Justice Ramachandran opined that the appellant’s argument was “baffling”.
“It is baffling for this Court that an argument is made out by the appellant that, when a pedestrian crosses the road at the earmarked place for such purpose – which is commonly known as ‘zebra crossing’ – the rash conduct of a vehicle, in hitting him/her, should be justified on the ground that liability of care is more on the said person,” he said in the order.
This is more so in light of the fact that the MACT, upon examining the FIR (first information report), had recorded that the conclusion of the Investigating Authority was that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. The judge further noted that the appellant had not assailed the FIR itself either.
“When one juxtaposes the afore with the conceded fact that the offending vehicle was a Police Jeep, driven by a Police Driver, the enormity of the situation projects itself. The Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, render it statutorily obliged for the driver of a Motor Vehicle to slow down at a road intersection, a road junction, pedestrian crossing or a road corner,” Justice Ramachandran opined.
The conduct of the Police Driver in this case was, the judge opined, unconscionable, especially since his liability to follow the law is much more imperative than any other.
“Thus, when pedestrians, apodictically, have priority on the ‘Zebra Crossing’ and merely because the drivers of vehicles do not understand this, it would be egregiously outlandish to even suggest that one who is killed or sustains injury solely because he/she took the liberty of making the crossing through such designated area, should nevertheless be held guilty of contributory negligence. This is contrary to the established road norms and the internationally accepted canons of road safety; and this becomes much more pronounced when one hears that the accident was caused by a Police Jeep, driven by a Police Driver“, the judgment stated.
Source: Barandbench
