Vehicle driver, not footpath user, liable when truck crashes into pavement; Delhi High Court rejects contributory negligence against barber working there

On 20 September 2019, the appellant, Hari Nath Sharma, was working as a barber on a chair placed on the footpath at Gali No. 10, Anand Parbat Industrial Area, New Delhi, when truck bearing registration no. HR-38W-3940 allegedly struck him while being driven rashly and negligently.

The site plan forming part of the Detailed Accident Report placed the point of impact on the footpath, and photographs showed the appellant’s barber chair at the accident spot.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,71,350 but deducted 30% for contributory negligence on the ground that the appellant had encroached upon the footpath, resulting in a net award of Rs.1,19,945 with interest at 6% per annum.

The appellant challenged the deduction before the Delhi High Court.

Whether a person injured while present on a footpath can be held guilty of contributory negligence merely because he was conducting an unauthorised or commercial activity there?

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was liable to be reduced by 30% on account of the appellant’s alleged encroachment upon the footpath?

Whether the Insurance Company could rely on contributory negligence when that plea had not been taken in its written statement before the Tribunal?

The Court applied the principle that contributory negligence must be established by proving that the injured person had contributed to the occurrence of the accident, and cannot be inferred merely from the fact that the person was present on a footpath.

Relying on Digamber Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 5578, the Court held that pedestrians, persons resting or sleeping on footpaths, and other persons present there cannot ordinarily be attributed contributory negligence when a vehicle is driven onto the pedestrian space.

The Court referred to Section 2(r) of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, which includes footways within the meaning of “street”; Rule 39(3) of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, which prohibits driving on a footpath except with police permission; and Rule 15 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, which prohibits parking motor vehicles on footpaths.

It also relied on Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz v. P. Ayyappan, 2026 INSC 647, recognising the right to walk on demarcated footpaths as part of the constitutional rights under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21, with pedestrian rights taking priority over motorised movement in such spaces.

The Court further noted that the Insurance Company had not pleaded contributory negligence in its written statement.

The site plan and photographs established that the appellant was on the footpath and was not crossing the road.

Although the Tribunal treated his barber activity as an illegal encroachment exposing him to risk, the High Court distinguished between civic or municipal illegality and legal contribution to the accident.

Even assuming that the appellant was an unauthorised user of the footpath, that circumstance did not cause or contribute to the accident; the immediate and legally prohibited cause was the offending vehicle being driven onto or crashing into the footpath.

Under the applicable traffic rules and the principles in Digamber Kumar, the driver bore the duty to respect and exercise heightened caution in a space reserved for pedestrians.

The appellant’s presence on the footpath, irrespective of the purpose for which he was there, therefore could not constitute contributory negligence.

The Court also took note that the Insurance Company had not raised the plea before the Tribunal.

The 30% deduction was set aside, and the total compensation was restored to Rs.1,71,350 with interest at 6% per annum.

Since Rs.1,20,000 with accrued interest had already been deposited, the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the balance of Rs.51,350, together with accrued interest, before the Tribunal within four weeks, for release to the appellant as a lump sum.

Any unreleased amount of Rs.1,20,000 with accrued interest was also directed to be released to the appellant.

The appeal was disposed of accordingly.