Kritika Pandey | Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda | 11th January 2020
K.Shanmugam Vs. V.Krishnamurthy & Ors., Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1842 of 2006
Facts:
The appellant was riding his Motorcycle, the Car belonging to the respondent, which was driven by his driver, came at a high speed and hit the Motorcycle. Due to which the appellant sustained fracture and multiple injuries all over the body. He has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation.
The Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the Car and insured with the Insurance Company as well as the claimant. And fixed the contributory negligence at 60% and 40% on them.
The Tribunal has directed the Insurer to pay along with interest and costs. The appellant found the awarded quantum as disproportionate to the nature of the injuries sustained. And has preferred this Appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Appellant Contention:
The Tribunal erred in fixing 40% contributory negligence on the appellant, as there is no concrete evidence or document to speak about the involvement of the appellant in the accident.
Respondent Contention:
Ex.P-10-Wound Certificate, coupled with the evidence of P.W.2-Dr.N.Sai Chandran would establish the fact that, at the time of the accident, the appellant was in a drunken state and hence, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition, since the claimant himself is a tort-feasor to the accident.
The Tribunal erred in fastening 60% liability on the Insurer, as the appellant was in an inebriated condition, which was proved by Ex.P-10 wound certificate. The quantum arrived by the Tribunal is against the settled principles of law, and hence the same has to be set- aside.
Issue:
Whether 30mg per 100 ml as outer limit of alcohol consumption fixed under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for a person driving the vehicle, is correct?
It is necessary to extract Sections 19(1)(f) and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which read as under: “19. Power of licensing authority to disqualify from holding a driving licence or revoke such licence. – (1)If a licensing authority is satisfied, after giving the holder of a driving licence an opportunity of being heard, that the –
(f) has committed any such act which is likely to cause nuisance or danger to the public, as may be prescribed by the Central Government, having regard to the objects of this Act; or…
“185. Driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs. – Whoever, while driving, or attempting to drive a motor vehicle –
(a) has, in his blood, alcohol exceeding 30 mg. per 100 ml. of blood detected in a test by a breath analyser, or
(b) is under the influence of a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle. shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both; and for a second or subsequent offence, if committed within three years of the commission of the previous similar offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two year, or with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees, or with both.
The Supreme Court in the case of State Tr.P.S.Lodhi Colony, New Delhi v. Sanjeev Nanda in Crl.Appeal No.1168 of 2012, has observed as follows:-
“Alcohol consumption impairs consciousness and vision and it becomes impossible to judge accurately how far away the objects are. When depth perception deteriorates, eye muscles lose their precision causing inability to focus on the objects. Further, in more unfavourable conditions like fog, mist, rain etc., whether it is night or day, it can reduce the visibility of an object to the point of being below the limit of discernibility. In short, alcohol leads to loss of coordination, poor judgment, slowing down of reflexes and distortion of vision.
Punishment meted out to a drunken driver, is at least a deterrent for other such persons getting away with minor punishment and fine. Such incidents are bound to increase with no safety for pedestrians on the roads. The contention raised by learned senior counsel that the accused was not under the influence of liquor or beyond the limit prescribed under the M.V. Act and he was in his senses and the victims were at fault being in the middle of the road, is without any substance and only to be rejected.”
Held:
Since Section 185 is placed in Chapter 13 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Central Government is to consider a suitable amendment in this regard by allowing various State Governments / Union Territories to adopt a zero tolerance norm in Section 185 itself.
This Court finds that the appellant himself was the tort-feasor and was responsible for the accident. As such, the question of fastening liability either on the owner or on the Insurance Company does not arise. The Court holds as under:
- (i) the judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal is set-aside,
- (ii) no relief is granted to the appellant in this Appeal;
- (iii) the Insurer is permitted to withdraw the amount if any already deposited by it before the Tribunal.
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.
Leave a Reply