the same and that the same evidence would support an action against either, it follows that this evidence must necessarily include an examination of the driver who is primarily liable. To make a finding on negligence without involving the driver as at least a witness would vitiate the proceedings not only on the basis of the fact that the driver has not been given an opportunity to make a representation, but also because the evidence to make a finding regarding negligence would necessarily be inadequate.

24. On this basis, a driver should be made a 'party' to the proceedings. It was done in the instant case. In the present case, the contention of the counsel for the respondent Insurance Company, namely that without contrary evidence led by the appellant or Corporation, the finding of negligence on the part of the appellant cannot be interfered with, must be upheld. Without a deposition on the part of the truck driver and without his involvement at least as a witness, an adverse finding on negligence cannot be made against him.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 3041 of 2008

Decided On: 29.04.2008

Machindranath Kernath Kasar Vs. D.S. Mylarappa and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Sinha and V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.

Print Page

When burden of proof is on insurance company to prove that driver was not having valid licence in motor accident claim petition?

 As regards the investigation report of the search conducted by the

said Bharadwaj and Company, no such certificate issued by the R.T.O.

Dehradun is produced on record to show that the driving liecnce on which

the Opponent No.2 has relied upon, was totally false or fake one. Thirdly,

in the claim form it was stated that the licence was issued by the R.T.O.

Nashik. The insurance company has not produced any documents on

record to show that the R.T.O. Nashik has made inquiry and found that no

such liecnce was issued in the name of the Opponent No.2.

13] Needless to state that as the insurance company is coming before

the court with a specific plea that the driver was not having valid licence

and hence, there was breach of insurance policy, the burden obviously

therefore was on insurance company to prove that the driver does not

have valid licence. Appellant company should have discharged that

burden by carrying out necessary investigations and inquiries with R.T.O.

Nashik or Dehradun and not on the basis of some letter issued by private

investigator.

14] In such circumstances, I do not find tthat the Tribunal has

committed any error in holding the insurance company liable along with

the owner for payment of compensation amount to the claimants. The

appeal therefore is devoid of merits.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FIRST APPEAL NO.99 OF 1999

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt.Balubai Shivaji Dabhade and Ors. 

 CORAM : DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.

DATE : 3rd October 2016.

Citation: 2017(2) MHLJ 405

Print Page

Whether claim for compensation for motor accident can be rejected on ground of acquittal of driver in criminal case?

 In the instant case, the compensation was restricted to the ceiling of 'no fault liability', as provided in Section 140 of the Act, as the deceased, in this case, was a 10 year old child and the claimants were not held entitled to any compensation for loss of dependency. At the same time, when the insurer is absolved of the liability on account of the breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, it is the insured who has to satisfy the award. Furthermore, the effect of acquittal of the appellant-driver in the criminal case has no bearing on the present proceedings. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal is hereby dismissed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

F.A.O. No. 1777 of 1999 (O&M)

Decided On: 02.04.2014

Appellants: Baldev Singh
Vs.
Respondent: Manjit Kaur

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Jitendra Chauhan, J.

Citation: 2015(2)ALLMR (JOURNAL)93, 2014(4)RCR(Civil)35

Print Page