It is a case of hits and misses. Driving around world’s second most populous city Delhi comes with its own challenges considering the uncivil conduct on the roads, jaywalking and the unruly traffic or the large population or homeless sleeping on the footpath.
While any other aspect may come as a defence for a driver involved in road accidents, homelessness of victims is not, said Standing Counsel for Centre Anil Soni.
The one principle by which the traffic moves, so to speak, is that a person driving a motor vehicle is under a duty to control that vehicle. “The bigger the car the bigger the responsibility,” is another principle, said advocate R.K. Kapoor of Delhi High Court.
In case of a road accident, it is for the person driving the car to explain the circumstances (for example bad road, mechanical failure in the vehicle, jaywalkers, etc.) under which the car was driven. Those circumstances may have been beyond the driver’s control and may exculpate him, but in the absence of such circumstances the driver can be held negligent. That is the ground rule.
The question is can the driver or the owner of a vehicle claim contributory negligence in case a person sleeping on the footpath comes under the wheel of the vehicle due to reasons beyond the driver’s control? Can there be a defence that the State has failed to provide them shelter?
Mr. Kapoor shared how last week, the Supreme Court denied compensation to a victim of road accident as he himself was drunk and at fault.
Harshit Jain, an advocate in the Delhi High Court, said there are various judgments from different high courts and the Supreme Court which give different opinions on this issue.
The High Court of Kerala in a 1986 case P. Rajappan vs. State of Kerala, and the High Court of Orissa in another case held that speed alone is not the criterion for deciding rashness or negligence on the part of the driver. The relationship between speed and rashness or negligence depends upon the place and time. In a straight wide road, where obstructions from other vehicles or pedestrians are not present, it cannot be said that driving in speed or absence of sounding a horn by itself would amount to rashness or negligence.
If the driver is not rash, he is not liable for the death of a person who, while suddenly crossing the road, comes under the wheels of his vehicle, said Mr. Jain citing an apex court verdict of 1972.
Be that as it may, proving the negligence of the victim is always a matter of trial.
