Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd

2026 INSC 208 Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No…………of 2026 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No.14988 of 2023)

Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Appellant Versus Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and Ors. Respondents

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. The appeal essentially raises the question of

which insurance company has the liability to satisfy

the award in favour of the claimant, injured in the

collision of two vehicles. The brief facts to be noticed

are that on 19.05.2013 at around 11:00 pm, there

occurred a collision between a trailer and a truck.

The trailer is insured by the appellant herein while

the truck is insured by the respondent insurance Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SACHIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.02.27 company. The Tribunal, looking at the evidence of the 17:12:55 IST Reason:

claimant, who was a Cleaner in the truck and

Page 1 of 7 CA @ SLP (C) No. 14988 of 2023 travelling in it, found negligence on the truck driver.

The High Court, on an appeal by the insurer of the

truck reversed the findings of the Tribunal and put the

liability on the insurer of the trailer.

3. Admittedly, the trailer was moving in front and

the truck behind it. The allegation in the claim

petition was that the sudden brake applied by the

trailer resulted in a collision, injuring the cleaner

grievously. The trailer driver applied brakes

negligently contends the respondent while the

appellant asserts negligence on the truck driver who

failed to maintain sufficient gap between the

vehicles.

4. Mr.Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

appellant relied on Nishan Singh & Ors. v.

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through

Regional Manager & Ors.1. It was submitted that

the claimant himself had admitted that the truck

driver was negligent.

5. Mrs. Shantha Devi Raman, learned counsel for

the respondent insurance company relied on

1 (2018) 6 SCC 765

Page 2 of 7 CA @ SLP (C) No. 14988 of 2023 National Insurance Company v. Chamundeswari

and Others2 in which Nishan Singh1 was

distinguished. It is also pointed out that the claimant

in further cross examination clearly stated negligence

of the driver of the trailer and in any event, the driver

of the trailer had confessed to his negligence in the

criminal case filed, the details of which were

produced along with an affidavit dated 09.09.2025.

6. We see from the evidence of the claimant that

when the trailer applied its brakes, the truck driver

also applied his brakes, but was unable to control his

vehicle since the truck was travelling at a distance

only of 20 feet from the trailer. It was also deposed

that if a truck moves at a speed of 30-40 km per

hour, then it should maintain a gap of 40-50 feet, to

ensure effective control of the vehicle. A suggestion

was answered in the affirmative that if the truck had

maintained a distance of 40-50 feet, then the

accident could have been averted. On cross

examination of the counsel for the insurer of the

2 (2021) 18 SCC 596

Page 3 of 7 CA @ SLP (C) No. 14988 of 2023 truck, a suggestion that the driver of the truck was

driving slowly and that the accident took place due to

the negligence of the trailer driver was answered in

the affirmative. However, this does not dislodge the

categorical assertions made earlier, especially with

respect to the distance maintained between the two

vehicles, the responsibility of which squarely falls on

the vehicle at the back; here the truck

7. We are unable to place any reliance on the

documents placed with respect to FIR No.41 of 2013,

since a perusal of the same does not indicate the

details of the accident which led to the registration of

the crime, nor does the record before us disclose the

crime number of the case registered based on the

accident.

8. We cannot but observe that even if the

conviction, on a confession and release invoking the

provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, is

reckoned, in reality this is a measure employed in a

prosecution launched based on motor accidents so as

to bring a quietus to the proceedings.

Page 4 of 7 CA @ SLP (C) No. 14988 of 2023

9. In any event, this cannot upset the evidence led

before the Tribunal. In Chamundeswari2 the facts

indicate that an Eicher van which was driven in front

of the car took a sudden right turn which resulted in

the car following colliding with the van. This Court in

fact refused to give weightage to the contents of the

FIR, which were to the contrary, finding that what

matters before the Tribunal is the evidence led before

the Tribunal. In the present case, there was no

attempt by the respondent insurance company, the

insurer of the truck to examine the driver of the truck

or that of the trailer or at least produce the records

now produced, before the Tribunal. The criminal case

No.133 of 2013, alleged to be one on the very same

accident, was concluded on 16.07.2013 long before

the disposal of the claim petition by the Tribunal on

14.01.2019 as per Annexure P-2.

10. We also have to notice Nishan Singh1 which

dealt with a similar case of a car following a truck at a

distance of 10 to 15 feet which was found to be not a

sufficient distance as mandated by law, especially Page 5 of 7 CA @ SLP (C) No. 14988 of 2023 looking at Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road

Regulations, 1989. Regulation 23 provides that the

driver following another vehicle should maintain

sufficient distance from the vehicle going in the front

to avoid a collision, keeping in mind the possibility of

a sudden slowing down or stoppage. The Regulation

has to be followed by the drivers on the road failing

which it would be deemed to be negligent driving. In

this case, the Cleaner of the vehicle who was

travelling inside the truck categorically stated that

the distance between the two vehicles was only 20

feet. He is a person conversant with road safety

norms, we should presume, by virtue of his avocation

and he also categorically stated the safe distance to

be maintained to avert an accident. The Cleaner

deposed to the fact that the distance kept by his

driver from the vehicle moving in the front was not

adequate and sufficient so as to control the vehicle at

the back, if the vehicle at the front abruptly stopped.

11. We are of the opinion that the High Court erred

in reversing the well-considered order of the Tribunal

Page 6 of 7 CA @ SLP (C) No. 14988 of 2023 based on the evidence led before it. We, hence,

reverse the order of the High Court and restore that

of the Tribunal, mulcting the liability on the

respondent insurance company in the above appeal.

12. The learned counsel for the respondent

persisted and attempted to persuade us to find

contributory negligence; for which we find absolutely

no valid evidence.

13. The appeal stands allowed.

14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

……….……………………. J.

(SANJAY KUMAR)

………….…………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 24, 2026.

Page 7 of 7 CA @ SLP (C) No. 14988 of 2023