No Presumption Of Negligence Merely Because Driver Had Only Learner's Licence : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that driving with a learner's licence would not give rise to a presumption of contributory negligence in motor accident claims. The Court added that the compensation cannot be declined/reduced because the driver involved in the accident had only a learner's licence.

The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran heard the case where the Appellant had suffered amputation of both legs after the scooter he was riding pillion on collided with a rashly driven trailer.

The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (“MACT”) awarded ₹7.5 lakh compensation to the Appellant finding the scooter driver 40% negligent for carrying a pillion rider on a learner's license, and colliding with the trailer's tail-end, implying he had "better visibility."

The High Court upheld the compensation amount awarded by the MACT. The High Court assumed that the scooter driver was negligent because he hit the trailer's tail-end when he had "better visibility".

Following this, an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned decisions, the judgment authored by Justice Chandran referring to the case of Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh (2008) which observed that though driving without a valid license is an offence under motor laws, it does not per se establish negligence in causing the accident unless the license directly resulted in 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.”, the court observed.

Also, the Court observed that the impugned decisions erred in presuming the negligence by the scooter driver because the collision occurred at the tail-end of a long trailer, implying he had "better visibility."

Instead, the Court observed “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.”

"Finding that the driver was not cautious is one thing and finding negligence is quite another thing," the Court said.

The Court said that noted that the negligence is a question of fact, not presumption and the burden was on the insurer to prove the scooter driver's negligence, which it failed to do.

“On the above reasoning, we find that that the Tribunal erred in finding contributory negligence of the scooter driver and the High Court too committed a similar error in affirming it. As we noticed, absolving the scooter owner/driver of the 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, at all, prejudice him. The appellant is entitled to compensation from the insurer of the offending vehicle, which is unequivocally found to be the trailer; which is covered by a valid policy as admitted by the respondent-insurance company.”, the court held.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the compensation was enhanced to ₹16 lakhs (from ₹7.5 lakhs) for the amputee victim.

Case Title: SRIKRISHNA KANTA SINGH VERSUS THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 352

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, AOR Ms. K Enatoli Sema, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Mr. Hiren Dasan, AOR