No Collision? Then Why Did You Flee? — Supreme Court Rejects Truck Driver’s Defence, Upholds Full Liability on Insurer

Interested Testimony and Evasive Statements Cannot Defeat Eyewitness Truth” — In a judgment delivered on April 16, 2025, the Supreme Court in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swati Sharma & Ors., SLP (C) No. 24959 of 2019, dismissed the plea of the insurance company seeking to apportion blame on the deceased motorcycle rider in a fatal road accident. The Court affirmed the High Court’s finding that the truck driver was solely negligent, dismissing the insurer’s argument of contributory negligence. It also upheld the enhanced compensation awarded to the widow and mother of the deceased.

“We are unable to place any reliance on the interested testimony of RW1 (the truck driver) and the statements made by RW3 (the Investigating Officer), which were contrary to his own charge sheet.”

The case stemmed from a tragic road accident in which a motorcyclist lost his life after being hit by a truck. His wife and mother filed a compensation claim. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), while awarding compensation, attributed 50% contributory negligence to the deceased and apportioned liability accordingly.

However, both parties appealed. The High Court reversed the contributory negligence finding, holding the truck driver fully responsible and enhanced the compensation.

The insurance company, Reliance General, approached the Supreme Court challenging this ruling.

“No Collision, Yet You Ran — Conduct Is a Reflection of Consciousness of Guilt”

The Court was highly critical of the truck driver’s own version, who claimed there was no accident at all, and that he was implicated only because he was driving a bigger vehicle. But what raised eyebrows was his conduct.

“After the accident, the truck was not stopped. It was taken to a distance and the driver fled from the spot... His claim that he went to the police station later is belied by the fact that the FIR was lodged by PW3, the eyewitness.”

The Court firmly rejected this “no collision” theory, especially when the Investigating Officer himself filed a charge sheet against the truck driver, even though his oral testimony tried to suggest mutual negligence.

“We are unable to countenance the said statements of the Investigating Officer, who was examined on behalf of the respondent before the Claims Tribunal.”

“The Eyewitness Had No Reason to Lie — His Account Is Clear and Credible”

The insurer argued that the only eyewitness, PW3, was a friend of the deceased and therefore “interested.” The Court dismissed this argument outright.

PW3 was riding another motorcycle and was right behind the deceased. His evidence was that both bikes were moving at a normal speed when the truck swerved from the wrong side and hit the deceased.

“PW3 specifically spoke of both bikes being driven in normal speed when the offending truck came through the wrong side and hit the bike of the deceased.”

He also stated that the truck was driven rashly and negligently, and crucially, that the driver fled the scene—facts consistent with the charge sheet.

“His testimony finds full corroboration in the post-accident conduct, and unlike RW1, he had no reason to fabricate.”

“Contradictions Within the State’s Own Witnesses Cannot Cloud the Truth”

The Court took note of the Investigating Officer’s inconsistent evidence. RW3 initially stated that both parties were negligent but later admitted that vehicle positions could have changed before he arrived.

Even more damaging was his admission that: “The charge sheet was filed against the truck driver since the motorcycle driver had died in the accident.”

The Court found this explanation legally and factually flawed.

“We find the charge sheet more reliable than the officer’s oral version, which seemed tailored to support the insurer’s defence.”

Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly fastened full liability on the insurer, affirming that the truck driver was solely responsible for the fatal accident. The Court directed the insurer to pay the compensation with interest within one month, if not already disbursed.

“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 is perfectly in order.”

This judgment stands as a clear signal that attempts to deflect blame through inconsistent or interested testimony will not be entertained, especially when eyewitness evidence is clear, natural, and corroborated by conduct and documentary proof.

Date of Decision: April 16, 2025