In a revision petition filed by TGI Fridays Restaurant and Bar (Unit of Bistro Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.), the Telangana HC overturned the order passed by the City Civil Court whereby the application moved by TGI Fridays for rejection of the plaint was dismissed.
In this case, the legal heirs of the deceased members of the family, who were killed in an accident due to negligent and drunken driving, had filed a suit for compensation of Rs.5,00,00,000/- against the restaurant on the ground that they had served liquor to underaged persons which led to drunken driving resulting in the accident.
The restaurant moved an application Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for rejection of plaint on the ground that the plaintiffs/legal heirs had already filed a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) on the same day and, therefore, in accordance with Section 165 and 175 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act), a civil court did not have jurisdiction to hear the suit. It also relied on the doctrine of Novus Actus Interveniens which means an act or event that breaks the causal connection between the original act (serving alcohol) and the eventual injury (accident). The restaurant alleged that there were several independent acts which absolve the restaurant from any liability or responsibility for the death of the persons due to the accident. These acts included the act of voluntarily discussing and deciding to rest responsibility of driving the vehicle, act of allowing the said individual to drive while being inebriated, act of allowing the said individual to drive despite having no valid driving license, etc.
It was further alleged that the FIR registered against the restaurant was only under Section 36(1)(g) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, as opposed to the other FIR registered against the driver and owner of the car i.e., under Sections 304(A), 326 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Acknowledging the submissions made by TGIF, the court held that the suit filed against the restaurant was barred by law in view of the parallel remedy availed under the MV Act. Relying on the doctrine of Novus Actus Interveniens, it went on to hold that the aggrieved family did not have a cause of action against the restaurant as the causal connection between the act of serving of alcohol to the accident had been broken due to the intervening act of drunken driving. The court allowed the civil revision and dismissed the suit.
Arush Khanna, Vaibhav Mehra, and Manideep Madhavarapu, Advocates, appeared for TGI Fridays'. Whereas Mr. Ashish Kale (Ganu & Company) appeared for the legal heirs.
_20241030103436_original_image_23.webp)
 (850 x 600 px) (37)_20241121085803_original_image_25.webp)
_20241113111752_original_image_38.webp)
_20241112104305_original_image_38.webp)
_20241112084010_original_image_16.webp)