Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs Swati Sharma and Others

2025 INSC 487 Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.24959 OF 2019

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ...PETITIONER VERSUS

SWATI SHARMA AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. The petition is filed by the Insurance Company,

insurer of a truck which collided with a motor bike leading

to fatal injuries to the bike rider. The wife and mother of the

deceased filed the claim petition, in which, the Tribunal

while making the award found contributory negligence on

the deceased. The liability of the award amounts on the

insurer of the truck was apportioned at 50%. The claimants

and the insurer filed appeals before the High Court. The

Signature Not Verified High Court found negligence solely on the part of the driver Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2025.04.16 16:30:55 IST Reason: Page 1 of 5 SLP (C) No.24959/2019 of the truck and enhanced the award amounts, against which

the instant petition is filed.

2. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company

argued that this was a unique case in which the driver of the

alleged offending vehicle mounted the box and spoke of the

accident, which deposition indicates negligence on the bike

rider. This is amply supported by the Officer who

investigated the crime. The interested testimony of the

eyewitness, who was admitted to be the friend of the

deceased should be eschewed considering the over-

whelming evidence of negligence on the part of the bike

rider.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2

seeks to uphold the judgment of the High Court, which

reversed the order of contributory negligence passed by

the Tribunal. The learned counsel also justifies the

enhancement made, relying on precedents.

4. The reliance placed is on the driver of the offending

vehicle, the truck, who was examined as RW1 and the

Investigating Officer who was examined as RW3. RW1

mounted the box, and his deposition was to the effect that

Page 2 of 5 SLP (C) No.24959/2019 there was no collision at all and the case was filed against

him only because he was driving a bigger vehicle.

However, the evidence of RW3, Investigating Officer was

contrary, to the extent of admitting the collision between the

bike and the truck. His evidence was that there was

contributory negligence on both the drivers, on an

assessment of the lie of the vehicles at the accident site. But,

in cross-examination he admitted that the position of the

motorcycle could have been changed by the time he

reached the spot. It is also very pertinent that the deposition

of RW3 about the negligence of bike driver conflicted with

the charge sheet filed by him, against the truck driver. His

explanation was also that the charge sheet was filed against

the truck driver since the motor-cycle driver had died in the

accident. We are unable to countenance the said statements

of the Investigating Officer, who was examined on behalf of

the respondent before the Claims Tribunal.

5. The evidence of the eyewitness, PW3, was that he was

accompanying the deceased in another bike. They were

proceeding to a common destination on two bikes, PW3

following the bike of the deceased. He specifically spoke of

Page 3 of 5 SLP (C) No.24959/2019 both the bikes being driven in normal speed when the

offending truck came through the wrong side and hit the

bike of the deceased. He has also deposed that the truck

was driven in a rash and negligent manner. After the

accident the truck was not stopped. It was taken to a

distance and the driver fled from the spot of accident. RW1

has a case that he had fled only because people had

gathered to beat him. His deposition is also that he had, after

fleeing from the spot of the accident, gone to the police

station to report the accident. The accident, however, was

reported to the police by PW3, the eyewitness. We are

unable to place any reliance on the interested testimony of

RW1 and the statements made by RW3, contrary to his own

findings in the investigation.

6. In the totality of the circumstances as revealed from

the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the

judgment of the High Court fixing the entire liability on the

offending vehicle, its owner and driver is perfectly in order.

The petitioner-insurer, who has insured the vehicle is bound

to indemnify the owner of the vehicle who has the vicarious

liability as against the negligence of his employee- the

Page 4 of 5 SLP (C) No.24959/2019 driver. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued only

on the question of contributory negligence and hence we

say nothing on the enhancement of the award amounts;

which in any event, we find to be proper.

7. We dismiss the Special Leave Petition and direct that

the amounts deposited in Court shall be disbursed along

with interest to the claimants, if not already done and the

balance amounts, if any, with interest shall also be paid

through RTGS transfer, on the claimants furnishing their

account details, within a period of one month from the date

of this order.

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

………….……………………. J.

(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)

………….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 16, 2025.

Page 5 of 5 SLP (C) No.24959/2019