The Delhi High Court has upheld compensation of ₹1.70 crore awarded to a road accident victim’s family, holding that the sudden appearance of a stray animal on the road does not automatically absolve a driver of negligence. The Court emphasised that motorists must maintain proper control over their vehicles and exercise reasonable care even when confronted with unexpected situations.
Justice Anish Dayal, in an order dated October 5, dismissed an appeal filed by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company challenging the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) in May 2016.
The case concerned Satish Chandra Gupta, who suffered severe injuries when the car in which he was travelling struck a road divider in Delhi in 2014. He remained in a coma for more than six years before dying on August 22, 2020.
Sudden Appearance of Stray Animal Does Not Automatically Exclude Negligence
The central question before the High Court was whether a driver could be held negligent when an accident occurred after a stray animal suddenly appeared on the road, forcing the driver to make an immediate decision.
The Court examined whether the driver’s reaction in such circumstances could excuse the failure to prevent an accident.
Justice Dayal observed that drivers have a responsibility to maintain effective control over their vehicles because their weight and speed make them potentially dangerous when control is lost.
The Court explained that unexpected road conditions may demand immediate responses through steering or braking. However, the need for quick action does not eliminate the driver’s obligation to exercise reasonable care.
It further noted that negligence may arise from several circumstances, including travelling at a speed that prevents effective control, failing to remain attentive or not anticipating a potential hazard despite having an opportunity to do so.
Referring to road accident statistics presented by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, the Court highlighted several causes of accidents in India, including stray animals, careless pedestrians, speeding, aggressive driving, intoxicated drivers and poor lane discipline.
The Court observed that unpredictable movements by road users frequently create dangerous situations, making alertness, quick reflexes and sound judgment essential for drivers.
Accident Left Company Director in Coma for Over Six Years
According to the victim’s family, Gupta was travelling from Dwarka to his residence in Chhattarpur on May 28, 2014. He was seated in the rear of a vehicle owned by Centrodorstroy India Pvt Ltd, where he served as a director.
The accident occurred near Chhattarpur Metro Station in the Vasant Kunj area after the driver allegedly lost control of the car and collided with a divider.
Gupta sustained grievous injuries and remained unconscious following the accident. He died on August 22, 2020, without recovering from the coma.
His family had approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal seeking compensation. In May 2016, while Gupta was still alive, the tribunal awarded ₹1.70 crore.
The insurer subsequently challenged the award before the Delhi High Court.
Insurer Questioned Medical Expenses and Attendant Charges
Representing ICICI Lombard, advocate Ishaan Chhaya argued that the tribunal had granted attendant charges twice.
The insurance company also disputed the ₹33 lakh awarded towards future medical expenses. It contended that because Gupta had died in August 2020, the amount earmarked for future treatment should be returned to the insurer.
The insurer’s position regarding who was driving the vehicle was also contested during the proceedings.
Advocate Naresh Gupta, appearing for the claimant’s side, rejected the suggestion that the injured Gupta himself had been driving the vehicle. He maintained that the allegation had no factual foundation and contradicted the available record.
The High Court also considered medical evidence concerning Gupta’s condition following the accident.
The doctor who treated him confirmed that he remained comatose or unconscious and required continuous assistance. The family had been advised to arrange a qualified medical or nursing attendant for 24-hour care.
High Court Directs Insurer to Deposit Remaining Compensation
After examining the circumstances of the accident and the objections raised against the tribunal’s award, the High Court declined to interfere with the compensation.
Dismissing ICICI Lombard’s appeal, Justice Dayal directed the insurance company to deposit the remaining 50 per cent of the compensation amount with the Registrar General of the High Court.
The Court further ordered that the deposited amount be released to Gupta’s wife.
The ruling reiterates that a driver cannot avoid responsibility merely by pointing to an unexpected obstruction on the road. The assessment of negligence must also consider whether the driver maintained adequate control, remained attentive and exercised reasonable care in the circumstances.
