The Delhi High Court has observed that drivers must remain alert to pedestrians crossing roads and keep their vehicles under control, adding that it would be “extremely fanciful” to assume that drivers in crowded areas would not encounter unpredictable situations.

Justice Anish Dayal made the observations while dismissing an appeal filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) award granting Rs. 1.16 crore compensation to the family of a woman who died after being run over by an MCD truck.

The Court held that contributory negligence cannot be attributed to a victim merely on the basis of conjecture or presumption.

It added that rhe burden lies on the party alleging such negligence to establish, through cogent evidence, a causal connection between the victim's conduct and the accident.

“Even otherwise, driver of any vehicle is supposed to account for pedestrians or people crossing over and is supposed to apply brakes to stop or slow down their vehicle,” the Court observed.

The Court further emphasised that a responsible driver must remain alert to surrounding circumstances and anticipate uncertain situations on the road.

“A responsible driver naturally is one that is alert, aware of the surrounding circumstances and applies brakes, as and when it is required. The vehicle must always be in control of the driver, taking into account, all the exigencies and uncertain situations which can occur on a road. It would be extremely fanciful to assume that in a crowded area, the driver would not be confronted with any such situations,” the Court said.

It upheld the MACT's award of Rs. 1,16,42,016, along with 9% interest, to the legal representatives of one Teena Makkar.

The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz v. P. Ayyappan, which recognised the right to walk, including the right to safe and demarcated footpaths, as a fundamental right under the Constitution of India.

The MCD had argued that the deceased was crossing the road near a parked car and should, at the very least, be held contributorily negligent. It also questioned the reliability of the deceased's sister-in-law, who was an eyewitness, and pointed out the absence of CCTV footage.

Rejecting the said arguments, the Court held that the MCD had led no evidence to establish contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

The Court clarified that contributory negligence cannot be inferred merely from an alleged violation of a statutory requirement. It added that a causal connection must be established between the victim's act or omission and the accident or the nature and extent of the injuries.

The Court noted that the FIR was registered on the day of the accident and that the eyewitness's account was corroborated by the medico-legal certificate, which recorded injuries consistent with the truck having run over the right side of the deceased's body.

The Court upheld the MACT's reliance on the principle of res ipsa loquitur, under which the circumstances of an accident may themselves support an inference of negligence.

Finding no infirmity in the calculation of loss of dependency or the award under non-pecuniary heads, including loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, the Court dismissed the appeal.

It directed the MCD to deposit the entire compensation amount, along with accrued interest, before the MACT within four weeks, if not already deposited.