Motorists injured while driving under the influence of alcohol cannot claim complete accident compensation under benevolent road transport laws, the Karnataka High Court has ruled, assigning 30 per cent contributory negligence to an intoxicated rider.
In a verdict issued on September 1, Justice K V Aravind partly allowed an appeal filed by National Insurance Co Ltd, which had challenged a Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal decision directing the company to pay the entire award sum to 34-year-old claimant Vishwanath following a crash in September 2018.
Limits On Benevolent Enactments
Modifying the tribunal’s original payout, the High Court observed that riding a vehicle under the influence of alcohol is a legal offence that endangers the rider, other commuters, and society. The bench noted that courts must take a strict approach when dealing with such violations.
Justice Aravind observed that while traffic legislations such as the Motor Vehicles Act are benevolent enactments traditionally interpreted liberally, that benefit cannot be stretched to protect individuals who deliberately violate statutory mandates. Extending full protection in such instances, the court held, would place a premium on illegal conduct and undermine traffic discipline as well as law and order.
The bench added that amidst rising population, expanding vehicle density, and growing traffic congestion, commuters bear a responsibility to obey the law and demonstrate regard for fellow road users.
Medical Evidence And Negligence
The insurer contested the tribunal’s original compensation award on two distinct grounds. First, it pointed to hospital documentation indicating that the claimant was intoxicated at the time of admission, arguing this directly contributed to the collision. Second, the insurer cited an emergency doctor’s initial entry noting a fall from the motorcycle, arguing that the episode was a solo accident.
The High Court rejected the insurer’s claim of a solo fall, noting that emergency medical staff prioritize immediate life-saving care over recording comprehensive accident details, while the record established that the insured vehicle had struck the claimant’s motorcycle.
However, the bench accepted medical proof confirming the presence of alcohol in Vishwanath’s system during his hospital admission. As a result, the court attributed 30 per cent of the negligence for the collision to the claimant, adjusting the final award and relieving the insurance provider from bearing the full compensation payout
