Judgment emphasizes fundamental right to safe walking, rejects contributory negligence claim, and underscores application of res ipsa loquitur in motor accident claims
In a significant judgment dated 15th September 2026, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) award that granted Rs. 1,16,42,016 along with 9% interest as compensation to the family of the deceased pedestrian, Ms. Teena Makkar. The accident occurred on 10th August 2018 when Ms. Makkar, along with her sister-in-law Ms. Honey Makkar, was walking near Arya Samaj Mandir, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi. She was struck by a truck (registration no. DL-1M-3658) driven by Phool Kumar, resulting in fatal injuries.
The Court meticulously examined the evidence, including eyewitness testimony, medical reports, and the Detailed Accident Report (DAR). The sister-in-law, an eyewitness and complainant in the FIR, provided detailed and consistent testimony describing how the truck hit the deceased and fled the scene. Despite being an interested witness, the Court held that her testimony was credible, corroborated by medical evidence and the accident site plan, and was therefore reliable for determining negligence on the preponderance of probabilities.
The appellant MCD argued that the testimony was unreliable due to contradictions and absence of independent witnesses, and claimed contributory negligence on the part of the deceased for crossing the road near a parked car. However, the Court rejected these contentions, emphasizing that contributory negligence must be proved with cogent evidence, which was absent in this case. The Court cited recent Supreme Court precedents underscoring that contributory negligence cannot be presumed merely because a victim violated statutory rules or was crossing a road in a crowded area.
The judgment also highlighted the stringent duties of drivers under Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and relevant Rules and Regulations, including the obligation to take reasonable steps to secure medical attention for injured persons, report accidents promptly, maintain proper lookout, and drive with due care and caution, especially near pedestrian crossings and crowded places. The Court referred to the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, which prescribe specific duties of drivers to ensure pedestrian safety.
Significantly, the Court reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s recent elevation of the “right to walk” as a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution. It underscored the duty of municipal bodies and urban authorities to ensure the existence and maintenance of demarcated footpaths and pedestrian infrastructure. The failure to provide such facilities can attract constitutional remedies and compensation claims.
In assessing negligence, the Court invoked the principle of res ipsa loquitur, which allows the inference of negligence from the very occurrence of an accident when the facts “speak for themselves.” The Court observed that a truck running over a pedestrian could not happen without negligence, thus placing the burden on the driver or owner to rebut this inference.
On the quantum of compensation, the Court upheld the MACT’s calculation based on the deceased’s income, which included her salary as a director in a private company and profits from her boutique business. The award factored in future prospects and deducted one-third for personal expenses, following established Supreme Court guidelines laid down in the landmark Pranay Sethi case.
The Court directed the appellant MCD to deposit the awarded compensation amount along with accrued interest within four weeks for disbursement to the claimants. The judgment serves as a stern reminder to vehicle owners and drivers about their paramount duty of care towards pedestrians and the legal consequences of negligent driving.
This ruling reinforces the legal framework that protects pedestrians, emphasizes the importance of credible eyewitness testimony even from interested parties if corroborated, and clarifies the evidentiary standards and liability in motor accident claims.
Bottom Line:
Motor Accident - Negligence assessed on the preponderance of probabilities - Testimony of an interested witness (family member) can be relied upon if credible and corroborated by other evidence.
Statutory provision(s):
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Sections 118, 134; Indian Penal Code Sections 279, 304A; Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017; Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989; Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution of India
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Sunny Makkar, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2979759
