The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant verdict, ruling that a person sleeping on a pavement cannot be considered negligent if they are struck by a vehicle. The decision came in appeals filed by surviving victims and families of deceased individuals who were hit while resting on public sidewalks, challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's earlier order that had reduced compensation on grounds of contributory negligence.
Court's Rationale
The bench clarified that sleeping on a pavement does not amount to negligence under motor accident laws. Drivers are duty-bound to exercise caution and avoid hitting any person, whether moving, standing, or lying down, on roads or adjacent areas. The court emphasized that pavements are meant for pedestrian use, and resting on them is a common practice in densely populated urban centers. Placing the burden of negligence on a sleeping person would be unjust and contrary to principles of social justice.
Tribunal's Flawed Approach
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had previously held that the victims were partly responsible for the accidents because they chose to sleep on the pavement, which is not a designated sleeping area. Consequently, it reduced the compensation amount by a certain percentage, attributing contributory negligence to the victims. The High Court found this reasoning flawed, stating that the act of resting on a pavement does not contribute to the occurrence of an accident caused by a driver's lack of vigilance.
Legal Implications
This judgment sets a crucial precedent for similar cases across India. It reinforces that a driver's duty of care extends to all persons on or near the road, including those resting on pavements. Legal experts have hailed the decision as a step toward a more compassionate interpretation of negligence laws, aligning with the principles of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court's order is expected to influence future compensation claims involving pedestrians and pavement dwellers, ensuring that the most vulnerable sections of society are not unfairly penalized.
The High Court also directed that the compensation be recalculated without any deduction for contributory negligence, effectively restoring the full amount that would have been awarded had the tribunal not erred. The judgment underscores that primary responsibility for road safety lies with drivers, who must remain alert at all times.
