While enhancing the motor accident compensation and setting aside the findings of contributory negligence, the Delhi High Court has held that pavements become a relatively safer place to rest for homeless persons, and if they take a calculated risk of sleeping on the pavement, it certainly cannot be translated into contributory negligence.

The High Court was considering an appeal pertaining to an accident which occurred in 2015, whereby people sleeping on the pavement were hit by a truck.

The Single Bench of Justice Anish Dayal held, “It is a reality in this country that many persons are homeless, work through the night, or are part of labour deployed at various constructions sites and do not have a place to sleep. For such persons, these pavements also become a relatively safer place to rest, considering that they do not expect vehicles to be driven onto the pavements and mow them down. Even if they had taken a calculated risk sleeping on the pavement, it certainly cannot be translated into contributory negligence.”

Advocate Anshuman Bal represented the Appellant while Advocate Manu Luv Shahalia represented the Insurance Company.

Factual Background

When the injured appellants Digambar Kumar, Lekh Raj, deceased Anil Bedi and deceased Ramesh Chand were sleeping on the pavement under the Madipur Metro Station, a truck came from the side of Punjabi Bagh at high speed, driven by the second respondent and owned by the third respondent. It hit all the said persons who were sleeping there and thereafter hit the metro pillar. The driver of the truck ran away from the spot, leaving behind the truck. The PCR van took all the injured to the Hospital, where two of the persons died due to fatal injuries received in the accident. The injured-claimants and the legal representatives of the deceased filed the claim petitions, which were adjudicated by the MACT by a common award.

A compensation of Rs 30,005 along with interest was awarded by the MACT in the case of the injured, Digambar Kumar; in the case of injured Lekh Raj, a compensation of Rs. 9,05,285 along with interest per annum was awarded. As regards the deceased Anil Bedi, an amount of Rs 2,34,810 was awarded, whereas in the case of Ramesh Chand, an amount of Rs 5,79,452 was awarded. The appeal before the High Court primarily challenged the finding of the MACT with respect to the assessment of contributory negligence at 50%.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, clarified that a footway, a bridge, etc. would be covered under the expression 'street' under Section 2(r) of the Delhi Police Act, 1978.

The Bench explained that the very purpose of the pavements or footpaths is for pedestrians or for any licensed user, and not for motor vehicles to drive. As per the Bench, the entire responsibility, in such circumstances, lies upon the driver who drove the vehicle into a space reserved exclusively for pedestrians. Needless to say, a driver ought to be more cautious while driving in an area meant for pedestrians. Even if it is not being used for the purpose it is intended for, it certainly cannot be used for driving, which is completely prohibited under the law, it added.

The Bench further stated that negligence cannot ordinarily be presumed just because an accident occurred. The circumstances of the accident themselves should clearly indicate negligence, and if the person in control of the vehicle fails to give a reasonable explanation for how the accident occurred, the court may apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and infer negligence.

The Bench held, “Contributory negligence arises only where the victim's own negligent act contributes to the accident and the resulting harm. The proximate cause of the accident should be the act of the deceased/injured. In the present case, there is no material to show that the injured/deceased’s act had contributed towards the accident.”

Setting aside the finding attributing 50% contributory negligence to the claimants, the Bench enhanced the compensation in each of the appeals.

Cause Title: Digamber Kumar v. National Ins Co. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5907)

Click here to read/download Order


Delhi High CourtJustice Anish Dayal

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.