Drunken driving all the more dangerous, and this Court does not think that it is possible to ignore these conditions, especially given our experience with fatalities caused to third parties by reported incidents of drunken driving. It is not possible to countenance an argument that any person has a fundamental right to drink, let alone to drink any amount and then get behind the wheel of a motor-car or onto a two-wheeler. Even the most minute impairment caused by alcohol intake might have the most disastrous consequences.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the Judgment and Decree, dated 27.09.2004 made in M.C.O.P.No.201 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.IV, Additional District Court, Poonamallee.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant / claimant as against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court / Fast Track Court No.IV, Poonamallee, in MCOP No.201 of 2003.

2. According to the appellant / claimant, on 21.04.2003 when he was riding his M-80 Motorcycle, near DC Road, Meenambakkam, in GST Road, the Ambassidor Car belonging to the first respondent, 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 fracture on left ankle, besides receiving multiple injuries all over the body. Stating so, he has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as total compensation.

3. The Tribunal, after elaborate trial, has held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the Ambassidor Car belonging to the first respondent herein and insured with the second respondent / Insurance Company as well as the claimant and fixed the contributory negligence at 60% and 40% on them and ultimately arrived at the total compensation at Rs.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 costs. Branding the quantum so awarded as disproportionate to the nature of the injuries sustained and lesser, the claimant / appellant has preferred this Appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant / claimant, the learned counsel for the second respondent / Insurance Company and perused the records. Despite serving the notice on the first respondent and his name having been printed in the cause list, there is no appearance on his behalf.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant / claimant submitted 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 bi-Malleolous left ankle injuries and other serious injuries in all over the body, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards loss of income, loss of amenities and attendant charges; further the amount awarded towards transportation expenses and extra nourishment is too low; in any event, the total amount of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal needs substantial enhancement.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent / Insurance Company submitted that Ex.P-10-Wound Certificate, coupled with the evidence of P.W.2-Dr.N.Saichandran would establish the fact that, at the time of accident, the claimant was in a 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 document 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 second respondent submitted that the claimant was in an inebriated condition, which was proved by Ex.P-10 wound certificate, no claim can be sustained by him.

7. This Court has paid its anxious consideration to the learned counsel for the claimant / appellant and Insurance Company / second respondent and perused the ma