Merely because the appellant had consumed alcohol did not mean that the driver of the vehicle did not need to drive the vehicle cautiously

Rudra Versus Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another (Supreme Court)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — section 166 — claim petition under — the Tribunal concluded that merely because the appellant had consumed alcohol did not mean that the driver of the vehicle did not need to drive the vehicle cautiously. Thus, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle as a result of which the appellant sustained injuries. The Tribunal awarded total compensation amounted to Rs.40,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. — the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,48,200/- with interest @ 6% p.a. — appeal for enhancement of compensation — the doctor assessed whole body disability at 29% and also stated that the nature of disability is such that the appellant cannot work as a coolie or do any other manual work — the impugned judgment of the High Court modified, awarding Rs.3,00,000/- with interest of 6% p.a. on the enhanced sum — appeal allowed — no costs.