NEW DELHI: Enhancing compensation payable to kin of two men mowed down by a speeding truck as they slept on a pavement below a Metro station, Delhi high court has said complete negligence is of the driver and not of those sleeping on the pavement.The court set aside the motor accident claims tribunal’s (MACT) finding of 50% contributory negligence against the two men killed and two others who were severely wounded.The motor accident claims tribunal had docked 50% of the amount from payable compensation, agreeing with the insurance company that the deceased were equally to be blamed for sleeping on a pavement beneath the Madipur metro station.“The court is quite surprised to note the observation of MACT in this regard and the conclusion drawn of 50% contributory negligence.
CJP Jantar Mantar Protest Updates
The question which 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,” Justice Anish Dayal noted.The kin of dead and the injured had appealed in HC, arguing that the truck driver could not be partly absolved of liability only because the deceased were sleeping on the pavement. “It is a reality in this country that many persons are homeless, work through the night, or are part of labour deployed at various construction 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,” HC said.It added that “a pedestrian who is using a pavement, walking, standing, or resting owing to compelling circumstances, cannot be expected to anticipate that a motor vehicle would be driven onto the footpath.”HC stressed that the “verypurpose of the pavements or footpaths is for pedestrians or for any licensed user, and not for motor vehicles to drive. 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.”The accident occurred in Oct 2015 when Digambar Kumar, Lekh Raj, Anil Bedi and Ramesh Chand were hit by a speeding truck. Bedi and Chand died while the other two survived. HC removed the 50% bar and hiked the quantum of compensation to around Rs 10 lakh for the deceased.
