The Delhi High Court has held that a driver cannot avoid liability for negligence merely by claiming that he swerved to avoid a stray animal on the road. Justice Anish Dayal observed that drivers are expected to anticipate foreseeable hazards and maintain reasonable care, vigilance and control over their vehicles, even when confronted with a sudden danger.
The Court made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala House Courts, granting ₹1.70 crore with 12% interest to the Respondent in connection with a 2014 road accident.
The respondent was travelling in the rear seat of a company-owned vehicle when, according to the driver, a dog suddenly came in front of the car. The driver swerved to avoid the dog, following which the vehicle collided with a divider. The respondent suffered grievous injuries and remained in a coma until his death in August 2020.
The insurance company argued that the driver could not be held negligent as the accident occurred in the agony of the moment, when he was confronted with a sudden danger. It also disputed whether the respondent was travelling as an occupant and contended that he was not covered under the policy.
Rejecting the negligence argument, the High Court held that while the doctrine of agony of the moment recognises that a person faced with sudden danger may have to make an immediate decision, it does not automatically absolve a driver where the danger arises from a stray animal.
The Court observed that drivers on Indian roads must remain alert to unpredictable situations, including stray animals, and must maintain sufficient control over their vehicles. A driver cannot simply attribute the accident to the animal without the Court examining whether reasonable care and control were exercised.
The Court further noted that negligence could arise where a driver travels at a speed at which the vehicle cannot be controlled, fails to pay sufficient attention to the road, or does not have adequate visual focus to anticipate danger. The Court cautioned that automatically accepting such explanations could open a Pandora’s box of excuses for negligent driving.
The Court also rejected the insurer’s challenge to the claimant’s status as an occupant. It found that the evidence, including the testimony of the ambulance driver, the driver’s own statement and the Detailed Accident Report, established that driver was driving the vehicle and respondent was seated in the rear.
On insurance coverage, the Court held that the respondent was covered under the Comprehensive/Package Policy. The insurer had failed to establish that, merely because respondent was a director of the company owning the vehicle, he was an employee requiring additional IMT-29 coverage. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in National Insurance Company v. Smt. Thungala Dhana Laxmi, 2026:INSC:793, the Court reiterated that a Comprehensive/Package Policy covers occupants of a vehicle.
The Court also declined to interfere with the compensation awarded towards attendant charges and future medical expenses, noting the medical evidence that the respondent required continuous nursing care and remained in a coma until his death.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The Court directed the balance 50% of the compensation, along with accrued interest, to be deposited before the Registrar General and released in lump sum to the claimant’s legal representatives.
