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.
Since in most cases, doctors fail to test the blood alcohol level of the motor accident victims, the judge directed the State government to issue a circular instructions to all hospitals, including private hospitals, to test the blood alcohol level of motor accident victims and record it in the accident register.
MAINTAINING SAFE DISTANCE
“Insofar as maintaining safe distance from the vehicle in front, considering the nature of roads that are available in the towns, suburbs and cities, it is too difficult to maintain safe distance. It is important for the Court to take into consideration the prevailing reality,” the judge said.
Maintaining a safe distance, at the best, is possible only on the highways and where the roads were broader and the traffic was relatively lesser. “Therefore, even though it is advisable to maintain a safe distance, the fact that the vehicle has been hit on the rear side due to the sudden break applied by the vehicle in front, by itself will not result in attributing contributory negligence,” the judge concluded.
