The Delhi High Court has ruled that a person injured on a footpath cannot be held responsible for contributory negligence merely because he was using the pavement for an activity other than walking.
Justice Anish Dayal set aside the 30% deduction made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) from the compensation awarded to an injured barber and restored the total compensation to Rs.1,71,350 with 6% annual interest.
Background Of The Case
The appeal was filed by Hari Nath Sharma against the MACT award dated October 22, 2022. Sharma was working as a barber on a footpath at Gali No.10, Anand Parbat Industrial Area, Delhi, on September 20, 2019, when a truck bearing registration number HR-38W-3940 allegedly struck him. He suffered grievous injuries.
The MACT found that Sharma was on the footpath but treated his occupation there as an unauthorised use of the pavement. It consequently attributed 30% contributory negligence to him and reduced his compensation to Rs.1,19,945.
Delhi High Court's Observation
The High Court relied on its earlier decision in Digamber Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., holding that a person present on a footpath cannot ordinarily be blamed for contributory negligence when a vehicle enters that pedestrian space.
The Court observed:
“Footpaths and pedestrian areas are sacred and safe spaces not meant for vehicles to be crashing into or even being driven onto.”
It further clarified that even if a person is using a footpath for a purpose other than walking, that circumstance by itself cannot shift responsibility for a vehicle entering the footpath onto the injured person.
The Court also noted that any unauthorised use of the pavement could raise questions of civic or municipal responsibility, but it could not, on these facts, amount to contributory negligence.
Decision
The High Court held that the deduction for contributory negligence was not justified and set it aside. The appeal was allowed to that extent.
The total compensation payable to Hari Nath Sharma was fixed at Rs.1,71,350 with 6% annual interest. The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the balance amount, along with accrued interest, before the MACT within four weeks.
The amount was to be released to the injured appellant in a lump sum.
Case Details:
Case Title: Hari Nath Sharma v. Umesh Kumar & Ors.
Case Number: MAC.APP. 259/2023
Judge: Justice Anish Dayal
Decision Date: August 19, 2026
