THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1222 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against the Order dated 06.10.2006 in W.C.Case No.24 of 2005 on the file of the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Khammam whereunder the claim of the respondent Nos.1 to 5 seeking compensation for death of one Bellamkonda Anantha Ramulu in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 26.07.2004 was partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.2,95,288/-. The present Appeal is at the instance of the National Insurance Company Limited, which was the opposite part No.2 before the Commissioner.
2. Heard.
3. The main grievance of the appellant is that, the Commissioner while awarding compensation has not taken into consideration the fact that the deceased driver, at the time of accident, was in a drunken state which is an offence under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act"). Therefore, the 2 Commissioner ought not to have fixed liability on the appellant by granting compensation.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 contended that there is no evidence on record except the statement in charge sheet that the driver was drunk at the time of accident. Unless medical evidence is on record, it cannot be assumed that the driver was drunk at the time of accident. Therefore, such a contention has no merit and prayed to dismiss the Appeal.
5. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which reads as hereunder:-
"Section 185. Driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs.--Whoever, while driving, or attempting to drive, a motor vehicle,
(a) has, in his blood, alcohol exceeding 30 mg. per 100 ml. of blood detected in a test by a breath analyser, [or in any other test including a laboratory test] or
(b) is under this influence of a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle, shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine [of ten thousand rupees], or with both; and for a second or subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine [of fifteen thousand rupees] or with both.
[Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, the expression "drug" means any intoxicant other than alcohol, natural or synthetic, or any natural material or any salt, or preparation of such substance or material as may be notified by the Central Government under this Act and includes a narcotic drug and 3 psychotropic substance as defined in clause (xiv) and clause (xxii) of Section 2 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985)]".
6. A reading of the above provision makes it clear that, the quantum of alcohol shall not exceed 30 mg. per 100 ml. of human blood. This means that any person, who consumed alcohol below 30 mg. per 100 ml. of blood cannot be said to have committed any offence. Such consumption is not prohibited. It is true that in the charge sheet, there is a reference that the deceased was drunk at the time of accident. The investigating Officer failed to collect any medical evidence in this regard. It is necessary to establish that in the blood of the deceased, the quantum of alcohol is more than 30 mg per 100 ml. blood and the same is lacking in the present case. Therefore, this Court finds that there is no substantial question of law involved in the present case so as to interfere with the findings of the Commissioner. The Appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
7. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
______________________ JUSTICE M.LAXMAN 06.01.2023 ESP 4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN 218 C.M.A.No.1222 of 2008 Dated: 06.01.2023 ESP