Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court
Insurer Is Bound To Indemnify Owner Of Vehicle Who Has Vicarious Liability As Against Negligence Of His Employee-Driver: Supreme Court
|The Petition before the Apex Court was filed by the Insurance Company, raising the issue of contributory negligence.
While upholding the judgment fixing the entire liability on the offending vehicle in a motor accident case, the Supreme Court has observed that the 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 driver.
The Petition before the Apex Court was filed by the Insurance Company, raising the issue of contributory negligence.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran said, “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 driver.”
AOR Prerna Mehta represented the Petitioner, while Advocate D. Bharat Kumar represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The Company was the insurer of a truck which collided with a motorbike, leading to fatal injuries to the bike rider. The wife and mother of the deceased filed the claim petition, in which the Tribunal 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 High Court found negligence solely on the part of the driver of the truck and enhanced the award amounts, against which the instant petition was filed before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Bench found that the truck driver stated in his deposition that 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 drivers. But, in cross-examination, he admitted that the position of the motorcycle could have been changed by the time he reached the spot.
It was noticed that the deposition of the Investigating Officer about the negligence of the 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 motorcycle driver had died in the accident. The Bench was unable to countenance the said statements of the Investigating Officer, who was examined on behalf of the respondent before the Claims Tribunal.“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”, it said.
As per the Bench, the High Court was right in fixing the entire liability on the offending vehicle, its owner and driver. Thus, dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Bench directed 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 within one month.
Cause Title: Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Swati Sharma and Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 487)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Prerna Mehta
Respondent: Advocates D. Bharat Kumar, Aman Shukla, M. Chandrakanth Reddy, AOR Gopal Jha, AOR Mamta Saxen, Advocates Rajesh Kandari, Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Maitri Goal, AOR P. V. Yogeswaran