The High Court of Delhi has dismissed an appeal filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) , effectively upholding a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) award of ₹1,16,42,016 in compensation to the family of a woman who died after being struck by an MCD-owned truck. The verdict reinforces the stringent duty of care expected from drivers of heavy vehicles, particularly in urban environments where unpredictable pedestrian movement is a foreseeable reality.

The tragic incident occurred on August 10, 2018 , in Subhash Nagar, New Delhi. Teena Makkar, the deceased, was walking with her sister-in-law when she was fatally struck by a truck bearing registration number DL-1M-3658. According to the police records and the subsequent findings of the tribunal, the rear wheel of the vehicle ran over the victim, resulting in her death at a local hospital shortly after the accident. The driver, Phool Kumar, who was an employee of the civic body, reportedly fled the scene after observing the accident through his rearview mirror.

The MCD had contested the tribunal’s decision, arguing that the testimony of the eyewitness—the victim’s sister-in-law—was unreliable due to her familial relationship with the deceased. Furthermore, the civic body pointed to a lack of CCTV evidence and alleged that the absence of physical damage on the truck, as noted in a mechanical inspection conducted six days post-accident, suggested the vehicle was not involved in a high-impact collision. These arguments were firmly rejected by the bench presided over by Justice Anish Dayal, who categorized the plea that the vehicle was not involved as "untenable and unsustainable."

Heightened Standards for Professional Drivers

In addressing the duty of care , the court emphasized that the standard of proof in motor accident inquiries is governed by the principle of " preponderance of probabilities " rather than the higher threshold of " beyond a reasonable doubt " required in criminal trials. The judgment highlighted that professional drivers bear a heightened responsibility to monitor their surroundings and maintain control of their vehicles at all times.

The court underscored that expecting a driver to navigate a crowded area without encountering pedestrians is highly illogical. As Justice Dayal noted in the ruling: “A responsible driver naturally is one that is alert, aware of the surrounding circumstances and applies brakes, as and when it is required. The vehicle must always be in control of the driver, taking into account, all the exigencies and uncertain situations which can occur on a road.”

The court further elucidated that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur —the idea that the accident speaks for itself—applied to this case. By failing to exercise the caution incumbent upon him, the driver neglected his basic duty of circumspection. The court reasoned that the nature of the injuries recorded in the post-mortem report and the Medico-Legal Certificate directly corroborated the eyewitness account that the vehicle had run over the victim. The fact that the truck did not sustain external body damage did not exonerate the driver, as a heavy vehicle running over a human body does not necessarily cause deformation to the chassis or exterior of the carrier.

Constitutional Rights of Pedestrians

A significant portion of the High Court’s reasoning centered on the fundamental rights of pedestrians in modern urban infrastructure. Referring to recent legal developments, the judgment noted that the right to walk safely on demarcated footpaths is protected under the Constitution of India , and that municipal bodies carry a mandatory obligation to provide and maintain such infrastructure.

The court dismissed the appellant's contention regarding contributory negligence , observing that the MCD had failed to present any cogent evidence to substantiate the claim that the deceased had acted in a manner that contributed to the incident. Legal precedents cited during the proceedings established that the burden of proving contributory negligence rests entirely upon the party alleging it. The judgment affirmed: “ Contributory negligence cannot be inferred merely from the violation of a statutory requirement by the victim. The essential requirement is to establish a causal connection between the act or omission attributed to the victim and either the occurrence of the accident or the nature and extent of the injuries suffered.”

Regarding the quantum of compensation, the tribunal had calculated the loss of dependency based on the deceased's income as a businesswoman and director of a private firm, supported by documented income tax returns and corporate records. The High Court reviewed the calculation, which included future prospects at 40% and a 1/3rd deduction for living expenses, and found it fully aligned with established Supreme Court guidelines on awarding non-pecuniary and pecuniary damages in wrongful death cases.

The ruling emphasizes the deterrent role that courts must play in addressing the rising frequency of road accidents. The court’s decision to uphold the substantial compensation award serves as a reminder to both public and private entities of their liability when their vehicles are involved in fatal incidents. The MCD has been directed to deposit the entire compensation amount along with accrued interest within four weeks, which will then be disbursed to the claimants according to the tribunal’s original directions. As no stay order was granted during the pendency of the appeal, the judgment brings immediate finality to the years of litigation faced by the victim’s family.