The Pavement Sleepers Negligence Ruling clarifies that homeless people who sleep on pavements do not automatically share blame when a vehicle hits them. The Delhi High Court held that drivers who enter pedestrian footpaths bear responsibility for such accidents.
Justice Anish Dayal delivered the judgment in four connected appeals titled Digambar Kumar & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
High Court Rejects 50% Contributory Negligence
The case arose after a speeding truck struck four men sleeping on a footpath. Two men died, while two others suffered serious injuries.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) had attributed 50% contributory negligence to the victims.
The tribunal reasoned that footpaths do not serve as sleeping areas. It therefore held that the victims had contributed to their own injuries.
Justice Anish Dayal rejected that reasoning.
The High Court held that the key question was not whether the victims should have slept on the pavement. Instead, the Court examined whether the truck driver had any legal right to drive onto a pedestrian area.
The answer was no.
Homeless Persons Cannot Expect Vehicles on Footpaths
The Court recognised the difficult reality faced by many homeless people.
Some people work through the night. Others work at construction sites or lack a safe place to sleep.
For them, pavements may appear safer because vehicles normally cannot drive over them.
The Court held that even if a person takes a calculated risk by sleeping on a pavement, that decision does not automatically amount to contributory negligence.
A pedestrian cannot reasonably expect a vehicle to leave the road and enter a footpath.
Footpaths Remain Areas Reserved for Pedestrians
The Delhi High Court relied on statutory protections for pedestrian areas.
Section 2(r) of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, and the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations restrict vehicles from using footpaths for driving or parking.
Therefore, the Court placed responsibility on the truck driver who entered the pedestrian zone.
The Court also applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which means “the thing speaks for itself.”
A vehicle entering a space reserved exclusively for pedestrians creates a strong inference of negligence.
MACT Finding Set Aside
| Issue | MACT Finding | Delhi High Court Ruling |
|---|---|---|
| Liability | 50% contributory negligence against the victims. | 100% negligence attributed to the truck driver. |
| Footpath Use | Victims should not have slept on the pavement. | Illegal vehicle entry caused the accident. |
| Compensation | The tribunal reduced the compensation by 50%. | The Court restored deductions and recalculated the awards. |
Details of the Accident
The accident occurred around 4:30 a.m. on October 11, 2015. The incident took place near Madipur Metro Station in New Delhi.
Digambar Kumar, Lekh Raj, Anil Bedi, and Ramesh Chand were resting on a pavement.
A speeding truck suddenly moved onto the footpath and struck them. The truck then hit a metro pillar.
Anil Bedi and Ramesh Chand died from their injuries. The other two victims suffered severe trauma.
The truck driver abandoned the vehicle and fled.
Compensation Enhanced
The High Court removed the 50% deduction for contributory negligence.
It also applied updated statutory multipliers for loss of dependency, future prospects, and consortium.
The Court approved compensation of approximately ₹10 lakh each for the families of the deceased.
It also adjusted the compensation for the injured victims to approximately ₹1.2 lakh and ₹18.1 lakh.
The Court directed the insurer to deposit the balance amounts within six weeks.
Delhi High Court Clarifies Liability
The judgment establishes an important principle for motor accident claims.
A person sleeping on a pavement does not automatically contribute to an accident simply because the person used the space for rest.
Instead, courts must examine the actual cause of the accident.
When a vehicle leaves the road and enters a pedestrian footpath, the driver may bear sole responsibility for the resulting harm.
The Pavement Sleepers Negligence Ruling therefore rejects the idea that homelessness or sleeping on a pavement alone can justify a finding of contributory negligence.
