[Motor Accident Claims] Crossing Road Outside Zebra-Crossing Not 'Contributory Negligence' On Part Of Victim: Delhi High Court

In doing so, Justice Amit Mahajan relied on Gaytri Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2024) where a coordinate bench held that “even if there was no Zebra Crossing, there can be no presumption of negligence on the part of the pedestrian…The driver of the vehicle has to recognise the first right of the pedestrian and to avoid any person who may be crossing the road.”

Similarly in Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Dhanalakshmi and Anr. (2003), a Division bench of the Madras High Court had held “It cannot be said that whenever a person crosses the road at a place other than the pedestrian crossing, he is guilty of contributory negligence.”

In the case at hand, the claimant had suffered multiple grievous injuries in the road accident which took place when he was crossing the road.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, while relying on the site plan as well as claimant's cross-examination— wherein he stated that there was no zebra crossing at the place of the accident and the red-light was far away— held that there was negligence while crossing the road. It thus deducted 25% from the compensation, towards contributory negligence.

In his appeal before the High Court, the claimant contended there was no contributory negligence as there was a “white patti” on the road and other people were also crossing the road with him.

The Court noted that the accident took place on the extreme left side of the road (not in the middle of the road) and in any case, negligence on part of the Respondent was undisputed in view of the chargesheet filed alleging offences under Section 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code.

It thus observed, “Merely because the victim sought to cross the road from a place other than a zebra-crossing, the same cannot be stated to be contributory negligence on part of the victim.”

The Court also observed that the Respondent (driver and owner of the offending vehicle) had not entered the witness box to rebut the aspect of their negligence.

As such, it held that the total compensation of Rs. 5,21,091/- awarded by the Tribunal should be enhanced by reducing deduction to 10%.

“Attribution of 25% contributory negligence on the appellant, solely on the ground that there was no zebra-crossing or red-light is on the higher side,” it held and allowed the appeal.

Appearance: For the Appellant : Mr. Akshay Kumar, Adv. For the Respondents : Ms. Niyati, Adv. for R-2 (through VC).

Case title: Manoj Saw v. Ramneek Sabarwal & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 682

Case no.: MAC.APP. 229/2023

Click here to read order