The Uttarakhand High Court has ruled that a driver cannot be presumed to be under the influence of alcohol merely on the basis of the “smell” of liquor without scientific confirmation through a blood or breath test.
Justice Alok Mahra, while delivering the judgment, clarified that unless it is scientifically established that a driver’s alcohol content exceeds the legally prescribed limit of 30 mg per 100 ml of blood, an allegation of drunken driving cannot be sustained.
The ruling came in connection with a 2016 road accident at SIIDCUL Chowk, Rudrapur, in which 39-year-old cyclist Jai Kishore Mishra lost his life. Mishra, employed with Neem Metal Products Limited, Pantnagar, earned a monthly salary of ₹35,000. His wife, children, and parents sought compensation of ₹75 lakh following his death.
In January 2019, the trial court awarded around ₹21 lakh compensation to the victim’s family, directing the insurance company to pay. However, it also granted the insurer the right to recover the amount from the vehicle’s driver and owner, citing a doctor’s observation that the driver “reeked of alcohol.”
The High Court disagreed with the trial court’s reasoning, noting that no blood or urine test had been conducted to verify intoxication. It observed that a mere “smell” of alcohol or suspicion could not amount to legal proof of inebriation.
“The presumption of drunken driving in this case is baseless,” Justice Mahra observed, holding that the insurer would remain liable to pay the entire compensation amount and could not recover it from the driver or vehicle owner.
The Court also ordered the release of the bank guarantee deposited by the appellant, bringing relief to the driver and owner of the vehicle.
