road require pedestrians to avoid strolling on to the road and that the roads can be crossed only at designated places. A breach of these rules immediately holds the pedestrian liable for negligence and if it is demonstrated that the injury of death occurred due to the negligence of the pedestrian , the driver of the vehicle, the owner and the insurer would then be entitled to disclaim their liability. This is an aspect of the law that has been grossly overlooked and which requires to be very clearly restated and specifically brought to the notice of the public. The present accident took place on one of the busy roads in the city of Bangalore and the evidence indicates that people were indiscriminately walking about on the road virtually between the vehicles that were moving regardless of any concern for safety. Where a pedestrian demonstrates suicidal tendencies by behaving in this manner, he will be precluded from then holding others liable if he gets injured or killed and it is very necessary that this message goes out loud and clear. In the present instance where the driver of the vehicle and the injured appellant are both demonstrated to have been negligent, the first one for the manner in which the truck was being driven and the second one for having crossed the road at a point where he should not have done, this Court has had to evaluate the degrees of negligence for purposes of deciding whether the injured should be entitled to compensation and if so, how much. The degree of negligence on the part of the pedestrian having been of a relatively lower order, the Court has limited the compensation payable to the extent of GO of the amount computed. In cases of proven negligence however, the compensation awarded could be much lower or even nothing at all.”
