In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court has recently held that a breath analyzer test or blood test as contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act is not necessary for an insurer to repudiate an accident policy claim on the ground of drunken driving.
The SC held that if the insurance company is able to establish from the facts that the driver was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident, it will not be deprived of its right to exclude the policy benefit merely on the ground that the scientific tests for alcohol presence were not carried out.
A division bench comprising justices U.U. Lalit, Indira Banerjee and K.M. Joseph observed in the case of IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd v Pearl Beverages Ltd., “…in cases, where there is no scientific material, in the form of test results available, as in the case before us, it may not disable the insurer from establishing a case for exclusion. The totality of the circumstances obtained in a case, must be considered.”
Even if the exact alcohol content present in the body was not established, the insurer can invoke the exclusion clause in the policy contract, attendant circumstances show that the accident was caused while driving under the influence of alcohol.
