The Delhi High Court, in the case Manoj Saw v. Ramneek Sabarwal & Anr., held that a pedestrian crossing the road at a point other than a zebra crossing cannot automatically be presumed to have contributed to an accident through negligence.
Justice Amit Mahajan, who presided over the matter, emphasized that the presence or absence of a zebra crossing alone is not a valid basis to attribute contributory negligence to the pedestrian. He relied on previous rulings including Gaytri Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2024) and Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Dhanalakshmi (2003) which clearly state:
“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.”
The accident occurred in April 2018 when the claimant, Manoj Saw, suffered serious injuries while crossing the road. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had originally held that the victim was 25% negligent since he was not at a zebra crossing, and deducted that portion from the total compensation.
However, the High Court noted that the accident took place on the extreme left of the road, not in the middle, and that there was a “white patti” (painted road marking) where others were also crossing. Importantly, the driver of the vehicle, against whom a chargesheet under Sections 279 and 337 IPC had been filed, did not come forward to challenge the negligence claim.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court: IPO Impact Not Sufficient to Lift Trademark Injunction in Infringement Case
“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 observed.
The High Court further cited Mahesh Prasad v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2023) to support its decision to reduce the attributed negligence from 25% to 10%, as 25% was considered excessive in absence of any rebuttal by the driver or insurer.
Read Also:- SC Stays Calcutta HC's Action Against Police for 2019 Howrah Lawyers Assault Incident
Additionally, the Court directed the Tribunal to recalculate compensation including 25% addition for loss of future prospects based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017), as the Tribunal had failed to factor this in earlier.
“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.”
Case Title: Manoj Saw v. Ramneek Sabarwal & Anr.
Case No.: MAC.APP. 229/2023
