Delhi High Court Clarifies Liability in Pavement Sleeping Incidents
In a recent landmark decision, the Delhi High Court has provided clarity on the issue of contributory negligence concerning individuals sleeping on pavements. The court ruled that such individuals cannot be held accountable for contributory negligence if they are struck by vehicles, as per the case Digamber Kumar Vs National Ins Co Ltd & Ors.
Justice Anish Dayal, presiding over the matter, recognized the unfortunate reality that many people without homes or nighttime shelter resort to resting on pavements, which they consider safer from traffic. The court underscored that these individuals do not foresee vehicles unlawfully venturing onto pavements and causing harm. Consequently, the calculated decision to sleep on a pavement cannot be construed as contributory negligence.
Re-evaluating Tribunal’s Decision on Compensation Reduction
The case in question involved an appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT)’s previous verdict, which had reduced compensation by 50% citing contributory negligence. The incident under scrutiny involved a tragic accident where two individuals lost their lives and two others sustained injuries after being hit by a truck while asleep on a pavement beneath the Madipur metro station.
The High Court expressed its surprise at the MACT’s stance on the victims’ contributory negligence. Justice Dayal highlighted that the tribunal should have questioned the legality of the truck driver’s actions in steering his vehicle onto a pedestrian-designated area. The court’s observation was clear: activities occurring on pavements, be it sleeping, walking, or vending, should not be classified under contributory negligence.
Legal Implications and Future Guidance
The judgment delivered on July 8 emphasized that pavements are meant for pedestrian use, and no anticipation of motor vehicle encroachment should be expected by those using them. The High Court asserted that the driver’s actions were entirely unjustified and that the responsibility for the accident lay solely with the driver.
More Read
Furthermore, the court noted that while pavements should not be misused for unauthorized activities, their fundamental purpose is to provide a safe space for pedestrians, free from vehicular threats. Justice Dayal remarked that the law does not permit pavements to serve any purpose other than pedestrian use, whether through unauthorized encroachments or improper vehicular activities.
Compensation and Legal Representation
As a result of these legal findings, the court enhanced the compensation amount for the victims, directing the insurance company to deposit the revised amount, including accrued interest, with the MACT within six weeks. Legal representation for the claimants was provided by Advocates Anshuman Bal, S N Parashar, and Ritik Singh, while Advocate Manu Luv Shahalia represented the insurance company.
