Opening car door without checking oncoming traffic is negligence: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently observed that opening a car door without checking for oncoming traffic amounts to sheer negligence and that the car driver who opens the door can be held liable for any ensuing accident [IndusInd General Insurance Vs Roshan Kumar Sahu].

Justice Anish Dayal made the observation in a motor accident case where a motorcycle driver collided with the door of a car ahead of him after the door was abruptly opened by the car's driver.

The injuries suffered by the motorcycle driver were severe and led to permanent disabilities that was assessed at 90 per cent by a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT).

The High Court, while affirming the MACT's ruling, held that the motorcycle driver (accident victim) cannot be blamed for the collision on claims that he was driving too close to the vehicle before him.

It concluded that the car driver was negligent and that his insurer was liable to compensate the motorcycle driver (accident victim).

"Opening the car door without checking the oncoming traffic is certainly an act of sheer negligence, for which liability has to been correctly fastened on the driver of offending vehicle," the Court held.

The accident took place on August 20, 2024, in Burari, Delhi. The accident victim, a motorcyclist, collided with a car door that was suddenly opened by the car's driver without warning.

The motorcyclist suffered severe injuries, including fractures in both lower limbs and a head injury, and remained hospitalised for nearly a month.

The MACT had concluded that the accident was caused solely due to the negligence of the car driver. It relied on the testimony of the injured claimant, FIR records, and mechanical inspection reports showing damage consistent with the manner of the accident.

The MACT's findings were challenged before the High Court by the car driver's insurer.

Before the High Court, the insurer argued that the motorcyclist was partly negligent as he was driving too close to the vehicle ahead.

The Court rejected this contention. It held that reliance on road regulations requiring safe distance between vehicles would not absolve the driver who opened the door negligently.

The insurer also challenged the compensation awarded by the MACT, particularly ₹3.5 lakh towards attendant charges and the finding of 90 per cent functional disability.

The Court upheld the MACT's findings on both counts. It noted that the motor accident victim, a 21-year-old tutor, had suffered traumatic paraplegia resulting in paralysis of both lower limbs. He was dependent on others for daily activities and would require lifelong assistance, the Court noted.

"Considering that he had suffered 90% permanent disability, there is no question that he would require some attendants throughout his life, considering that petitioner was 21 years of age and was working as a tutor."

The Court found no error in assessing functional disability at 90 per cent, observing that the claimant’s ability to earn a livelihood had been severely impacted. It relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, which distinguishes between medical disability and loss of earning capacity.

Finding no infirmity in the MACT’s reasoning, the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the compensation award.

The appellant insurer was represented by Advocates Suman Bagga and Mouli Sharma.

[Read Judgment]