Justice Umesh M Adiga, Karnataka High Court
Necessary To Absolve Insurer From Paying Compensation In Drunk Driving Cases: Karnataka High Court Calls For Amendment In Motor Vehicle Act & Rules
|The appeal before the Karnataka High Court was filed by the Insurer against the judgment passed by the Tribunal challenging its liability to pay the compensation awarded to the claimant.
Highlighting the fact that it is both just and necessary to absolve the insurer from liability, making the driver and/or owner solely responsible for paying compensation in drunk driving cases, the Karnataka High Court has asked the Central and State Governments to consider the same and make necessary amendments in the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and Rules.
The appeal before the High Court was filed by the Insurer against the judgment passed by the Tribunal challenging its liability to pay the compensation awarded to the claimant.
The Single Bench of Justice Umesh M Adiga held, “In the present case also, the rider of the motorcycle was under the high influence of alcohol. Therefore, it is the liability of the owner to pay the compensation. Since the policy of the insurance is not in dispute, it is the duty of the Insurer to satisfy the claim of third party and it is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.”
“The Central and State Government shall think in this respect and shall make necessary amendments in the Motor vehicle Act, 1988 and Rules framed in this regard by the State”, it added.
Advocate Ravishankar C.R. represented the Appellant while Advocate Chandan B.K. represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
It was the case of the claimant that while he was travelling on a motorcycle, he met with an accident near the Domlur flyover due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by its rider. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and was admitted to a Hospital as an inpatient. He underwent surgery, and implants were fixed. He incurred substantial medical expenses amounting to Rs 5 lakh and he further contended that he was aged about 30 years and was an employee of a private firm earning Rs 1,05,833 per month as salary. He had suffered permanent disability.
The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle and awarded total compensation of Rs. 2,59,000 and directed the respondents (owner and insurer) to pay the compensation amount jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the said award, the insurer preferred the appeal.
Arguments
The main contention of the Insurer was that the rider of the motorcycle was under the influence of alcohol and it was a drunk and drive case and under such circumstances, the Insurer is not liable to pay compensation. It was also submitted that under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Insurer cannot dispute its liability if the accident was caused due to drunk driving.
Reasoning
The Bench referred to the Report from the Hospital, which showed that the blood sample of the rider of the motorcycle contained alcohol at 126 mg/dl per 100 units of blood. Therefore, as per the provisions of Section 185(a), it should not exceed 30 mg/dl. This indicated that the rider of the motorcycle was under high influence of alcohol.
“Drunk and drive is a social crime. The act of driving a vehicle after consuming alcohol, often merely for personal enjoyment, not only endangers the life of the driver but also poses a significant threat to pedestrians and other users of the road. Drivers who choose to drink and drive for their own pleasure create dangerous conditions on public roads. If we consider daily news reports, it appears that drunk driving has become almost a trend or a fashion. ”, it said.
The Bench further explained, “Under such circumstances, the vehicle owner cannot claim that the vehicle was insured and that, under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer is bound to indemnify their liability. Contract of insurance impliedly includes trust and fidelity. If Courts or Tribunals award compensation in 'drink and drive' cases solely on the ground that such a defense is not available to the insurer under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it amounts to an injustice to other users of public roads. Such decisions may inadvertently encourage vehicle owners or drivers to engage in the dangerous practice of drinking and driving a vehicle in public places. In these circumstances, it is both just and necessary to absolve the insurer from liability, making the driver and/or owner solely responsible for paying compensation.”
Thus, asking the Insurer to pay, the Bench allowed the appeal in part and also held that the Insurer can recover the amount from the owner.
Cause Title: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri Pratik Kumar Tripathy (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:23882)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocate Ravishankar C.R.
Respondent: Advocates Chandan B.K., B. Siddeswara, K. T. Guruprasad