Pedestrian Accident Law under Personal Injury
🚶♂️ Pedestrian Accident Law under Personal Injury (India)
🔹 I. Introduction
Pedestrian accidents are a form of tortious liability under personal injury law, which falls under the broader category of Law of Torts in India. When a pedestrian suffers injury due to the negligent act of another, especially by a motor vehicle, they may be entitled to compensation.
In India, personal injury claims arising from pedestrian accidents are mainly governed by:
Law of Torts (common law principles)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in criminal cases)
Consumer Protection law (in rare cases involving services like public transport)
🔹 II. Legal Principles Involved
1. Negligence
To succeed in a personal injury claim, the pedestrian must prove negligence, which involves:
Duty of care: The driver owed a duty of care to the pedestrian.
Breach of duty: The driver breached that duty (e.g., over-speeding, not yielding, distracted driving).
Causation: The breach caused the injury.
Damage: The pedestrian suffered injury, loss, or damage.
2. Strict Liability / No-Fault Liability
In cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, especially under Section 140 and Section 163A, compensation may be granted on a no-fault basis, i.e., even if negligence is not proved.
🔹 III. Relevant Statutory Framework
🔸 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 140 – Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault.
Section 163A – Special provisions for payment of compensation on a structured formula basis.
Section 166 – Filing claim for compensation when negligence is proved.
Section 168 – Determination of compensation by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT).
🔹 IV. Important Case Laws (Indian Courts)
✅ 1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti, AIR 1966 SC 1750
Facts: A clock tower in Delhi collapsed and killed several pedestrians.
Held: The Court held the Municipal Corporation liable under the principle of strict liability because they had a duty to maintain the structure.
Significance: Though not a vehicular accident case, it emphasized duty of care towards pedestrians.
✅ 2. Raj Rani v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2009) 13 SCC 654
Facts: A pedestrian was hit by a truck. Claim filed under MV Act.
Held: The Supreme Court awarded compensation under Section 166 of the MV Act, holding the driver negligent.
Significance: Reinforced that pedestrians have full right to claim compensation from negligent drivers.
✅ 3. Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2001) 2 SCC 9
Facts: A truck skidded and killed a pedestrian.
Held: The Court recognized the principle of no-fault liability and directed the insurance company to pay.
Significance: Compensation awarded even without strict proof of negligence under Section 140 of MV Act.
✅ 4. Smt. Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2007) 10 SCC 643
Facts: A woman claimed compensation for the death of her father (a pedestrian) in an accident.
Held: Compensation allowed under Section 166 of MV Act even when the claimant is not dependent.
Significance: Extended the right to compensation to legal representatives.
✅ 5. UPSRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362
Facts: A pedestrian was killed due to rash driving by a government bus.
Held: The Court emphasized just and reasonable compensation and discussed structured formulas for assessment.
Significance: A landmark for determining compensation amounts under personal injury/death claims.
🔹 V. Defences Available to Driver/Insurance Company
Contributory negligence: If the pedestrian was also negligent (e.g., jaywalking, sudden crossing), compensation may be reduced.
⚖️ Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer, AIR 2003 SC 4182
Act of God: If the accident was due to natural forces beyond human control.
No valid insurance: Though not a complete defence, can limit insurer's liability.
🔹 VI. Types of Compensation Available
Under both fault and no-fault liability:
Medical expenses
Loss of income/future earnings
Pain and suffering
Permanent disability
Loss of amenities
Death benefits to legal heirs (in fatal cases)
🔹 VII. Procedure for Claim
File a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT).
Submit documents: FIR, medical reports, eyewitness testimony, etc.
MACT determines:
Negligence (if under Section 166)
Amount of compensation (using structured formulas or just compensation)
Appeal can lie before the High Court.
🔹 VIII. Conclusion
Under Indian personal injury law, pedestrians are protected both under fault-based tort principles and no-fault statutory schemes. The judiciary has consistently upheld the rights of pedestrians to claim compensation and imposed duties on drivers to exercise due care. Courts lean in favour of victims when determining negligence and quantum of compensation, especially where the pedestrian is an innocent party.
✅ Summary Table
| Element | Law/Principle | Key Case Law |
|---|---|---|
| Duty of Care | Tort Law | Subhagwanti |
| No-Fault Liability | Sec 140, MV Act | Kaushnuma Begum |
| Negligence | Sec 166, MV Act | Raj Rani |
| Legal Representatives’ Claim | Sec 166, MV Act | Manjuri Bera |
| Compensation Determination | Just Compensation | Trilok Chandra |
RELATED Blog
0 comments