Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
K.Shanmugam – Appellant
Versus
V. Krishnamurthy, Proprietor, Aviation Express, No.142 Eldams Road, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018 & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1842 of 2006
Decided On : 25-10-2019
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 185 - Rule 21,Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – FIR - Tribunal, after elaborate trial has that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent act on part of driver of Ambassador Car belonging to first respondent herein and insured with second respondent Insurance Company as well as claimant and fixed contributory negligence and on them and ultimately arrived at total compensation - Accordingly Tribunal after deducting from said quantum towards contributory negligence on part of claimant has directed Insurer to pay a with interest and costs - Branding quantum so awarded as disproportionate to nature of injuries sustained and lesser claimant appellant has preferred this Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by Tribunal –Held, Court does not think that it is possible to ignore these conditions especially given our experience with fatalities caused third parties by reported incidents of drunken driving - It is not possible to countenance an argument that any person has fundamental right to drink let alone to drink any amount and then get behind the wheel of a motor-car or onto two-wheeler - Even most-minute impairment caused by alcohol intake might have most disastrous consequences Everyday drunken driving results in accidents and several human lives are lost pedestrians in many of our cities are not safe. Late night parties among urban elite have now become a way of life followed by drunken driving - Alcohol consumption impairs consciousness and vision and it becomes impossible to judge accurately how far away objects - When depth perception deteriorates eye muscles lose their precision causing inability focus on the objects - Further in more conditions like fog mist rain etc whether it is night or day it can reduce visibility of an object to point of being below limit - In short alcohol leads to loss of coordination poor judgment slowing down reflexes and distortion of vision - Punishment meted out to 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 roads contention raised by senior counsel that the accused was not influence of liquor or beyond limit prescribed M.V. Act and he was in his senses and victims were at fault being on middle of the road is without any substance and only to be rejected State Governments / Union Territories to adopt a zero tolerance norm in Section itself time has now come for just such a measure - Too many lives have already been lost this lethal cocktail of internal consumption and internal combustion Court by above reasoning’s has come to conclusion to adopt stringent views on drunken driving findings rendered by Tribunal on contributory negligence as well as quantum have no legs to stand - This Court finds that claimant himself was and was responsible for accident - As such question of fastening liability either on owner or on Insurance Company does not arise – Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
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 Ambassador 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 Ambassador 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 materials available on record.
8. A perusal of the award of the Tribunal would go to show that the Tribunal, by considering Ex.P-1-FIR and Ex.P-10-Wound Certificate and taking note of the fact that the rider of the two-wheeler (claimant) was in an inebriated condition at t
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
