Negligence by other vehicle's driver outweighs deceased's alcohol influence; liability remains even if deceased consumed alcohol, emphasizing duty of care under Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

C.M.A(MD)No.780 of 2023 has been filed by the appellant/Transport Corporation, challenging the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.25 of 2019, dated 21.03.2023, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum 1^st Additional District Court, Nagercoil.

2.Cross Objection(MD)No.43 of 2025 has been filed by the respondents 1 to 3, seeking for enhancement of the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.25 of 2019, dated 21.03.2023, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum 1^st Additional District Court, Nagercoil.

3.Both the appeals are arising out of the same award and as such, a common order is passed.

4.For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their status / ranking in C.M.A(MD)No.780 of 2023.

5.The respondents 1 to 3 are the claimants and legal representatives of the deceased C.Niranjan. They filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,75,00,000/- on the grounds that on 17.11.2015, at about 08.00 p.m., the deceased was driving his Mahindra Bolero Car bearing Registration No.TN-AX-5679 from Tirunelveli to Nagercoil along the National Highways road near Melapalayam, travelling from north to south. The bus, bearing Registration No.TN-74-N-1299, owned by the appellant, was being driven by the fourth respondent in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased's car. As a result, the car was thrown out and the deceased sustained grievous injuries, ultimately leading to his death. On the complaint, the Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation Wing, Tirunelveli City registered an F.I.R in Crime No.299 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Section 304A of I.P.C. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a final report as against the fourth respondent.

6.In order to substantiate their claim, the respondents 1 to 3 examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked Exs.P1 to P22. On the side of the appellant herein, they examined R.W.1 and marked Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2.

7.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the fourth respondent and fixed the entire negligence on the part of the fourth respondent. Therefore, the appellant, being the owner of the bus, was held liable to pay compensation. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.1,68,30,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal.

8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and had driven the car in a rash and negligent manner, thereby causing accident. The post-mortem report, marked as Ex.P.4, clearly shows that the stomach of the deceased contained 640 milligrams of ethyl alcohol and in the intestine, the blood contained 420 milligrams of ethyl alcohol. Therefore, it is evident that the deceased consumed alcohol and drove the vehicle. Hence, the Tribunal ought not to have fastened the entire liability on the part of the fourth respondent.

9.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that the accident occurred at a location where three barricades were placed. After crossing these barricades, the deceased drove the vehicle in a speedy manner and dashed against the bus. In fact, the bus did not sustain damage except on the front right-hand side corner. However, the deceased vehicle was completely damaged, which indicates that the deceased was driving his car in a speedy manner an