Order

1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 23.07.2008, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer in MAC Case No.672/2007 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant-claimant (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 02.07.2007 at Martindale Bridge, Ajmer, the appellant was hit by a mini bus bearing Registration No. RJ-01-P-4060, which was being driven by the respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, resultantly, the appellant sustained injuries. Thereafter, the appellant filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal seeking compensation against the loss suffered by him. However, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the sole ground that the appellant was himself at fault as he was drunk at the time of the accident.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was standing on the footpath, awaiting a bus. Suddenly, the bus which was being driven by the respondent No.1, came from the opposite direction and hit the appellant.

3.1 The counsel further submitted that the learned Tribunal fell in error in rejecting the claim petition merely on the basis of a note in the injury report which indicated that there was a smell of alcohol in the appellant’s mouth and breath. He has also contended that blood-alcohol concentration test or any other scientific analysis was not conducted to verify the contents of alleged alcohol in the blood of the appellant and/or to quantify the alcohol levels. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to take into consideration the charge-sheet filed by the investigating authority.

3.2 Learned counsel has further submitted that mere presence of alcoholic smell does not lead to the conclusion that the appellant was under the influence of alcohol due to which he failed to escape himself from the accident. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment passed by this Court at the Principal seat in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1695/2016, decided on 12.09.2024, titled as 'United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Jayantilal & ors'.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not require any interference of this Court.

5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record as also the impugned judgment.

6. From a bare perusal of the impugned judgment, it is revealed that the learned Tribunal rejected the claim merely on the ground that the appellant was under the influence of alcohol and therefore, he did not make any efforts to save himself. Consequently, the learned Tribunal also held that the appellant failed to establish the negligence of the respondent-driver and accordingly, dismissed the claim petition.

7. This Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd.(supra) has held as under:-

"23. Furthermore, this Court also takes into consideration the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jiju Kuruvila & Ors. v. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors, reported in AIR 2013 SC 2293, wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that even when the Post-Mortem Report had specifically mentioned that there was a strong smell of spirit, however, the same cannot lead to the conclusion that the deceased had been negligent while driving the vehicle. The relevant para is reproduced as under:"

"25. Post Mortem report, Ext.-A5 shows the condition of the deceased at the time of death. The said report reflects that the deceased had already taken meal as his stomach was half full and contained rice, vegetables and meat pieces in a fluid with strong smell of spirit."

"26. The aforesaid evidence, Ext.-A5 clearly suggests that the deceased had taken liquor but on the basis of the same, no definite finding can be given that the decease