Footpath Users Not Liable for Contributory Negligence When Vehicle Enters Pedestrian Space : Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has set aside a 30% deduction imposed for contributory negligence on a barber who was struck by a truck while working at his footpath-based shop, holding that a person present on a footpath regardless of the reason cannot be blamed for an accident caused by a vehicle being driven onto a space reserved exclusively for pedestrians.

Justice Anish Dayal was hearing an application, filed by the appellant/injured against an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby compensation of Rs.1,71,350/- had been awarded but reduced by 30% on account of contributory negligence, leaving a net award of Rs.1,19,945/- with 6% interest.

As per the case, the appellant/injured was working as a barber at his shop situated on the footpath at Gali No.10, Anand Parbat, New Delhi, when a truck driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent no.1 struck him, causing grievous injuries. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the MACT itself, on the basis of the site plan forming part of the Detailed Accident Report, had rejected the defence that the appellant was crossing the road, and had confirmed that the accident occurred on the footpath itself where he was working, with photographs of the spot and of his broken barber chair on record.

Despite these findings, the MACT had concluded that the appellant was an unauthorised and illegal squatter who, by working on the footpath, had exposed himself to a risk of injury, and accordingly fastened contributory negligence upon him.

Reversing this finding, the court relied on its earlier decision in Digamber Kumar v. National Ins Co Ltd., which had held that a person present on a footpath, whether as a pedestrian or while sleeping, cannot be held liable for contributory negligence, and which had in turn drawn upon the Supreme Court's ruling in Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz v. P. Ayyappan, elevating the right to walk on demarcated footpaths to a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution.

Extracting the relevant passage from Digamber Kumar, the court reproduced the following observation on record:

“The question which the MACT ought to have asked itself was whether the truck driver had any authority or right to drive his truck over the pavement, which is meant for pedestrians. The answer to that question would have been obvious, and therefore, whatever activity is happening on the pavement, whether people are sleeping, or hawkers are present, or people are walking, cannot come within the purview of contributory negligence.”

“In view of the statutory framework and the judgments of the Supreme Court and High Court discussed above, it is evident that pavements and footpaths are intended exclusively for the use of pedestrians. The law does not permit their use for any other purpose, whether by way of unauthorised encroachments, parking of vehicles, or driving motor vehicles upon them... Therefore, 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, still it certainly cannot be used for driving, which is completely prohibited under the law.”

Applying these principles to the facts, the court held that even if the appellant could be regarded as an unauthorised user for running his barber business on the footpath, that would at most be a matter of civic responsibility and municipal action, and could not be treated as contributory negligence, since the accident occurred because the offending vehicle was driven onto or crashed into the footpath in the first place. 

The court observed that footpaths and pedestrian areas are sacred and safe spaces not meant for vehicles to be crashing into or driven onto, and that any injury suffered by a person on the footpath, irrespective of the reason for his presence there, cannot be a factor for fastening contributory negligence upon him, since it is for the driver of a motor vehicle to respect that space. The court also noted that the plea of contributory negligence had not even been taken by the Insurance Company in its written statement before the MACT.

Accordingly, the court set aside the 30% deduction, restoring the full compensation of Rs.1,71,350/- with 6% interest per annum, and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the balance amount, after adjusting the sum already deposited, before the MACT within four weeks for release to the appellant/injured as a lump sum. The appeal was allowed and disposed of in these terms.

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Mr. Raghav Vij, Mr. Suraj Kumar Jha, Mr. Mehul Prasad, Mr. Ritul Sharma, Ms. Sakshi Tiwari, Mr. Pratham Malik and Ms. Vanshika Kapoor, Advocates.

For Respondent No.3/Insurance Company: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate.

Case Title: Sh. Hari Nath Sharma vs. Sh. Umesh Kumar & Ors., MAC.APP. 259/2023 [2026:DHC:6895]

[Read Judgment]