[Road Accident] Smelling Alcohol In Breath Not Itself Ground To Attribute Contributory Negligence, Must Assess Alcohol Level In Blood: Madras HC
The Madras High Court recently observed that merely smelling alcohol in the breath of a person brought to the hospital by itself is not a ground to attribute contributory negligence to the person in motor accident cases. The court noted that in most cases, the doctors merely indicated the breath smelled of alcohol without making any effort to find out the percentage of alcohol in...
The Madras High Court recently observed that merely smelling alcohol in the breath of a person brought to the hospital by itself is not a ground to attribute contributory negligence to the person in motor accident cases. The court noted that in most cases, the doctors merely indicated the breath smelled of alcohol without making any effort to find out the percentage of alcohol in the blood.
Justice Anand Venkatesh added that this determination was important to ascertain whether the person who consumed alcohol was within his control to drive the vehicle. The court thus directed the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to issue circulars to all hospitals including private hospitals to assess the level of alcohol in blood when an injured or deceased was brought to alcohol and smelt alcohol.
“This practice shall be made mandatory since there is an increase in the number of cases where the rider of the vehicle drives the vehicle after consuming alcohol. Even though, the State Government is taking steps to conduct surprise checks, that by itself will not stop this problem and it has to be made mandatory to assess the level of alcohol in the blood atleast in cases where accidents takes place. This will help the motor accident claims preferred by such persons to be decided in a proper manner while determining the issue of negligence to be attributed in an accident,” the court observed.
The court was hearing a civil miscellaneous appeal preferred by one Ramesh challenging the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and seeking an enhancement of compensation. The MACT had attributed 50% contributory negligence against Ramesh on the ground that he had not maintained safe distance from the lorry involved in the accident and that he also smelt of alcohol when he was being treated by the doctor after the accident.
The court noted that the State, being the only provider of alcohol to citizens had the sole responsibility to also take care of the consequences arising from consumption of alcohol. Remarking that alcohol consumption per se was not an offense, the court added that what had to be looked at was whether the consumption of alcohol had influenced the driving capacity of the rider of the vehicle.
Relying on Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the court noted that the same threshold of 30mg per 100 ml of blood could be applied to make a legal presumption that a person was not within his control while driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol. In the present case, since no assessment was made regarding the percentage of alcohol in blood, the court observed that the same was not sufficient to attribute contributory negligence.
Regarding maintaining a safe distance, the court said that though the same was advisable, the court also had to consider the prevailing reality, and considering the nature of roads it was difficult to maintain a safe distance from the vehicle going in front. The court added that maintaining safe distance was possible only on highways where the roads were broader and traffic was relatively lesser. Thus, the court said that the vehicle hitting the rear side due to a sudden break by itself would not result in attributing contributory negligence.
The court thus allowed the appeal and modified the order of the MACT.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms.Sithi Fathima Samt for Mr.C.Vidhusan
Counsel for the Respondents: Mrs.I.Malar
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 164
Case Title: Ramesh v Selvakumar and Another
Case No: CMA No.2494 of 2022