Authority: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 30 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd; Respondents – Om Prakash (driver) and others.
  • Nature of proceeding: Civil appeal (SLP(C) Nos. 6743‑6744 of 2023) challenging a High Court judgment that had held the insurer liable for compensation awarded in a motor accident claim.
  • Accident details: Occurred on 14 October 2009 when the offending vehicle driven by Om Prakash struck a two‑wheeler. Rash and negligent driving were undisputed.
  • Compensation awarded: Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Panipat quantified Rs 86,95,947 plus 7.5% interest (later 9% after two months). High Court recomputed the amount as Rs 1,08,08,909 with 8% interest.
  • Key legal issue: Whether Om Prakash possessed a valid driving licence on the date of the accident. The Tribunal held he did not; the High Court held he did, based on a licence copy and a letter stating a technical data‑loss.
  • Evidence examined:
  • Testimony of RW‑1 (Gopal Krishan) and RW‑2 (Raj Singh) indicating no valid licence for the accident date.
  • Testimony of RW‑3 (Shailendra Pal Singh, Motor Licensing Officer) who produced a licence copy showing renewal from 22‑06‑2007 to 21‑06‑2010, but also acknowledged a contradiction with the extracted record (Ex.RW3/A).
  • Letter dated 08‑05‑2015 (Ex.RW3/B) from the Motor Licensing Office stating that due to a technical error during data transfer (HCL to DIMTS) records for 2007‑2010 were unavailable, yet the licence was “treated as valid” for that period.
  • The Court noted the absence of any official document corroborating the claim of a valid licence during the gap period and highlighted the penalty payment of Rs 200 for the intervening period.
  • Statutory provisions: Motor Vehicles Act sections defining a driving licence and owner’s responsibility; Indian Evidence Act sections 61‑65 on primary and secondary evidence; relevant Supreme Court precedents on licence validity and insurer liability (e.g., Beli Ram v. Rajinder Kumar, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hem Raj).
  • Legal reasoning: The Court emphasized that primary evidence is required for official documents; secondary evidence is admissible only with a satisfactory explanation for the non‑production of the original. The letter and oral statements did not satisfy this requirement, and the contradictory documentary evidence was ignored by the High Court.

Final Outcome

  • The appeal is allowed; Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd is not liable to pay the Rs 1.08 bn award.
  • The principle of “pay and recover” is applied: the liability rests with the driver (Om Prakash) and the vehicle owner.
  • All pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
  • The Court suggested that the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways undertake awareness campaigns and streamline licence renewal processes to prevent similar disputes.

Topics: Motor Accident Liability, Insurance Claim