Breath smelling of alcohol no reason to deny full compensation to motor accident victims: Madras HC

Madras High Court rules motor accident victims cannot be denied full compensation due to contributory negligence.

A motor accident victim cannot be denied full compensation, by attributing contributory negligence on his part, just because his breath smelt of alcohol or that he did not maintain a safe distance from the vehicle on which he had rammed, the Madras High Court has ruled.

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh said contributory negligence could be attributed only if the blood alcohol level of a motor vehicle driver had exceeded permitted level and that courts must take into account the difficulty in maintaining safe distance between vehicles on city roads.

The observations were made while allowing an appeal filed by two-wheeler rider Ramesh who had suffered injuries and had to be admitted as an in-patient in a private hospital for nine days after ramming his vehicle on the rear side of a truck which came to a sudden halt.

A motor accident claims tribunal in Perambalur had held he was eligible for a compensation of ₹3.07 lakh but deducted 50% of the amount towards contributory negligence because his breath had smelt of alcohol at the time of accident and he had not maintained safe distance from the truck.

Disagreeing with the tribunal’s conclusion, Justice Venkatesh wrote: “Consuming alcohol per say is not an offence. In fact, the State is the only provider of the alcohol to the citizens through the shops run by them... It is the sole responsibility of the State to also take care of the consequences arising out of consumption of liquor.”

Stating it was important to see whether consumption of alcohol had influenced the riding/driving capacity of the motor accident victim, the judge said, Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 states that the level of alcohol in the blood of a motor vehicle rider/driver should not exceed 30 mg per 100 ml.

“Only if the level crosses this threshold, a criminal offence is said to have been committed. Therefore, it can be safely held that the same threshold can be applied even to make a legal presumption that a person will not be within control while riding the vehicle under the influence of alcohol,” he said.