Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Meera Bai vs ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

Supreme Court30 April 2025Sudhanshu Dhulia

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where an FIR has been lodged and a charge sheet filed against the owner-driver of a vehicle for rash and negligent driving, the filing of these documents constitutes sufficient basis to establish negligence in a motor accident claim, and the absence of an eyewitness examination does not defeat liability, particularly where the defendant-driver does not enter the witness box to depose or provide an alternative explanation for the accident.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

2025 INSC 600

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No…….……. of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No.3886 of 2019)

MEERA BAI & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGEMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The claimants before the Tribunal have filed an appeal

from the order of the High Court which allowed the appeal

of the insurance company and dismissed the claim petition

for reason of no eyewitness having been examined to prove

the rash and negligent driving.

3. On facts, it needs to be stated that the accident Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2025.04.30 occurred on 29.01.2015 when the deceased was travelling 16:14:03 IST Reason:

pillion in a motorbike driven and owned by the second

Page 1 of 3 CA @ SLP (C) No. 3886 of 2019 respondent. The FIR was lodged against the owner driver of

the vehicle for the offence of rash and negligent driving. A

charge sheet was filed against the owner driver. The owner

driver filed a written statement before the Tribunal denying

the rash and negligent driving on his part, however he did

not mount the box to depose that it was not due to his fault

that the accident occurred.

4. As far as examining the eyewitness, such a witness will

not be available in all cases. The FIR having been lodged

and the charge sheet filed against the owner driver of the

offending vehicle, we are of the opinion that there could be

no finding that negligence was not established.

5. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that

the order of the High Court must be set aside and that of the

Tribunal restored. We do not speak on the quantum, since

there is no appeal filed by the claimants against the

quantum as determined by the Tribunal.

6. The amounts as directed by the Tribunal with interest

at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of presentation of

Page 2 of 3 CA @ SLP (C) No. 3886 of 2019 the claim petition, as directed by the Tribunal, shall be paid

expeditiously by the insurance company.

7. The appeal stands allowed on the above terms.

8. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

….……….……………………. J.

(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)

………….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 30, 2025.

Page 3 of 3 CA @ SLP (C) No. 3886 of 2019

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free