Driving on Pavements Invokes Res Ipsa Loquitur; Sleeping Pedestrians Not Liable for Contributory Negligence

In brief

The question

1. Whether pedestrians sleeping on a pavement can be attributed with contributory negligence when struck by a motor vehicle

The court held

The High Court set aside the finding of 50% contributory negligence in all four appeals

It also directed

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

01Facts

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

p. 2

A speeding truck (HR-37B-4372) mounted the pavement, crushed them, and hit a metro pillar before the driver fled

p. 2

Claim petitions were filed before the MACT, which passed awards on March 9, 2017, and February 27, 2018

p. 3

The MACT attributed 50% contributory negligence to the victims on the grounds that pavements are not meant for sleeping

p. 4

The Appellants challenged this finding and sought enhancement of compensation

pp. 3-4

02Issues

i.1. Whether pedestrians sleeping on a pavement can be attributed with contributory negligence when struck by a motor vehicle

p. 4 / para. 12

ii.2. Whether the multiplier should be determined based on the age of the deceased or the age of the dependents

p. 16 / para. 31

iii.3. Whether future prospects and non-pecuniary heads were correctly assessed as per settled law

pp. 16-17

03Law 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

p. 5

It 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

pp. 5, 6-9

Regarding 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

p. 13, 10

Compensation 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

pp. 16-17

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 110 Section 166

Delhi Police Act, 1978 Section 2

Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 38 Section 39 Section 40

04Reasoning

The Court found the MACT’s attribution of 50% contributory negligence "surprising" and legally unsustainable

p. 4

It 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

¶ 12

Applying res ipsa loquitur, the Court noted that a vehicle mounting a pavement "tells its own story" of the driver's exclusive negligence

pp. 13-14

The 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

p. 16

It 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

p. 9