The Delhi High Court has rejected the ‘agony of the moment’ defence of a driver who swerved to avoid a stray dog, holding that drivers must anticipate such road hazards and that an insurer is bound under a package policy.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has held that the agony of the moment principle cannot be invoked to absolve a driver of negligence merely because a stray animal suddenly appears on the road, dismissing an insurance company’s appeal against a motor accident award of Rs 1,70,86,530 with 12 per cent interest [ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satish Chandra Gupta and Others].
Justice Anish Dayal pronounced the judgment on October 5, 2026, after reserving it on August 3, 2026. Advocate Ishaan Chhaya appeared for the insurer, Advocates Naresh Gupta and Rachit Gumber for the legal representatives of the injured claimant, and Advocate Rahul Bakshi for the vehicle owner.
How the case reached here
On May 28, 2014, Satish Chandra Gupta was seated in the rear seat of a car driven by Sanjay Bhati, owned by Centrodorstroy India Pvt. Ltd., when the driver lost control near the Chhattarpur metro station in Vasant Kunj and hit a divider. The claimant suffered grievous injuries, remained in coma, and died on August 22, 2020. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala House Courts, awarded compensation by its award of May 26, 2016, and the insurer appealed.
The insurer argued that the claimant was himself driving, that as a director of the owner company he was an employee excluded from a package policy that did not carry the IMT 29 cover, that no rash or negligent driving was proved because a dog suddenly came in front of the car, and that attendant charges had been awarded twice. The claimants countered that the driver was at the wheel, that the claimant was an occupant and not an employee, and that the award was correct.
Who was driving, and whether the policy covered him
The Court accepted that the claimant was a rear-seat occupant. It relied on the testimony of the investigating officer, the ambulance driver who took the claimant to hospital, the driver’s own evidence and the detailed accident report, and treated a discrepancy in a phone number in the medical record as a probable recording error. Applying the preponderance of probability test, it rejected the insurer’s plea that no eyewitness saw the driver at the wheel.
On the policy, the Court found no evidence that the claimant, who said he was an independent director not drawing a salary from the owner company, was an employee, and held that an occupant is covered under a comprehensive or package policy. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in National Insurance Company v. Thungala Dhana Laxmi (2026 INSC 793), which holds that such a policy covers liability for injury or death of occupants, including those in the rear seat of a four-wheeler.
What the Court said on agony of the moment
The driver and an independent witness said a dog suddenly came in front of the car and that he swerved to save it. The Court reviewed Indian and foreign decisions and the road accident data it referred to, and held that a driver’s duty of care continues when an animal appears:
“At all times, a driver on the road has to be alert with complete visual focus, the road space in front of him and traffic at the rear.”
The Court observed that a quick response time may be required in some situations and that drivers cannot simply be absolved of the duty of care. It added that a driver’s conduct may be negligent in several ways, such as driving at a speed at which the vehicle cannot be controlled, not paying enough attention, or not having the visual focus to anticipate danger much earlier. It then warned against accepting the excuse:
“One cannot simply exonerate the driver from such liability, since it would otherwise open a Pandora’s box of excuses being made for negligent conduct.”
ALSO READ: Thane MACT Orders Rs 22.3 Lakh Compensation to Family Injured in 2018 Autorickshaw Crash
The Court distinguished two decisions relied on by the insurer. Syed Akbar v. State of Karnataka, where a bus driver swerved to save a child, was a criminal appeal, and a finding on negligence in a criminal case cannot be equated with the preponderance of probabilities standard in motor accident claims proceedings. Manjusha, which involved a tyre burst, was a case of mechanical failure decided on the nature of a package policy. The Court was therefore not inclined to accept that the accident was due to the agony of the moment and not to the driver’s negligence.
Compensation and directions
The Court declined to disturb the award on quantum. It accepted the nursing attendant’s receipts and the physician’s evidence that the claimant needed round-the-clock attendance, upheld the amounts for attendant charges and future medical expenses, and held that the condition for refund of Rs 33 lakh if the claimant died within six months of March 1, 2016 had no application because he died in August 2020. It also accepted the wife’s evidence and receipts on medical expenses incurred.
The appeal was dismissed. The insurer, which had earlier deposited 50 per cent of the compensation with interest, which was kept in fixed deposits, must deposit the balance 50 per cent with accrued interest before the Registrar General, to be released as a lump sum as the claimant has since died. The statutory deposit is to be refunded to the insurer only if the deposit order was complied with.
Why the judgment matters
The judgment says in plain terms that the sudden appearance of a stray animal, common on Indian roads, does not by itself excuse a driver, and that the duty to anticipate hazards is part of reasonable care. It also applies the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that a package policy protects occupants, closing off the argument that a non-employee passenger in a private car falls outside the cover.
The decision turns on the evidence in a civil claim decided on the preponderance of probabilities, and the Court has not laid down that a driver who swerves to avoid an animal is always negligent.
Case Title: ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satish Chandra Gupta and Others [MAC.APP. 585/2016]
Bench: Justice Anish Dayal, Delhi High Court
Date of Judgment: October 5, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Ishaan Chhaya for the appellant insurer; Advocates Naresh Gupta and Rachit Gumber for the legal representatives of respondent no. 1; Advocate Rahul Bakshi for respondent no. 3
