2026 INSC 767 | 30 July 2026
What the case was about
This case centred on a familiar dispute in motor-accident litigation: when a driver’s licence was not shown to be valid on the date of a crash, who must compensate the victim—the insurance company or the driver and vehicle owner? Reliance General Insurance Company Limited filed special leave petitions challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that had reversed the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) and fastened liability on the insurer. The insurer contended that the driver, Om Prakash, lacked a valid driving licence on 14 October 2009, and therefore the policy did not cover the claim. The Supreme Court had to decide whether the High Court had correctly relied on limited evidence to override the Tribunal’s contrary finding. As the Court noted at the outset, the limited issue was whether Om Prakash possessed a valid driving licence on the date of the accident; if the answer was no, the Tribunal’s order would have to be upheld (para 7).
The key facts
On 14 October 2009, a vehicle driven by Om Prakash collided with a two-wheeler. Rash and negligent driving were not in dispute. The MACT, Panipat, held that Om Prakash did not possess a valid driving licence on the date of the accident. It took note that a penalty had been paid for the intervening period and directed the driver and the vehicle owner to pay approximately ₹86.96 lakh in compensation, while absolving the insurer of liability.
The claimants, driver, and owner appealed. The High Court reversed the Tribunal. It relied on the testimony of a Motor Licensing Officer (RW3) and a letter from the Wazirpur licensing authority (Ex.RW3/B), which stated that records for the period 2007 to 2010 were unavailable because of a technical error during data transfer to an outsourced company, but certified that the licence had nonetheless continued to be renewed. On that basis, the High Court concluded the licence was valid during the gap and made the insurer liable for about ₹1.08 crore (paras 12, 13). The insurer then approached the Supreme Court.
The questions before the Court
The appeals raised three main questions. First, did Om Prakash possess a valid driving licence on the date of the accident? Second, did the High Court err in relying on oral testimony and a letter alleging technical data loss, without primary evidence or satisfying the conditions for secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872? Third, could the insurer be held liable to satisfy the compensation award when the validity of the driving licence had not been duly proved?
What the Court decided and why
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and held that the insurer was not liable. The final burden of compensation was placed jointly on the employer-owner and the driver, and the principle of “pay and recover” was held applicable, permitting the insurer to take steps in accordance with law to recover any amount already disbursed to the claimants (para 18).
The Court began by restating the law on documentary evidence. An official document such as a driving licence must be proved by primary evidence—that is, the document itself or certified official records. Where a particular fact is to be established by production of documentary evidence, there is no scope for leading oral evidence in its place. Secondary evidence is permissible only when the party proves the original existed and satisfactorily explains its non-production within one of the specific exceptions under Section 65 of the Evidence Act (para 11.1).
Applying this framework, the Court found the High Court’s reliance on RW3’s oral statement and letter Ex.RW3/B to be legally flawed. The officer had not produced any official record showing that data was actually lost, nor had he shown what steps the licensing authority took to recover the data or address gaps affecting other similarly placed licensees. The Court observed that if RW3 could bring Om Prakash’s file to court to assert one fact, he could have produced official evidence of the alleged data gap, yet he did not. The evidence was not of sufficient quality to assume that all steps in law were taken and to justify imposing liability on the insurer (para 12).
The Court also examined the letter dated 8 May 2015 (Ex.RW3/B). It merely recorded that the office had no record of the licence’s status between 2007 and 2010, but it nowhere confirmed that the licence was valid on the date of the accident. Apart from this letter and RW3’s oral statement, no official record corroborated the claim of continuous validity (para 13).
A further decisive factor was the payment of a penalty. The record showed that a penalty was charged for the intervening period from 21 June 2007 to 25 August 2010. The Court reasoned that if the licence had been valid throughout, as RW3 claimed, there would have been no occasion for a penalty, which clearly indicated a break in validity (para 14).
The Court underscored the statutory duty of vehicle owners under the Motor Vehicles Act. It observed that once the basic care of verifying the driving licence has to be taken by the employer, the owner would know the validity of the licence as set out in the document itself, and cannot wash his hands off the responsibility of not checking whether the driver renewed the licence (para 17).
Because the respondents failed to prove that Om Prakash held a valid licence on 14 October 2009, the Court held that the insurer could not be made to bear the award. The liability rests squarely on the owner and the driver.
Why it matters
The judgment is a firm restatement of evidentiary standards in motor-accident cases. It clarifies that courts cannot relax the rules of documentary proof—especially the requirement of primary evidence for official records—simply because a party offers an explanation involving technical data loss. Mere oral assertions by officials, unsupported by corroborating documentation and without satisfying the legal foundation for secondary evidence, are insufficient to establish licence validity.
For vehicle owners, the decision reinforces a strict duty to verify and monitor the validity of a driver’s licence at the time of employment and thereafter. Negligence in this regard can leave the owner personally exposed to substantial compensation awards. For insurers, the ruling confirms that coverage does not extend to accidents involving drivers whose licences are not proved valid on the date of the accident, and it upholds the “pay and recover” principle as a safeguard where interim payments have already reached victims.
Above all, the case underscores that a driving licence is a statutory certification of fitness to drive, and that drivers, owners, and licensing authorities must treat its maintenance and renewal with corresponding seriousness.