Driving licence. Representative image.
DH Illustration
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said when a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence, which by itself cannot lead to a finding of negligence with regard to the accident.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran said, "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 was dealing with a plea by Srikrishna Kanta Singh, now an IAS officer, whose both the legs were amputated in an accident with a trailer on November 3, 1999. He was riding on a scooter, driven by a man with the learners licence.
In its judgment on March 25, 2025, the court found the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in finding contributory negligence of the scooter driver and the High Court too committed a similar error in affirming it.
The police after investigation, chargesheeted the driver of the trailer finding clear negligence on him, which led to the accident.
"The Tribunal, on a mere imaginative surmise, found that since the scooter collided with the tail-end of the trailer, it can be presumed that the driver of the scooter was not cautious, which in any event is not a finding of negligence," the court said.
The bench pointed out the finding that the driver was not cautious is one thing and finding negligence is quite another thing.
"Prima facie, we are satisfied that the negligence was on the trailer driver as discernible from the evidence recorded before the Tribunal," the bench said.
After noting that the trailer was driven rashly and negligently, the bench said, "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."
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, the bench said.
The court also held the High Court's finding that the appellant, then working as Block Development Officer, had exercised his authority to travel pillion, despite being aware of the driver holding only a learners licence, besides being "farfetched is not supported by any evidence".
In a motor accident claim, there is no adversarial litigation and it is the preponderance of probabilities which reign supreme in adjudication of the tortious liability flowing from it, the bench said, as it granted enhanced compensation of Rs 16 lakh to the appellant.
The Tribunal had awarded him Rs 7.5 lakh. The High Court dismissed his appeal, holding that the scooter driver had only a learners licence which does not entitle him to carry a pillion rider.