Opening Car Door Without Checking Traffic Is Sheer Negligence: Delhi High Court Upholds MACT Award
An appeal was filed by IndusInd General Insurance Company Limited challenging a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) award.
Justice Anish Dayal, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that opening a car door without checking oncoming traffic is an act of sheer negligence, and therefore liability was correctly fastened on the driver of the offending vehicle.
An appeal was filed by IndusInd General Insurance Company Limited challenging a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) award.
A Bench of Justice Anish Dayal held, “Opening the car door without checking the oncoming traffic is certainly an act of sheer negligence, for which liability has to been correctly fastened on the driver of offending vehicle.”
Advocate Suman Bagga appeared for the Appellant.
The appeal arose from an accident that occurred when the claimant was driving a motorcycle and a Swift car in front of him suddenly opened the car door without checking for oncoming traffic or without any warning, causing a collision and resulting in multiple injuries, including head injury, both lower limbs fractured, knee and chest.
The MACT, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, had concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
On the issue of compensation, the insurer challenged the award of ₹3,50,000 towards attendant charges and the assessment of 90% functional disability. The Court found no merit in these objections. It noted, "Considering that he had suffered 90% permanent disability, there is no question that he would require some attendants throughout his life, considering that petitioner was 21 years of age and was working as a tutor."
Regarding disability, the Court relied on medical evidence showing “traumatic paraplegia,” effectively rendering both lower limbs non-functional. It accepted the claimant’s testimony that he “cannot move or walk without any escort and cannot do his daily routine work and has become dependent on others.”
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) reiterating that tribunals must assess the “effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity” and distinguish between medical disability and loss of earning capacity.
Finding no reason to interfere with the MACT’s findings on liability or quantum, the Court dismissed the appeal. It further directed that the compensation amount shall be released, along with the accrued interest, and ordered refund of any statutory deposit to the appellant.
Cause Title: IndusInd General Insurance Company Limited v. Roshan Kumar Sahu & Ors., [2026:DHC:2690]
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Suman Bagga and Mouli Sharma