Barber Hit By Vehicle While Running Shop On Footpath Can't Be Blamed For Contributory Negligence: Delhi High Court
Footpaths are sacred and safe spaces not meant for vehicles to be crashing into or being driven onto, Court said.
The Delhi High Court has held that a barber hit by a vehicle while running his shop on a footpath cannot be held responsible for contributory negligence to reduce amount of accident compensation he is entitled to.
In doing so the court emphasized that footpaths and pedestrian areas are "sacred and safe spaces" not meant for vehicles to be crashing into or even being driven onto
The motor vehicle tribunal had granted compensation of Rs.1,71,350 to the appellant-injured person who was working as a barber at his shop situated on a footpath when a truck driven in a rash manner had struck the appellant causing him injuries. However this amount was reduced by 30% on account of contributory negligence being attributed to him; thus the net compensation awarded to appellant was Rs.1,19,945/- along with interest @ 6% per annum
The tribunal had held that appellant was encroaching upon the footpath and was, therefore, an unauthorised and illegal squatter as well as had exposed himself to the risk of being injured.
Justice Anish Dayal in his order held:
"This Court has already taken a detailed view in this regard, in Digamber Kumar v. National Ins Co Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 5578, and held that a person who is present on the footpath, whether as a pedestrian or while sleeping, cannot be held liable for contributory negligence. The same principles will squarely apply in this case as well. The question that needs to be considered, in such circumstances, is why the offending vehicle was on the pavement or being driven on the footpath, when the same is not permissible under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988"
In the present case the court found that the appellant may be regarded as an unauthorised user for carrying out the work of a 'barber' on a barber's chair on the footpath-even though no evidence of unauthorized use was placed–it would however be an issue concerning civic responsibility and municipal action.
"However, he certainly cannot be held guilty of contributory negligence on this account" the court held adding that contributory negligence must be stablished by showing that the injured or deceased had themselves contributed to the occurrence of the accident.
"In the present case, the accident occurred, in the first place, due to the offending vehicle being driven upon or crashing into the footpath, which cannot be countenanced. Footpaths and pedestrian areas are sacred and safe spaces not meant for vehicles to be crashing into or even being driven onto. Any injury or casualty suffered by a person on the footpath or pedestrian area, irrespective of the reason for which he is on the footpath/pedestrian area, cannot be a factor for fastening contributory negligence upon him. It is for the driver of a motor vehicle to respect that space," the court emphasized.
The court also also noted that the plea of contributory negligence was not taken by the Insurance Company in the written statement before the Tribunal.
The court thus held that the compensation cannot be reduced on this count and directed that the total compensation payable to appellant would now be Rs.1,71,350/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
The appeal was disposed of.
Case title: SH. HARI NATH SHARMA v/s SH. UMESH KUMAR & ORS
MAC.APP. 259/2023