Delhi High Court Verdict: The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant verdict regarding a 2015 road accident in the capital. The court clarified that the truck driver was entirely negligent in the incident where a speeding truck ran over people sleeping on the footpath. In its ruling, the High Court stated that individuals sleeping on the roadside or footpath cannot be held responsible for the accident. In such cases, it is the driver’s duty to operate the vehicle with utmost vigilance and caution to ensure no one’s life is endangered.
Footpaths are for pedestrians, not vehicles
The Delhi High Court observed that footpaths are intended for pedestrians and for people to rest when necessary, not for driving vehicles. The court held that those sleeping on the footpath could not be blamed for the accident and that the truck driver was solely negligent. Granting relief to the victims’ families, the High Court deemed the reduction in compensation ordered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) to be unjustified. Setting aside the tribunal’s order, the court increased the compensation amount to approximately ₹10 lakh.
What was the case about?
This case pertains to a tragic road accident that occurred in October 2015 beneath the Madipur Metro Station in Delhi. A speeding truck mounted the footpath and ran over Digambar Kumar, Lekh Raj, Anil Bedi, and Ramesh Chand, who were sleeping there. Anil Bedi and Ramesh Chand died on the spot, while Digambar Kumar and Lekh Raj sustained serious injuries. Subsequently, the victims’ families approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) seeking compensation.
During the hearing, the insurance company argued that sleeping on the footpath was a contributing factor to the accident. Accepting this argument, the tribunal held the victims 50% responsible due to “contributory negligence” and reduced the compensation amount by 50%. However, the Delhi High Court has now set aside this finding by the tribunal. The court clearly stated that footpaths are meant for pedestrians—and for them to rest if necessary—not for vehicles. Therefore, people sleeping on the footpath cannot be held responsible for such an accident.
Why did the High Court overturn the tribunal’s decision?
During the hearing, a bench led by Justice Anish Dayal of the Delhi High Court expressed strong disapproval of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s (MACT) decision. The court observed that the tribunal should have first considered whether the truck driver had any legal right to drive the vehicle onto the footpath. If not, how could the people present on the footpath be held liable for the accident? In its ruling, the High Court also highlighted the country’s social and ground realities. The court noted that the homeless and daily-wage laborers often rest on footpaths out of necessity, as they lack safe alternatives for shelter or sleep. Such individuals do not anticipate that a vehicle might mount the footpath. The court clarified that while sleeping on a footpath may carry risks, it cannot be deemed “contributory negligence” on the part of the victims in the eyes of the law. Full liability for the accident lies with the driver who endangered lives by driving the vehicle onto the footpath.
Major relief for the victims’ families
In its judgment, the Delhi High Court clarified that driving a vehicle on a footpath is strictly prohibited by law. The court stated that if a driver steers a vehicle into an area reserved for pedestrians and an accident occurs, the driver bears 100 percent of the liability. The High Court held that the MACT’s decision to reduce the compensation by 50 percent—based on the premise of contributory negligence by the victims—was unjustified. Completely rejecting the tribunal’s conclusion, the court set aside the deduction. The court observed that footpaths are constructed for the safety of pedestrians and that those present there cannot be held responsible for an accident. Therefore, the truck driver’s negligence was the sole cause of the accident. Granting relief to the families of the deceased, the High Court directed the payment of enhanced compensation.
