The Madras High Court recently held that consuming alcohol during day is not an offence and a person involved in a motor accident cannot be held guilty without assessing the percentage of alcohol in his or her blood.
- News
- Columns
- Interviews
- Law Firms
- Apprentice Lawyer
- Legal Jobs
- हिंदी
- ಕನ್ನಡ
Consuming alcohol during day not offence: Madras High Court sets aside contributory negligence deduction in MACT award
Justice Anand Venkatesh also directed the TN government to make it mandatory for doctors examining road accident victims to assess percentage of alcohol in their blood.
Madras High Court, Principal Bench
Published on:
17 Apr 2024, 8:52 pm
3 min read
The Madras High Court recently held that consuming alcohol during day is not an offence and a person involved in a motor accident cannot be held guilty without assessing the percentage of alcohol in his or her blood.
In an order passed on April 16, Justice N Anand Venkatesh enhanced the compensation awarded to a resident of Perambalur district in Tamil Nadu, who was involved in a road accident in 2016.
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) at Perambalur had awarded a compensation of over ₹3 lakh to one Ramesh, the petitioner in the present case.
However, it had also deducted 50 percent of the compensation amount as ‘contributory negligence’ on the ground that the doctor who had examined Ramesh soon after the accident had said in his report that he “could smell alcohol in his breath.”
Justice N Anand Venkatesh
The MACT also held that it was likely that because of such alcohol consumption, Ramesh had not maintained enough distance from the lorry ahead of him on the road. The lorry, the police had claimed, was the primary cause of the accident.
Justice Venkatesh, however, held that such reasoning was questionable.
Besides, in Tamil Nadu, the State is the sole gatekeeper and provider of alcohol and so, it must too take responsibility for the consequences arising out of alcohol consumption by its citizens, the Court ruled.
The judge, therefore, restored Ramesh’s compensation amount to ₹3,53,904.
“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. What is important is to see if the consumption of alcohol has influenced the driving capacity of the rider of the vehicle,” the Court said.
The Court also said that roads in most part of Tamil Nadu witness heavy vehicular traffic at all times and there is hardly any place for vehicles to “maintain safe distance.”
Therefore, tribunals when deciding cases such as the present one, must take a realistic view of the prevailing situation.
Before disposing of the matter, Justice Venkatesh also issued directions to the Tamil Nadu government to make it mandatory for all doctors at private and State run hospitals, who examine those involved in road accidents, to ascertain the exact percentage of alcohol in their blood and not merely note they had smell of alcohol on their breaths.
“This determination (percentage of alcohol in blood) is very important since this determination will show as to whether the person who had consumed alcohol, was within his limits or exceeded the limits and he was not within his control. Such a scientific data will also enable the Court to come to correct conclusions in cases of this nature,” the Court said while issuing relevant directions to the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Tamil Nadu.
It directed the principal secretary to issue a circular to all the hospitals including private hospitals to the effect that in all cases where the injured or the deceased is brought to the hospital and smells of alcohol, the level of alcohol in the blood be assessed and noted in the relevant records.
“This practice shall be made mandatory since there is increase in the number of cases where the rider of the vehicle drives the vehicle after consuming alcohol,” the Court added.
Advocate Sithi Fathima Samt and C Vidhusan appeared for Ramesh, the claimant.
Advocate I Malar appeared for the respondent Insurance Company.
[Read Judgment]
Attachment
