Delhi HC reduces aid for 'negligent' accident victim by 45%
The Delhi High Court reduced the compensation awarded to a motor accident victim by 45% after it found negligence on the part of both parties. A compensation of ?10 lakh was earlier awarded to the victim. The court observed, "It's possible despite the vehicle being driven in permissible limit, an accident can occur when a jaywalker suddenly appears on road." 
In an interesting ruling, the Delhi high court reduced the compensation awarded to a motor accident victim by 45 per cent after it found negligence on the part of both the parties.Deepak Kumar, the victim, was hit by a motor vehicle driven by a government employee named Ajay Kumar in Palam.Deepak told the court that while he was on his way to work, he stopped his vehicle after crossing Palam flyover to feed a cow. While he was crossing the road, he was hit and suffered injuries. The trial court had awarded a compensation of Rs 10 lakh to him after ruling negligence on Ajay's part.Ajay challenged the trial court order based on the detailed accident report that mentioned motorcycle was not being driven dangerously or at an excessive speed, and was being driven in its lane and within the permissible speed limit.He sought examination of the contributory negligence on behalf of the injured through advocate Trideep Pais and Pranav Jain. The court observed, "It is possible that despite the vehicle being driven in permissible limit, an accident can occur when a jaywalker suddenly appears on the road.""Such people apart from impairing their own lives also pose a threat to the safety and security of the ongoing traffic. The fact that the victim chose to walk across a busy road near the airport, with heavy morning traffic, he knowingly exposed himself to dangers that such risk may entail. It exhibits his negligence towards his own safety," the court added.Quoting the detailed accident report, the court said if the vehicle was in good condition, being driven in the right lane at the right speed, the accident which was caused at a non-zebra crossing, could be attributed to the sudden appearance of the jaywalker in front of the vehicle.In the circumstances, a portion of the blame and negligence would have to be shared by the claimant. While noting that there was a fair chance of the accident being avoided if the vehicle was being driven at the permissible limit and maintaining fair distance with the vehicle moving ahead of it, the court said, " One has also to bear in mind that not all city roads are carefully marked for pedestrian or zebra crossing.""The time of the accident was about 9.40 am. The visibility was clear. The appellant could have well seen from some distance the movement of the pedestrian crossing the road," the court added.