Achi news desk-
GUWAHATI: In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court emphasized that the mere consumption of alcohol during the day is not an offence, and people involved in road accidents cannot be held guilty without assessing the alcohol content in their blood.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, in an order dated April 16, increased the compensation awarded to a resident of Perambalur district, Tamil Nadu, who was involved in a road accident in 2016.
Click here to join our WhatsApp channel
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Perambalur initially awarded over 3 lakh compensation to the petitioner, Ramesh. However, the court deducted 50% of the compensation amount, on the grounds of ‘contributory negligence’, as a doctor who examined Ramesh after the accident reported the smell of alcohol on his breath.
The MACT also suggested that Ramesh’s alcohol consumption may have caused him to fail to maintain a safe distance from the truck in front of him, which is believed to be the main cause of the accident. Justice Venkatesh questioned this reasoning, arguing that the state takes responsibility for the consequences of alcohol consumption as it is the sole supplier of alcohol through IMFL outlets.
The judge restored Ramesh’s compensation to ₹3,53,904, stressing that consumption of alcohol in itself is not an offence. He further highlighted that roads in Tamil Nadu often suffer from heavy traffic, making it challenging for vehicles to maintain a safe distance.
Before concluding the matter, Justice Venkatesh directed the Tamil Nadu government to order all doctors, both in private and state-run hospitals, to determine the exact blood alcohol content of people involved in road accidents, instead of just noticing the smell of alcohol on their breath.
Also Read: Delhi High Court quashes repeated ban "dangerous" Dog Breeds
"This determination is essential to verify whether the person consumed alcohol within the limits or exceeded them, which affects his control of the vehicle," The court determined.
Advocate Sithi Fathima Samt and C. Vidusan represented Ramesh, while Advocate A. Mallar appeared for the respondent insurance company.
