(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.KIRUBAKARAN, J) "LIQUOR CAUSES MORE EVILS IT MAKES MANY AS DEVILS"

2. About 70 lakh people out of 68 million population of Tamil Nadu consume alcohol every day. 6500 TASMAC shops cater to the needs of the consumers earning 35% of State's income. Mostly the consumers are invariably labourers, farmers, lower middle and lower strata people. Most of the daily wagers are stated to be spending 50% or more of their earnings on "QUARTER (180 ml.)" of liquor driving their families to abject poverty. Women and children need to be protected from domestic violence, sex crimes, poverty, etc. Innumerable families are being shattered because of drinking and drunken driving. Health, wealth and peace are lost due to alcohol and mostly, the sufferers are women and children as they are affected physically, psychologically and economically. More people including juveniles are becoming addicts.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4 3.1.Drinking causes many health hazards apart from causing numerous road accidents and many heinous crimes. Researchers have linked alcohol consumption to more than 60 diseases. "ALCOHOL DOES ALL KINDS OF THINGS IN THE BODY, AND WE ARE NOT FULLY AWARE OF ALL ITS EFFECTS. IT IS A PRETTY COMPLICATE LITTLE MOLECULE.“ says James C.Garbutt, M.D., Professor of Psychiatry at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine and a researcher at the University's Bowles Center for Alcohol studies. Doctors say that alcohol consumption causes 60 diseases and major among them are cardio vascular disease, cancer, anemia, liver cirrohosis, dementia, depression, seizures, gout, high blood pressure, infectious disease, nerve damage, pancreatitis, etc. Hence, people should be discouraged to take alcohol. Many States like, Bihar, Nagaland, apart from dry States like Gujarat banned alcohol completely or partially. Mr.Nitish Kumar, Chief Minister of Bihar claimed huge drop in domestic violence and rape cases, since alcohol ban was introduced in April 2015 (between April 2015 and April 2016).

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3.2.Tamil Nadu stands first in the number of road accidents 5 having 63,920 accidents accounting for 13.7% share in the total accidents that occurred in India, during 2018. In terms of accident deaths, the casualties are 22,256 persons in Uttarpradesh, 13,261 persons in Maharashtra and 12,216 persons in Tamil Nadu.

4.Though it is written on the liquor bottles that “Drinking is injurious to health”, still the Government is selling or supplying liquor to the citizens, affecting their fundamental right under Article 21, contrary to Article 41 of the Constitution of India which deals about total prohibition to be brought in.

5.Here is a case wherein drunken driving has crippled the victim as a vegetable.

6.The appeal has been preferred by the claimant aggrieved with the quantum of compensation of Rs.4,37,920/- towards disability sustained by him due to the injuries caused to him in the accident which occurred on 01.02.2013, when he was driving on GST Road from North to South in his car and stopped to take a turn towards west to go to Gandhi Road after giving proper signal and while entering Gandhi Road a lorry belonging to the 1st respondent, insured with the 2nd https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 6 respondent driven by its driver rashly and negligently, hit against the car resulting in the victim sustaining grievous injuries. Therefore, claim petition.

7.The claim petition was contested by the second respondent/Insurance Company and the Tribunal on appreciation of evidence found that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry insured with the 2nd respondent and determined the disability at 33%. It applied multiplier method by taking Rs.6,000/- as monthly income and “17” as multiplier and along with other heads, awarded a sum of Rs.4,37,920/- as compensation. Questioning the adequacy of the compensation only, the claimant is before this Court.

8.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant sustained serious injuries and it was proved before the tribunal that he has become a vegetable and he is unable to do any work and he has become mentally retarded due to brain injury. Therefore, 100% disability should have been determined by the Tribunal, so also loss of 100% earning power. Moreover, she would submit that amounts awarded under other heads are all very low. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 7 However, Mr.S.Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that the appellant was in a fit condition, when he was examined before the trial Court and therefore, the Tribunal rightly determined disability at 33% which needs no interference. Disability:

9.A close perusal of the pleadings and evidence would reveal that the claimant sustained the following injuries:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 8

(ii)For the fracture sustained on the skull a surgery was conducted and a part of skull was removed.

(iii)There is lack of vision on the left eye due to grievous injuries sustained by the appellant on the left eye.

(iv)Because of the skull injury, the appellant has become paralyzed on the right side and the movement of the right hand and right leg is affected.

That apart, the appellant is suffering from loss of memory and getting fits frequently. PW4/Doctor as early as on 10.09.2014 through Ex.P.10 stated as follows:

10.When this Court asked the appellant to appear before this Court, he was produced before this Court in a wheel chair and it is found that his replies to the queries are incoherent. This Court referred the appellant to Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital's Medical Board which by its proceedings dated 24.05.2019 stated that his disability is 100%:

11.Even the Tribunal in paragraph 13 of its order, has categorically stated as follows:

12.The Tribunal based on evidence of eye witness PW2, Ex.P.1/FIR and Ex.P.6/charge sheet rightly found that the driver of the lorry alone was rash and negligent while driving the lorry and caused the accident. While coming to the above conclusion, the Tribunal noted the fact that the driver-cum-owner of the lorry remained exparte. If the driver had adduced evidence, it would have thrown more light about the manner of accident. Moreover, in paragraph No.1 of the written argument filed before the trial Court by the learned counsel for the appellant found in page 32 of the appellant's typed set states that the driver of the lorry pleaded guilty before Magistrate Court in C.C.No.1929/2013 and was fined Rs.1,500/- on 02.07.2013. The said finding is confirmed. Contributory negligence due to drunken driving:

13.Based on Ex.P.2/discharge summary, the Tribunal found that the claimant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident and as per Ex.R4/copy of Accident Register, Ex.P.2/discharge https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 13 summary & Ex.P.3/out patient record, the Tribunal fixed 50% contributory negligence on the claimant.

14.Whether discharge summary, out patient records and accident register are enough to prove that the appellant was under

shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both; and for a second or subsequent offence, if committed within three years of the commission of the previous similar https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ offence, with imprisonment for a term which may 14 extend to two year, or with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees, or with both.

If there is a suspicion that a person is under the influence of alcohol or he was smelling alcohol at the time of accident, the accused drunken driver has to be sent compulsorily to hospital where blood samples have to be taken to detect the contents of the alcohol to verify as to whether the contents of alcohol exceed 30 mg per 100 ml or not or test by breathalyser compulsorily so that the prosecution could succeed in the case filed against the drivers for drunken driving u/s 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, apart from u/s.184 for dangerous driving and under Section 279 of IPC.

15.Though Ex.P.2/discharge summary speaks about smelling of alcohol and there is evidence of RW2/Doctor, those evidences are not enough to comply with the requirement under Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

16.Though this Court is convinced that the appellant was under the influence of alcohol, for not testing to find out the alcohol content in the blood sample from the appellant as per the statutory https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 15 mandate under Section 185 , this Court is inclined to set aside 50% negligence fixed on the part of the appellant by the Tribunal. However, in view of smelling of alcohol as proved by Ex.P.2/discharge summary, this Court feels it appropriate to fix 10% towards contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. licence:

17.The contention of the Insurance Company that the claimant was possessing only LMV licence, marked as Ex.P.8 and does not hold transport badge which is a violation of policy condition, was rightly rejected by the Tribunal relying upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited , dated 24.07.2017 in which it has been held that light motor vehicle includes transport vehicles also and a holder of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles including transport vehicles.

18.It is proved that the appellant/claimant was a driver and he possessed Ex.P.8/driving licence. The Honourable Supreme Court in Nita and Others v. Divisional Manager, MSRTC, Kolapur https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 16 reported in 2015 (1) TN MAC 161 determined the monthly income of a carpenter at Rs.12,000/- who sustained injuries in the accident which occurred in the year 2011. However, considering the nature of work, this Court fixes a sum of Rs.15,000/- as notional income of the claimant/driver who sustained injuries in the accident occurred during the year 2013.

19.As per Ex.P.8/Driving licence, the appellant was aged about 28 years at the time of accident. As per the Constitution Bench's judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited V. Pranay Sethi and others , reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC), 40% has to be added towards future prospects. Therefore, the monthly income comes to Rs.21,000/- [Rs.15,000/- (+) 40% of Rs.15,000/- viz., Rs.6,000/-].

20.As per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Others .Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 1 (SC) based on the age of the claimant, the right multiplier is “17”. Therefore, loss of earning would be Rs.42,84,000/- (Rs.21,000/- x 12 x 17). In view of the above, the amount awarded by the Tribunal viz., Rs.4,03,920/- as loss of earning https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 17 is set aside.

Attendant charges:

21.The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- under this head which is very meager. The appellant has to depend upon others to do his day today activities. The state in which he was brought to the Court shows that he cannot do any work on his own, not even attend his nature's call. His right side is paralysed and he is unable to do work. He is not in a position to understand what is happening around him. Therefore, he needs an attendant on his side all the time. As per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Kavitha Vs. Deepak and others reported in 2012 (2) TNMAC 362, attendant charges is awarded at Rs.2,000/- per month for 25 years (Rs.2000/- x 25) totaling to Rs.6,00,000/-. Since the Hon'ble Apex Court took a sum of Rs.2,000/- during the year 2004, we fix a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month, considering the year of the accident viz., 2013 and during that time it would have been impossible to get an attendant for less than Rs.6,000/- per month. Therefore, attendant charges would be at Rs.18,00,000/- [Rs.6,000/- (x) 12 (x) 25]. Pain and suffering:

Extra nourishment:

Loss of amenities:

Future Medical expenses:

Loss of marital bliss to wife of the claimant:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 33.Under Order 41, Rule 33 read with Section 151 of Civil 25 Procedure Code, in order to render justice this Court can award more compensation based on the evidence. The power and the discretion are vested with this Court to enhance the amount according to the facts of the case, if the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not “just”. Even in the absence of any Appeal/Cross-Appeal by the claimants, this Court can enhance the compensation in this Appeal preferred by the Insurer. The aforesaid proposition has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in — ( 1) NAGAPPA v. GURUDAYAL SINGH and OTHERS , 2004 (2) TN MAC 398 (SC) : 2003 (2) SCC 274.

(2)MAHANT DHANGIR and ANOTHER v. MADAN MOHAN and OTHERS, AIR 1938 SC 54.

( 3) STATE OF PUNJAB v. BAKSHISH SINGH , 1998 (8) SCC 222. (4) THE APSRTC and ANOTHER v. RAMA DEVI and OTHERS, 2008 (1) TN MAC 234 (SC).

( 5) M.D., PALLAVAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. v. KALAVATHI , 1988 ACJ 151.

(6) M.D., THANTHAI PERIYAR TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. v. SUNDARIAMMAL, 1999 (2) CTC 560. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 26 (7) M.D., ANNAI SATHYA CORPORATION LTD. v.

JANARDHANAN, 2000 (2) CTC 272.

34.Even otherwise, under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court has power and jurisdiction to pass such a decision or direction as the inferior Court/Tribunal should have made. The above ratio was laid by Apex Court in Sahil (Smt.) v. Manojkumar and others, 2004 (4) SCC 785. In Trimbak Gangadhar v. Ramachandra Ganesh , AIR 1977 SC 1222, it has been held that where the order passed by the Tribunal results in manifest injustice, this Court can justifiably intervene under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, this Court, can invoke Article 227 “suo motu” and decide the matter, if the Court/Tribunal below has not passed orders correctly. This Court draws support for the above said view from the judgment of Supreme Court in Ahmedabad MFG and Calico PTG Co. Ltd. v. Ram Tahel Ramnand and others , AIR 1972 SC 1598.

35.The appellant/claimant is directed to pay the requisite court-fee, if any, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, If the requisite court-fee is not paid by the claimant, the Tribunal is directed to deduct the requisite court https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 27 fee from the compensation awarded to the claimant and thereafter, transfer the remaining award amount to the claimant's account.

36.The Insurance company is directed to deposit the entire award amount along with interest (except for Rs.2,00,000/- awarded towards future medical expenses) and costs as per the modified award passed by this Court, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after deducting the amount already deposited, if any. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer a sum of Rs.27,35,000/- along with interest and costs to the personal bank account of the appellant/claimant through RTGS within a period of one week thereon. The remaining award amount shall be deposited in interest bearing Fixed Deposit in any one of the Nationalised Banks, for a period of 15 years. The wife of the claimant is permitted to withdraw interest accruing on such deposit once in a month.

37.Though this Court has set aside the negligence on the part of the appellant, fixing the liability at 50% on the ground of drunken driving, it is a fact that precious lives are lost on the road due to accidents caused by drunken driving which is one of the main https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 28 causes for road accidents. It is very unfortunate that the Government itself is responsible for the said position. One could see that there is a separate parking lot outside TASMAC shops. It is not known how the Police allows two wheeler riders to have their vehicles parked out side TASMAC bars and how they are allowed to ride the vehicles which would only prove that there is no proper checking of drunken driving. If at all, it is only during weekends, police is seriously checking drunken driving whereas accidents due to drunken driving is caused through out the year causing loss of lives and injuries.

38.Therefore, the police should take steps to check whether the riders are drunk by using breath analyser and separate police booths should be put up for this purpose.

39.The police should take the drunken drivers to labs to test alcohol content in the blood to comply with the provisions of Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Otherwise, police cannot prove drunken driving of the accused before the Court. For non-compliance of Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act only, this Court is compelled to set aside 50% of contributory negligence fixed on the part of the claimant. Whenever any driver found to be smelling of alcohol is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 29 brought to the hospital for treatment, the Doctors are duty bound under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act to collect the blood sample for alcohol test.

40.India ranks first in the road accident deaths across 199 countries reported in the World Road Statistics 2018 followed by China and USA. WHO's Global report of road safety 2018 states that almost 11% of the accidents related deaths in the World occurred in India. In 2018, 1,51,417 lives were lost and 4,69,418 persons got injured in the road accidents which occurred in India, in total number of 4,67,044 road accidents which occurred in 199 countries.

41.Two wheelers accounted for 35.2% of the total accidents in 2018. Light vehicles comprising of Cars, Jeeps and Taxis account for a share of 24.3% in total accident. Following are the details of the persons killed:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 30

(vi) The share of men in number of total accident deaths was 86%

(vii) The share of women is around 14% in 2018.

Though as per 2018 statistics deaths due to drunken driving account for 2.8% of the persons killed, less numbers have been shown due to various reasons like

(i).Non registration of FIR for drunken driving

(ii).Non subjecting of riders and drivers to alcohol test for drunken driving. For the purpose of claiming insurance amount from the insurance company, Section 185 is not added deliberately. If drunken driving cases are correctly registered, definitely, deaths due to drunken driving would be much more.

42.Road accidents in India claimed 415 lives, injured 1286 people, each day in the year 2018. Statistics on road accidents in India for the year 2018 shows an upper trend, both in terms of accidents and number of lives lost in the country. The year 2017 saw a total number of 4,64,910 road accidents in India, claiming 1,47,913 lives and 4,17,917 injured persons. Following table would give the details of the number of road accidents, number of persons killed and injured in the last five years (2014-2018) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 31 Year Total % Total % Total % Number of change Number change Number of change road of persons accidents persons injured (in killed (in (in numbers) numbers numbers) ) 2017 489400 - 139671 - 493674 -

43.What is worrying is despite low vehicle per capita, India stands 3rd in global road accident rankings. Each year about 3 to 5% of the GDP of the country is invested in road accidents. Though India has about 1% of the global vehicle population, it accounted for 6% of the World's Road Traffic Accidents killing highest number of people in the World viz., 1,50,785 persons. Though 22,11,439 accidents occurred in USA during 2018, the number of people died in the accident is only 37,461 whereas in 4,80,652 accidents in India, 1,50,785 persons died. It would only go to show that

(a).All the stakeholders are not vigilant enough to prevent the avoidable road accidents.

(b).The roads are not properly laid, repaired and maintained by the authorities.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 32

(c).The drivers and riders are not following road rules

(d).The Drivers are bent upon indulging in over speeding, drunken driving, apart from non wearing of helmet etc.

(e).Though stringent punishments have been contemplated as per the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 2019 , levying heavy fine and punishment for violation of traffic offences, it has not been given effect, in many States, including Tamil Nadu.

44.According to a World Health Organization's Study, over the decade ending 2016, the country's annual per capita liquor consumption doubled to 5.7 litres. Due to liberation policy, increase in income, change in attitude towards alcohol consumption, the liquor consumption has increased. At 2.7 lakhs crores, India's alcohol consumption is among the world's fastest growing. Globally 6% of the industrial growth was driven by India. The country is world's largest producer of Whisky. There are 16 crore people in the Country, who consume alcohol. The consumption level is very high among the male population. 1.6 % women and 27.3% men are using alcohol. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 45.A research paper “A Study of Incidence of Alcohol Use In 33 Fatal Road Traffic Accidents” published in Journal of Indian Academic Forensic Medicine, January - March 2015, Volume 37, No. 1 was conducted by Baruah, Aditya & Chaliha, Rituraj to evaluate the causes and other contributing factors leading to death in Road traffic accidents with alcohol consumption and to study the level of alcohol present in body by analysis of blood. In the study which was conducted on Victims of fatal road accidents cases brought to mortuary of Gauhati Medical College and Hospital for medico-legal autopsy from 1st July 2013 to 30th June 2014. Blood samples were collected from femoral vein. A total number of 3034 autopsies were carried out during the study period of which deaths due to road traffic accidents have been attributed to 952 cases. Out of these 952 cases, 188 cases had evidences of alcohol in their blood constituting nearly 20% of total accidents involved. Highest number of cases occurred between 6.00 p.m. - 12 midnight and 12 noon – 6.00 p.m. The study made the following conclusion :-

Koushik, Arun Jose, Gina Maryann Chandry reported in International Journal of Critical Illness & Injury Science 2019 Volume 9 Issue No.3 states as follows:

Nearly 77.5% (86/111) of those who tested positive for alcohol consumption were driving the vehicle involved. Positive BAC levels showed a significant association with young age (18–39 years), male gender, two-wheeler usage, and between 5 PM and 12 AM.

Conclusion: A history of alcohol consumption leading to an RTA is not reliable in the ED. Hence, measuring BAC levels in all RTA patients provides an objective and reliable form of documentation for medico-legal purposes." https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 37

47.A research paper “Drunk Driving Deduction using Carignition Locking” authored by Keerthana K of Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Science published in “International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics”, Volume 19 Number 16 2018, pages 2997-2008 is to give an idea and inventive method for avoiding drunken driving of a motorcar by locking the car. The conclusion of papers reads as follows:-

48.Considering seriously the loss of many precious lives in USA, there is a push for effective legislation that would require the new US vehicles to have alcohol deducting devices that stop drunk drivers before they start the vehicle. The effort is backed by "Mothers against drunk driving" (MADD). As per the proposed Act, namely, Reduce Impaired Driving for Everyone Act or RIDE Act would require automakers to build cars and trucks with Passive Deduction System/Alcohol Detecting Devices that prevent the vehicle from operating if the driver is impaired. Such devices known as "Ignition Interlocks" are widely used for those charged and convicted of drunken driving in USA.

49. Section 202 of the Motor Vehicles Act speaks about power to arrest without warrant for the offences of Drunken Driving https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 39 under Section 185 and dangerous driving under Section 184 of the Act. Section 202 of the Act is usefully extracted as follows:

When the statute gives power to the police to arrest the drunken drivers, the said power has to be exercised not only in the interest of the drunken drivers but also in the interest of other riders of the vehicles and common pedestrians. If the drunken drivers are not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 40 arrested, certainly there would be more chances for causing accidents. Mostly the powers under Section 202 of the Act is not exercised by the police enabling many people to indulge in drunken driving. Therefore, a direction is issued to the police to arrest the drunken drivers under Section 202 of the Motor Vehicles Act for violation of Sections 184 and 185 of the Act.

Section 203 speaks about the breath test which is extracted as follows:

section (1) or sub-section (2) to provide a specimen of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ breath for a breath test, refuses or fails to do so and the 42 police officer has reasonable cause to suspect him of having alcohol in his blood, the police officer may arrest him without warrant except while he is at a hospital as an indoor patient.

(5) A person arrested under this section shall while at a police station, be given an opportunity to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test there.

(6) The results of a breath test made in pursuance of the provisions of this section shall be admissible in evidence." The police is duty bound to check drivers using breathalyzers. Since the statute speaks about the power to arrest the drunken drivers without warrant under Section 202 of the Motor Vehicles Act, there shall be a direction to the police authorities to compulsorily conduct breath test on the riders under Section 203 of the Motor Vehicles Act and arrest the drunken drivers under Section 202 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

50.Taking into consideration the dangers involved in drunken driving, it is appropriate for the police to arrest the drunken drivers, under Section 202 and test them as per Section 203 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Further, police has to book the offenders under Section 279 IPC which is a cognizable offence. It is appropriate to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 43 extract the said provision:

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent order in the case of State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Ramachandra Rabidas @ Ratan Radidas and another in Criminal Appeal No.906 of 2010 vide order dated 04.10.2019 has held that the Motor Vehicles Act does not bar prosecuting the offenders under IPC , thereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the prosecution can lie both under IPC and under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act . Hence the Police is duty bound to prosecute the drunken drivers under Sections 185 , 202 , 203 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Section 279 of IPC.

51.That apart, the licence of the drunken drivers shall be suspended as per Section 19(f) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is extracted as follows:-

Similarly, as per Rule 21 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 the licence holder could be disqualified by the licensing authority for various acts particularly driving vehicle while under the influence of drinks or drugs. It has been included under Rule 21(16) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 which is extracted as follows:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ (16).Driving vehicle while under the influence of 45 drink or drugs."

If the licences of the drunken drivers are cancelled or suspended or they are disqualified from holding driving licence, definitely it will deter the drivers from indulging in drunken driving. Not only prosecuting the offenders for drunken driving, the transport department should also simultaneously take steps to suspend or cancel the driving licence given to the offenders under the Motor Vehicles Act as stated above. Otherwise, the great danger which is threatening the humanity everyday cannot be contained.

52.It is not only in this case drunken driving played havoc in the life of victim. Every day, it takes away life of very many people. The statistics regarding drunken driving and consequential deaths are either underestimated or deliberately unreported. It is said that 30 to 40% of riders/drivers are indulging in Drunker Driving. With a new survey revealing that deaths in accidents caused by drunken driving have witnessed a 20 per cent rise in the last six years. Delhi topped 53 Indian cities in fatal road accidents with 2,213 deaths in the year 2016. Out of these, drunken driving was responsible for at least 1,550 casualties - a shocking 70 per cent. The report was prepared by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 46 Community Against Drunken Driving (CADD), an NGO working in this field for the past 16 years, with the help of Delhi Police and National Crime Records Bureau. It has revealed that of all those had driven under the influence of alcohol, only 6.94 per cent were stopped and prosecuted by the police. Thus, the prosecution rate for drunk drivers in the Capital is abysmally low at less than 7 per cent. This is despite measures like Operation Chakravyuha and licence-seizure exercises being in place.

53.Nearly one-sixth of drivers feel drunk driving is the main reason for road accidents, according to a recent survey primarily conducted among drivers across 15 states. The survey conducted as a part of a study for road transport ministry for developing a comprehensive strategy to improve road safety has thrown up these interesting aspects at a time when the government data shows that only 3% of accidents are caused due to drunk driving.

54.The following are a few of deaths caused due to drunken driving in India.

(i).In a shocking accident which occurred at 1.00 A.M on 12.10.2014 on Velacherry - Taramani 100 feet road, a drunk driver https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 47 drove over three platform dwellers including a pregnant woman.

(ii).In August 2014, a drunk driver drove his car over a platorm dweller and killed and injured 12 others in Nigmabodh Ghat on Ring Road in New Delhi.

(iii).Three drunken naval officers were arrested in Vizhagapattinam in May 2016 for driving over a pavement dweller and killing him.

(iv).In April 2018, a drunk female B.Tech student ran her car over a pavement dweller killing him at Kushaigud area of Hyderabad.

(v).A drunken driver drove over pavement dwellers killing 2 persons at Gandhi Nagar Railway Station in Jaipur in August 2018.

(vi).A drunk driver drove his car over a group of pavement dwellers killing one and injuring three in June 2019 in Nizamuddin, New Delhi.

(vii).An IAS officer in an inebriated state drover his car killing a journalist in August 2019 at Thiruvananthapuram.

(viii).A drunk young man mowed down seven people killing two and injuring five on 1st January 2020 in Ranchi. In view of many accidents due to drunken driving, the Hon'ble Apex Court insisted the necessity to have deterrent punishment in the case https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 48 of State v. Sanjeev Nanda reported in (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 450. It was held in paragraphs 86 and 87 as follows:-

55.Though the issue before this Court is with regard to quantum of compensation awarded to the appellant, the issue about drunken driving arises for consideration as contended by the Insurance Company. This Court cannot close its eyes and mechanically decide the quantum of compensation alone without addressing the main cause for the accident and consequently this case. This Court is bound to go into the basic reason for the cause and has a duty to issue remedial direction as per the words of Saint Thiruvalluvar who wrote about 2000 years ago.

Therefore, this Court has every responsibility to give appropriate directions, to safeguard the rights including the right to live as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India as this Court is the guardian of fundamental rights of the citizens. When thousands of fellow citizens are being killed due to drunken driving, this Court cannot remain a silent spectator with folded hands and this Court has to travel beyond its jurisdiction to pass novel, unconventional and remedial directions as a Constitutional Court to protect fundamental https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 50 rights of citizens in the interest of the society. Inspite of grim situation, if this Court shirks its responsibilities, it would be injustice done to the society by this Constitutional Court, apart from being incapable of implementing the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act like Sections 185 , 202 , 203 and 19(f) .

56.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baby vs. Travancore Devasvom Board and others reported in 1998 (8) SCC 310 held that the power of the High Court under Constitution of India is always in addition to the power of the revision under Kerala Land Reforms Act . Similarly the power under Article 226/227 is in addition to Section 173 of the M.V.Act. That apart in Jasbin Singh vs State of Punjab reported in 2006 (8) SCC 294 it was held that the power of this Court in administrative and judicial nature could be exercised suo motu also. In Union of India and another vs Kriloskar Preumatic Co.Ltd reported in 1996 (4) SCC 453 it was held that the power conferred under Article 226/227 is designed to effectuate the law, to enforce the rule of law and to ensure that the several authorities and organs of the State act in accordance with law. In view of the above authorities to enforce Sections 19(f) , 185 , 202 & 203 of the M.V.Act, this Court suo motu invokes Articles 226/227 and issue directions. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 51

57.One of us (Justice N.KIRUBAKARAN) directed the State Government to implement S.129 of Motor Vehicles Act by making wearing of helmet compulsory, invoking Article 226 suo motu in the case arising out of Motor Accident claim in R.Mallika and others v. A.Babu and others in C.M.A.No.3235 of 2014 on 08.06.2015. Directions were given in paragraph 48 of the said CMA order and the same is usefully extracted hereunder:

In compliance with the directions given by this Court in the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the State of Tamil Nadu passed an https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 53 order making wearing of helmet compulsory by two wheeler riders from 1.7.2015. The said order was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.19034 of 2015 filed by one J.N.Nimmu Vasanth and the First Bench of this Court by order dated 30.06.2015 dismissed the same. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the order are usefully extracted as follows:

Similarly, the said order was also challenged before this Court in W.P.No.19020 of 2015 filed by one D.Gopalakrishnan and the First Bench of this Court by order dated 30.06.2015 dismissed the same. The said order is usefully extracted hereunder:

Therefore, the power of this Court to issue directions even in CMA has been upheld by the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court. After all, rules are handmaids of justice. What has to be seen is public good and justice has to be done.

58.As the respondent insurance company pleads that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 55 appellant is guilty of drunken driving, though unsuccessfully, taking into consideration loss of thousands of lives due to drunken driving in violation of Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act, this Court, suo motu, invokes Article 226 and issue directions to the police to exercise power under Section 202 of Motor Vehicles Act to arrest the drunken drivers and conduct breathalyser test or blood test. The police authorities shall file compliance reports every month giving details of the persons arrested for drunken driving in every district. It is only to deter the drivers to drive under intoxication.

59.As the case exhibits how drunken driving plays havoc in people's life and shatter families, this Court would like to give a few remedial suggestions and directions suomotu invoking Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, this Court, suo motu, impleads,

(a) Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Roads and Surface Transport, New Delhi.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Transport Department, 56 St. George Fort, Chennai.

as party respondents 3 to 8 to the proceedings. Mr.G.Karthikeyan, learned Assistant Solicitor General takes notice on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 and Mr.Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of respondents 5 to 8.

60.For the above reasons, this Court issues the following directions:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 57 (2).The respondents shall make available the sufficient number of Breathalysers to the police.

(3).The police authorities shall invoke Section 279 of the IPC for the offence of drunken driving in addition to Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Aact.

(4).The State transport authorities shall revoke the licence under Section 19(1)(f) of the Motor Vehicles Act for drunken driving.

(5).The State transport authorities shall invoke Rule 21(16) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 to disqualify the drunken drivers from holding driving licence.

(6).The respondents shall seize/take custody of vehicles of drunk drivers as per Section 202(3) of Motor Vehicles Act.

(7).The respondents shall constitute special committed units/wings to check drunken driving.

(8).The respondents shall invoke Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act along with other IPC offences in cases of accidents involving drunken driving.

(9).The Central Government shall consider the suggestion to direct the automobile manufacturers to install "Alcohol Sensing Ignition Interlocking Devices".

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ (10).The respondents shall conduct mass media campaign 58 against drunken driving regularly roping in celebrities like political leaders, cine stars, sports persons etc., including sensitisation of people, especially college students through short films, dramas and pamphlets about the dangerous consequences of drunken driving.

61.This Court directs the respondents to implement the appropriate legal provisions regarding drunken driving only in order to prevent the same. The police should not take advantage of the directions given and harass motorists for this unjust enrichment.

62.The drunken driving not only endangers lives of drunken drivers themselves but also threatens the safety and security of innocent pedestrians and other riders and travellers of other vehicles. Though it may appear that the remedial directions issued by this Court are very harsh, severe, disproportionate and excessive, it is the need of the hour to implement all available provisions in law to curtail the avoidable dangerous menace.

63.The respondents shall file a report giving the details of number of cases filed for drunken driving and number of persons arrested every calendar month in the first week of succeeding month. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 59

64.Though the relief sought for by the appellant is granted by enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,37,920/- to Rs.67,35,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, the appeal is kept pending for giving further directions.