Back
: Barber Hit on Footpath Not Guilty of
The has firmly held that a barber who was working on a footpath cannot be blamed for when struck by a vehicle – even if his presence on the pavement was unauthorized. In a significant ruling that elevates pedestrian safety, Justice Anish Dayal set aside a 30% deduction applied by the ), restoring full compensation to the injured appellant.
The Accident That Sparked the Dispute
On , Hari Nath Sharma was working as a barber from a chair set up on the footpath at Gali No. 10, Anand Parbat, New Delhi. While he was attending to a customer, a truck bearing registration HR-38W-3940, driven rashly by Umesh Kumar, mounted the pavement and struck him, causing grievous injuries. The site plan and photographs, part of the Detailed Accident Report, confirmed that the accident occurred squarely on the footpath where Sharma was seated.
Tribunal’s Controversial Finding
The initially awarded compensation of ₹1,71,350. However, it reduced this amount by 30% after holding Sharma contributorily negligent. The Tribunal reasoned that by operating a barber shop on the footpath, Sharma had “encroached upon the footpath” as an “” and had exposed himself to the risk of being injured. This logic was grounded in the belief that the injured person had contributed to his own harm by being where he should not have been.
High Court’s Corrective Intervention
Sharma appealed, arguing that the reduction was unjust. His counsel, , pointed out that the site plan clearly showed Sharma was not crossing the road but was on the footpath when hit – a fact the Tribunal itself had accepted. The appellant drew the Court’s attention to a recent decision in , where the had already ruled that a person present on a footpath – even while sleeping – cannot be held contributorily negligent.
Justice Anish Dayal agreed, noting that the question the Tribunal should have asked was “why the offending vehicle was on the pavement or being driven on the footpath, when the same is not permissible under the .” The Court found that the driver had no right to bring his truck onto the footpath, and therefore any activity happening on the pavement – whether walking, selling goods, or sleeping – cannot shift liability onto the person using that space.
Footpaths Are Sacred, Safe Spaces
In a powerfully worded passage, the Court declared:
“Footpaths and pedestrian areas are not meant for vehicles to be crashing into or even being driven onto. Any injury or casualty suffered by a person on the footpath or pedestrian area, irrespective of the reason for which he is on the footpath/pedestrian area, cannot be a factor for fastening upon him. It is for the driver of a motor vehicle to respect that space.”
The judgment also noted that the insurance company had not even pleaded in its written statement before the Tribunal, further undermining the basis for the deduction.
Restoring Full Compensation
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the 30% deduction, and ordered that the total compensation of ₹1,71,350 – along with interest at 6% per annum – be paid to Hari Nath Sharma. Since ₹1,20,000 had already been deposited, the insurance company was directed to deposit the balance within four weeks, and the entire amount is to be released as a lump sum.
Implications for Pedestrian Rights
This ruling reaffirms that footpaths are exclusively for pedestrians and that drivers must respect these spaces. Unauthorised use of a footpath – even by a hawker or barber – does not absolve a negligent driver of liability. The decision aligns with the ’s recent enunciation in Maniyar Iliyaz v. P. Ayyappan (), which declared the on demarcated footpaths a under read with of the Constitution. The message is clear: when a vehicle invades a pedestrian space, the driver bears full responsibility.
