Drunken driving: Amend Motor Vehicle Act, Madras high court directs Centre
Chennai: Expressing grave concern about the growing problem of driving while under the influence of alcohol, the Madras high court has directed the Central government to amend section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which prescribes that whoever while driving or attempting to drive, a motor vehicle has, in his blood alcohol exceeding 30 mg per 100 ml of blood detected in a test by a breath analyser shall be punished with imprisonment of 6 month or with fine or both, by allowing various state governments/union territories to adopt a zero tolerance norm in Section 185 itself.
Justice R.Mahadevan gave the directive while setting aside an order of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Poonamallee, fastening 60 percent contributory negligence on the Insurance Company and awarding Rs 39,500 to a victim in a road accident case, in which the victim was in inebriated condition at the time of accident.
Dismissing the petition filed by K.Shanmugam, the judge said the time has now come for just such a measure. Too many lives have already been lost to this lethal cocktail of internal consumption and internal combustion, the judge added.
The judge said a conjoint reading of clause (f) of sub-section 1 of section 19 of the MV Act with clause (16) of Rule 21 of the Central Rules, this court finds that on registration of an offence under section 185, the power to suspend the driving license under section 19 can be exercised by the licensing authority. The licensing authority will have to invoke the said power in the cases of violation of clause (a) of section 185. The exercise of the said power may have the desired deterrent effect. “The state government will have to issue appropriate directions to ensure that there is a proper coordination between the police and the licensing authorities so that an action of suspension of the driving license is initiated immediately after the offence is committed”, the judge added.
The judge said while section 185 prescribe the so-called ‘limits’, it was duty bound to observe that these limits seem to be theoretical. The effect of alcohol on an individual can vary widely.”Regard must necessarily be had to the conditions in our country and in our cities, the overcrowded roads, pedestrian movement on roads, the absence of sufficient sidewalks or pavements, a general indiscipline and indifference to traffic regulations, and the fact, too, that our roads and such few sidewalks as exist are used by hawkers during the day and by the poorest of the poor at night. This makes drunken driving all the more dangerous, and this court does not think that it is possible to ignore these conditions, especially given our experience with fatalities caused to third parties by reported incidents of drunken driving. It is not possible to countenance an argument that any person has a fundamental right to drink, let alone to drink any amount and then get behind the wheel of a motor-car or onto a two-wheeler. Even the most minute impairment caused by alcohol intake might have the most disastrous consequences”, the judge added.
