Calcutta High Court Upholds Compensation Award in Fatal Road Accident Case Despite Victim's Alleged Drunkenness

Case Overview

In a significant ruling on motor accident compensation, the Calcutta High Court has affirmed a trial court's award of Rs 11,41,000 to the family of Ganesh Das, who died in a road accident on December 27, 2020. The accident occurred on National Highway 41 near Bakhrabad bus stop, where the victim's motorcycle collided with the rear of a speeding truck (WB-45/5579) driven rashly and negligently. The truck, owned by Mobarak Khan and insured by The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., suddenly overtook and stopped in front of the motorcycle, causing the fatal crash.

The claimants—Sabita Das (mother and natural guardian), minor Swapna Das, Namita Das, and Gobinda Das—filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur (MAC Case No. 76 of 2021). The trial court awarded the compensation on May 22, 2024, directing payment via four cheques with 6% interest from the filing date, escalating to 8% if delayed. The insurer appealed (F.M.A. 1044 of 2024), while claimants filed counter-objections (COT 22 of 2025) seeking higher quantum.

Key Arguments Presented

The appellant, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., argued that the trial court erred in granting compensation because:

- The postmortem report noted an "alcoholic smell" in the victim's stomach, indicating drunken driving in violation of road safety norms.

- The motorcycle (WB-30Z/7173) lacked valid insurance.

- The awarded amount was excessive, with the victim's income assessed too high.

Claimants' counsel countered that:

- Mere alcoholic smell does not prove intoxication under Section 185(A) of the MV Act, which requires blood alcohol exceeding 30 mg per 100 ml via breath analyzer test. As the victim could not defend himself post-death, drunkenness cannot bar compensation.

- The motorcycle's insurance status is irrelevant, as the claim targets the insurer of the offending truck, not the victim's vehicle.

- The victim's monthly income was Rs 15,000 (not Rs 5,000 as taken by the trial court), supported by family testimony, warranting higher compensation. Ganesh Das, a healthy young man and sole breadwinner, had strong future prospects.

Court's Reasoning and Legal Principles Applied

Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury, hearing arguments on November 24, 2025, and delivering judgment on December 12, 2025, dismissed the appeal and counter-objections. The court emphasized that while drunken driving under Section 185(A) MV Act could invite prosecution or contributory negligence claims, it does not deprive heirs of statutory compensation when the victim is deceased and unable to contest allegations.

A pivotal excerpt from the judgment states: "When a person drives the vehicle in drunken condition in violation of a condition under Section 185(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, he may be prosecuted under law and when he meets with an accident that may be a ground of contributory negligence, but when the person who met with an accident is dead and alleged to be drunk the heirs of the said victim cannot be deprived of compensation because the said person was the fit person if alive to defend his case."

On insurance, the court clarified: "As there was no contract between the owner of the motor cycle and Appellant but a contract existed with the Appellant and the owner of offending vehicle... it is only with breach of policy condition by the owner of vehicle being WB-45/5579 can be raised." It urged insurers to notify transport authorities of expired policies for public safety.

Regarding quantum, the court upheld the trial court's Rs 5,000 monthly income assessment, noting claimants failed to produce employer evidence: "As the claimants failed to prove the income of the victim by examining the employer Learned Trial Court rightly took into consideration Rs 5,000/- per month to compute the compensation."

No specific precedents were cited, but the ruling aligns with MV Act principles protecting dependents' rights over technical defenses, distinguishing between offender liability and victim defenses.

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court dismissed both the appeal and counter-objections, affirming the trial award. Claimants may now withdraw the sum with accrued interest upon formalities. Cheques must be issued to Sabita Das (Rs 3,91,000 including consortium amount), and Rs 2,50,000 each to the other claimants, with minors' shares deposited until majority.

This decision reinforces victim-centric approaches in road accident claims, limiting insurer defenses to policy breaches by the insured party. It highlights procedural gaps in proving posthumous intoxication and calls for stricter enforcement against uninsured vehicles, potentially influencing future claims in eastern India.