Justice Anish Dayal, Delhi High Court
Contributory Negligence Can’t Be Fastened Upon Person On Footpath Or Pedestrian Area In Motor Accident: Delhi High Court
|The Delhi High Court was considering an appeal filed by the appellant/injured assailing the impugned award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
The Delhi High Court has held that a barber who got hit by a vehicle while working on the footpath would not be held guilty of contributory negligence on this account. The High Court also held that any injury or casualty suffered by a person on the footpath or pedestrian area, irrespective of the reason for which he is on the footpath/pedestrian area, cannot be a factor for fastening contributory negligence upon him.
The High Court was considering an appeal filed by the appellant/injured assailing the impugned award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (MACT/Tribunal).
The Single Bench of Justice Anish Dayal held, “In the facts of the present case as well, even though appellant/injured may be regarded as an unauthorised user for carrying out the work of a ‘barber’ on a barber chair on the footpath (even though no evidence of unauthorized use was placed), the same would be an issue concerning civic responsibility and municipal action; however, he certainly cannot be held guilty of contributory negligence on this account. Contributory negligence has to be established by showing that the injured or deceased had themselves contributed to the occurrence of the accident. In the present case, the accident occurred, in the first place, due to the offending vehicle being driven upon or crashing into the footpath, which cannot be countenanced. Footpaths and pedestrian areas are sacred and safe spaces not meant for vehicles to be crashing into or even being driven onto. Any injury or casualty suffered by a person on the footpath or pedestrian area, irrespective of the reason for which he is on the footpath/pedestrian area, cannot be a factor for fastening contributory negligence upon him. It is for the driver of a motor vehicle to respect that space.”
Advocate Raghav Vij represented the Appellant while Advocate A.K. Soni represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The appellant claimed that he was working as a ‘barber’ at his shop when a truck (offending vehicle), being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the first respondent/Umesh Kumar, struck him, causing grievous injuries. The MACT concluded that appellant/injured was encroaching upon the footpath and was, therefore, an unauthorised and illegal squatter. The MACT further observed that by working as a ‘barber’ on the footpath, appellant/injured had exposed himself to a risk of being injured. Accordingly, appellant was held liable for contributory negligence. This led to the filing of the appeal before the High Court.
Reasoning
The Bench referred to the judgment in Digamber Kumar v. National Ins Co Ltd.(2026), wherein it has been held that a person who is present on the footpath, whether as a pedestrian or while sleeping, cannot be held liable for contributory negligence. “The same principles will squarely apply in this case as well”, it stated.
The Bench held that even though the appellant/injured could be considered as an unauthorised user for carrying out the work of a ‘barber’ on a barber chair on the footpath, he could not be held guilty of contributory negligence on this account.
The Bench also took note of the fact that the plea of contributory negligence was not taken by the Insurance Company in the written statement filed by it before the MACT. Thus, setting aside the deduction made towards contributory negligence, the Bench fixed the compensation payable to the appellant/injured at Rs 1,71,350 along with interest.
Cause Title: Hari Nath Sharma v. Umesh Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:6895)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocates Raghav Vij, Suraj Kumar Jha, Mehul Prasad, Ritul Sharma, Sakshi Tiwari, Pratham Malik, Vanshika Kapoor
Respondent: Advocate A.K. Soni