The woman who was aged 20 back in 2011 when she was hit by a speeding car from behind. (Representational Image-PTI)

If you meet an accident while walking on the road instead of the footpath, don’t expect a full compensation. Confused? Recently a Mumbai woman who was hit by a speeding car back in 2011 was held accountable for 25% contributory negligence in the accident, which not only injured her, but also permanently affected her marriage prospects. According to a report by the Times of India, the woman who was aged 20 back in 2011 was hit by a speeding car from behind on January 4 around 2.05pm. She sought compensation of Rs 25 lakh for her injuries and income lost on account of six months’ bed rest. The Motor Accidents’ Claims Tribunal, after holding the girl accountable for 25% of the contributory negligence for ignoring the footpath and walking on the road, calculated her payout as Rs 5.14 lakh after deducting Rs 1.28 lakh toward her negligence. Along with these, the tribunal also calculated Rs 1 lakh contribution towards the loss of the woman’s marriage prospects as it noted that limp ensuing from the accident adversely affected her prospects.

The Tribunal further ordered Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd and Devidas Raimalani, the car owner to pay her Rs 3.85 lakh along with Rs 2 lakh as interest. According to the report, the woman in her submission had mentioned that there was no horn warning from the speeding car that hit her from behind. The car had ran over her foot on the road due to which she was admitted at the hospital for six days and also had to undergo a bone-realignment surgery for her foot. During a cross-examination before the tribunal, the woman had claimed that there was no footpath close to where she was walking, but the tribunal referred to the panchnama, which showed the accident site was three feet from the footpath, as per the report.

While talking about the case, the Motor Accidents’ Claims Tribunal was quoted saying, “There is no doubt that to the side of the road there was a footpath, but the petitioner was not using the footpath. On the contrary, she was walking on the tar road. Therefore, certainly, there was some negligence on the part of the petitioner,” according to the TOI report. It further added that it was the duty of the car driver to drive cautiously and maintain adequate distance from the woman as the road was crowded.