DURAIVENDHAN Vs. HINDU BHARATHI EDUCATION COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant is the appellant. The challenge is to the award of the tribunal dated 11. 06. 2004 in M. C. O. P. No. 848 of 2002. According to the claimant on 17. 7. 2002 at about 3 p. m. , he was riding on a TVS Suzuki motor cycle bearing Registration No. TN-07-V-6547 near Samiar Madam when the vehicle belonging to the first respondent school, which is a van bearing Registration no. TN-23-Y-7590 dashed against him, in which he suffered serious injuries, for which initially he took treatment in Ambur Government Hospital and later in the Vellore Government Hospital. He has also stated that he took native treatment at Puttur. He made a claim for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/= as against the respondents. In support of the injury sustained by him, the appellant filed Exhibits P. 2 and P. 5 and examined P. W. 2, doctor, who issued the wound certificate.

(2.) THE Tribunal on a detailed examination of the evidence placed before it, has found that the cause of accident cannot be solely attributed to the driver of the van but also on the appellant, inasmuch as in Ex. P. 2, the doctor has recorded that on examination of the appellant, he found that the appellant's breath smelt alcohol. The tribunal also held that the appellant was not possessing a driving licence at the time when the accident took place. Further, P. W. 2, also deposed in his cross-examination that though in Ex. P. 5, he had certified that the disablement would have been in the order of 35%, since the appellant did not follow the medical advice given to him, disablement can at best be determined to an extent of 15%. Further, though the appellant claimed that he was running a fish farm and earning a sum of rs. 10,000/= per month, there was no iota of evidence to support the said stand. Similarly, as regards the damage caused to his vehicle, though the appellant claimed that it was to an extent of Rs. 5,000/=, there was no supporting evidence for that claim. Having regard to the above evidence available before the tribunal and in view of the fact that the appellant was under the influence of alcohol while driving the vehicle, the tribunal held that the appellant also contributed to the cause of the accident. On that basis, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 28,000- in all.

(3.) ON a perusal of the award impugned in this appeal, I find that the tribunal was perfectly justified in its conclusion, when it held that the appellant contributed to the accident and therefore, there is no scope to award any higher compensation and mulct the owner of the vehicle or its insurer. Day in and day out, it is being noticed that in spite of the traffic authorities repeatedly cautioning the drivers and the two-wheeler riders not to drive such vehicles under the influence of alcohol, such cautions were being flouted with impunity. Further, driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol is prohibited and an offence under the provisions of Motor Vehicles act. In such circumstances, when persons drive the vehicle under the influence of Alcohol and thereby meet with an accident, it has to be held that any sympathy shown to such persons would be a misplaced one and it will only encourage such persons to continue to violate the Law and thereby they will not only get themselves involved in such accidents, but would be a source of perennial threat to other road users and innocent public. Since such accidents due to alcoholic influence is on the increase, it is high time that the Law makers should bring about appropriate legislation prohibiting payment of any compensation to such violators of Law, by whose impudent adventurism the victims are only the innocent gullible public. Looked at from any angle, the claim of such persons cannot be considered on par with the claim of other persons, who had been victims of such accidents and who suffered such injuries for no fault of theirs.