Facts
On October 11, 2015, at 4:30 a.m., four individuals (two injured, two deceased) were sleeping on a pavement under the Madipur Metro Station
Source reference: p. 2A speeding truck (HR-37B-4372) mounted the pavement, crushed them, and hit a metro pillar before the driver fled
Source reference: p. 2Claim petitions were filed before the MACT, which passed awards on March 9, 2017, and February 27, 2018
Source reference: p. 3The MACT attributed 50% contributory negligence to the victims on the grounds that pavements are not meant for sleeping
Source reference: p. 4The Appellants challenged this finding and sought enhancement of compensation
Source reference: p. 3-4Issues
1. Whether pedestrians sleeping on a pavement can be attributed with contributory negligence when struck by a motor vehicle
Source reference: p. 4 / para. 122. Whether the multiplier should be determined based on the age of the deceased or the age of the dependents
Source reference: p. 16 / para. 313. Whether future prospects and non-pecuniary heads were correctly assessed as per settled law
Source reference: p. 16-17Law Applied
The Court applied Section 2(r) of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, Rule 39(3) of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, and Rule 15 of the Rules of Road Regulations, 1989, which collectively prohibit motor vehicles from driving or parking on footpaths
Source reference: p. 5It relied on Olga Tellis v. BMC (1985) regarding the public nature of pavements and the recent precedent Maniyar Iliyaz v. P. Ayyappan (2026 INSC 647) which elevated the "right to walk" on safe footpaths to a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21
Source reference: p. 5, 6-9Regarding negligence, it applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as discussed in Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka and the definition of contributory negligence from Municipal Corp. of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer
Source reference: p. 13, 10Compensation principles were governed by Sarla Verma v. DTC and Pranay Sethi, mandating the use of the deceased's age for multipliers and standardized future prospects
Source reference: p. 16-17Reasoning
The Court found the MACT’s attribution of 50% contributory negligence "surprising" and legally unsustainable
Source reference: p. 4It reasoned that since a driver has no authority to access a pavement, any activity occurring there—whether walking or sleeping—does not constitute negligence relative to a motor vehicle
Source reference: para. 12Applying res ipsa loquitur, the Court noted that a vehicle mounting a pavement "tells its own story" of the driver's exclusive negligence
Source reference: p. 13-14The Court further corrected the MACT's error in using the mother’s age for the multiplier, affirming that the deceased’s age is the sole legal benchmark
Source reference: p. 16It also noted the socio-economic reality that homeless individuals use pavements as a "relatively safer place to rest," which does not translate into a "calculated risk" for the purpose of tortious liability
Source reference: p. 9Holding
The High Court set aside the finding of 50% contributory negligence in all four appeals
In MAC.APP. 288/2018, it enhanced "Pain and Suffering" to Rs. 1,00,000. In MAC.APP. 289/2018, it corrected the multiplier to 14, added 25% future prospects, and adjusted consortium, totaling an enhanced amount of Rs. 10,06,360. In MAC.APP. 290/2018, it awarded 25% future prospects and parental/spousal consortium to five claimants, totaling an enhancement of Rs. 9,92,848. In MAC.APP. 197/2019, it restored the full compensation by removing the 50% deduction. The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amounts with 9% interest within six weeks
Source reference: p. 15, 18, 20, 21Original Court PDF
Digamber KumarvsNational Ins Co Ltd & Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in