Mere smell, suspicion can't legally prove inebriation: Uttarakhand High Court

Nainital: The Uttarakhand High Court has held a driver cannot be presumed to be under the influence of alcohol merely on the basis of “smell” of liquor without scientific proof.

Justice Alok Mahra said unless a blood or breath test establishes that the driver’s alcohol level exceeded the legally prescribed limit of 30 mg per 100 ml of blood, it cannot be proved that the vehicle was driven under the influence of alcohol.

In 2016, a road accident at SIIDCUL Chowk, Rudrapur resulted in the death of 39-year-old cyclist Jai Kishore Mishra.

He was employed with Neem Metal Products Limited, Pantnagar, and earned ₹35,000 monthly.

His wife, children and parents claimed a compensation of ₹75 lakh.

In January 2019, the trial court ordered the insurance company to pay about ₹21 lakh in compensation, but also granted it the right to recover the amount from the vehicle’s driver and owner, since the doctor said the driver "reeked of alcohol".

The high court, however, observed no blood or urine test was conducted and ruled mere “smell” or “suspicion” was not legal proof of inebriation.

As a result, the presumption of drunken driving was held to be baseless.

The court said under such circumstances, the insurance company would be liable to pay the entire compensation, and it would have no right to recover the amount from the driver or owner.

The court also ordered the release of the bank guarantee deposited by the appellant.