Mere Smell Of Alcohol On Breath Alone Not Sufficient To Attribute Contributory Negligence: Madras HC Enhances Compensation Awarded By MACT
While enhancing the compensation awarded by MACT, the Madras High Court stated that the mere smell of alcohol on the breath by itself was not sufficient to attribute contributory negligence.
The Court directed Tamil Nadu’s Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to issue a circular to all the hospitals to assess the level of alcohol in the blood in all cases where an injured or deceased was brought to the hospital and smelt alcohol so that this scientific data could enable the Court to come to correct conclusions in cases of this nature.
A Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed, “Consuming alcohol per say is not an offense. In fact, the State is the only provider of the alcohol to the citizens through the IMFL shops run by them. In view of the same, it is the sole responsibility of the State to also take care of the consequences arising out of consumption of liquor…It is provided that the alcohol in the blood cannot exceed 30 mg per 100 ml of blood. Only if the level crosses this threshold fixed under the provision, a criminal offense 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.”
Advocate Sithi Fathima Samt represented the appellant, while Advocate I.Malar appeared for the respondents.
The claimant sought an enhancement of compensation awarded to him by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT).
According to the claimant, the accident occurred when his two-wheeler collided with the rear end of a lorry (offending vehicle) after the lorry’s driver applied the brakes suddenly. The Tribunal attributed 50% contributory negligence to the claimant pointing out his failure to maintain a safe distance from the offending vehicle and stating that the doctor who treated the claimant smelt alcohol in his breath.
The High Court found the Tribunal's attribution of contributory negligence against the claimant was unjustified noting that “what is important is to see if the consumption of alcohol has influenced the driving capacity of the rider of the vehicle. Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, gives some indication with respect to the level of alcohol in the blood which will be considered to be an offence.”
The Court explained that the smell of alcohol on the breath by itself was not sufficient to attribute contributory negligence against the claimant. Similarly, the fact that a vehicle has been hit on the rear side due to the sudden break applied by the vehicle in front, by itself would not result in attributing contributory negligence.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Ramesh v. Selvakumar & Anr.
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Sithi Fathima Samt and C.Vidhusan
Respondents: Advocate I.Malar
