The Delhi High Court has held that a driver cannot automatically avoid liability for negligence by claiming that a stray animal suddenly appeared on the road and forced an emergency manoeuvre. Justice Anish Dayal observed that drivers must anticipate foreseeable road hazards, remain vigilant and maintain sufficient control over their vehicles.
The Court dismissed an appeal filed by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of ₹1.70 crore, with 12% interest, in a case involving a passenger who suffered severe injuries after a car crashed into a road divider.
Background
The accident occurred on May 28, 2014, when Satish Chandra Gupta was travelling from Dwarka to Chhattarpur, Delhi, in the rear seat of a car driven by Sanjay Bhati. Near Vasant Kunj, close to Chhattarpur Metro Station, the driver reportedly lost control of the vehicle while attempting to avoid a dog crossing the road, causing the car to crash into a divider.
Gupta sustained grievous injuries and remained in a coma from the date of the accident until his death on August 22, 2020. The ambulance driver, who reached the accident scene and took Gupta to the hospital, stated that Gupta was unconscious in the rear seat and that Bhati had identified himself as the driver. The insurance company disputed this account, relying partly on a hospital discharge summary that recorded Gupta as having been behind the wheel.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, awarded compensation of ₹1,70,86,530 with 12% interest in its order dated May 26, 2016. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company challenged the award before the Delhi High Court, questioning the finding of negligence, the insurance policy’s coverage of Gupta as a vehicle occupant, and the compensation awarded for medical treatment and attendant charges.
Justice Dayal distinguished accidents caused by another person's conduct from situations involving unexpected hazards such as stray animals. The Court explained that although a driver may face a sudden dilemma, the circumstances do not automatically excuse a failure to exercise reasonable care.
The judgment emphasised the responsibility to anticipate road hazards and maintain control of a vehicle.
“At all times, a driver on the road has to be alert with complete visual focus, the road space in front of him and traffic at the rear.”
The Court also noted that a driver's inability to control the vehicle, insufficient attention or failure to anticipate danger may indicate a lack of reasonable care. It rejected the insurer's argument that the driver should be absolved merely because he had swerved to save a dog.
The Court further found that the evidence, including the ambulance driver's testimony and the accident records, supported the conclusion that Gupta was travelling in the rear seat. It held that the comprehensive/package insurance policy covered him as an occupant and that the insurer had failed to establish that he was an employee excluded from the relevant coverage.
The High Court found no merit in the insurance company's challenge to the negligence finding or the compensation awarded for attendant charges and medical expenses.
It dismissed the appeal and directed the insurer to deposit the remaining 50% of the compensation, together with accrued interest, for release as a lump sum, considering that Gupta had passed away.
