WHETHER A PERSON IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM COMPENSATION IN MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS IF HE IS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL

 

WHETHER A PERSON IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM COMPENSATION IN MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS IF HE IS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL

Suppose a person claims compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident and it is proved through cogent evidence that he was under the influence of alcohol.

The answer is ;NO. He is not entitled get any amount  of compensation and the insurance company cannot be held liable.

This aspect has been clearly  discussed in K.Shanmugam  VS V.Krishnamoorthy and another in 2019(2)TNMAC 676.

The brief facts of the case is as follows:

The claimant was riding his M-80 motorcycle near DC road, Meenambakkam, in GST road, the ambassador car, which was driven by its driver, came at a high speed and hit the claimant and the pillion rider. Due to the said impact, the claimant fell down and sustained multiple injuries all over the body. The tribunal, after elaborate trial, has held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent act of  the driver of the ambassador car as well as the claimant and fixed the contributory negligence at 60% & 40% on them and ultimately arrived at the total compensation at 65,880. Accordingly the tribunal after deducting 40% from the said quantum towards contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, has directed the insurer to pay a sum of Rs.39,500 along with interest and cost.

The appellant/ claimant submitted before hon’ble high court that the tribunal erred in fixing 40% contributory negligence on the claimant, since there is no concrete evidence or document to speak about the involvement of the claimant in the accident due to the fact that he was in drunken state; considering the fact that the claimant has suffered severe injuries the compensation arrived by the tribunal needs substantial enhancement.

Per contra the learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that Ex P10 wound certificate coupled with the evidence of PW2 DR. Saichandran would establish the fact that, at the time of accident, the claimant was in drunken state and hence, the tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition itself; since the claimant himself is a tort-feasor to the accident; on the contrary the tribunal erred in fastening 60% liability on the insurer based on the evidence and documents adduced by the claimant; in any event the quantum arrived at by the tribunal is against the settled principles of law, excessive and exorbitant and also perverse and hence, the same has to be set aside. The learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that the claimant was in an inebriated condition, which was proved By Ex.P10 wound certificate, no claim can be sustained by him.

A perusal of the award of the tribunal would go to shoe that the tribunal, by considering Ex p1 – FIR and EX.P10 wound certificate and taking note of the fact that the rider of the two wheeler (claimant) was in inebriated condition at the time of accident, has fastened 40% contributory negligence on the petitioner himself and 60% on the insurance company. Thus the tribunal has apportioned the contributory negligence between the claimant and the insurer of the ambassador car at 40% & 60% respectively.

While considering these facts the point to be answered is whether 30ml outer limit of alcohol consumption as fixed under section 185 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 for a person driving the vehicle is correct.

Drinking and driving increases both the risk of a crash and the likelihood that death or a serious injury will result.

According to law, individuals found with 30 ml per 100ml of alcohol in their blood are considered to be incapable of driving.

Coming to the case on hand, by the above reasonings, the court has come to the conclusion to adopt stringent views on drunken driving, the findings rendered by the tribunal, on contributory negligence as well as quantum, have no legs to stand. The court found that the claimant 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.

In view of the above reasonings, the court held that

1.     The judgment and decree passed by the tribunal is set aside; in so far as fastening the liability on R2/Insurer at 60%

2.     No relief is granted to the appellant/claimant;

3.     The insurer is permitted to withdraw the amount if any already by it before the tribunal on making  proper application.