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 obtaining 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.
Background:
The SC was considering an appeal filed by the insurance company against an order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which held the insurer at fault for excluding the policy liability on the ground of drunken driving. According to NCDRC, the insurer had to prove that the alcohol content was above 30 mg/100 ml of blood, as stipulated under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. NCDRC also held that without proving the said alcohol content presence through the scientific results of breath analyzer and blood tests as prescribed in Sections 203 and 204 of the MV Act, the insurer cannot exclude the liability
Holding so, NCDRC reversed the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which had rejected the complaint of the insured against the repudiation of the policy.
Findings of SC
The SC noted that case records showed that the smell of alcohol was emanating from the driver. The MLC report of the driver indicated the smell of alcohol. Even NCDRC proceeded on the basis that the driver had consumed alcohol, but had held that the alcohol content was not proved to be beyond the legally permissible limit. The SC also observed the requirement of Section 185 is in the context of a criminal offence.
If prosecution has not filed a case under Section 185, that does not mean that a competent Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, is disabled from finding that the vehicle was being driven by the person under the influence of the alcohol.
“The presence of alcohol in excess of 30 mg per 100 ml. of blood is not an indispensable requirement to enable an Insurer to successfully invoke the clause. What is required to be proved is driving by a person under the influence of the alcohol”, the judgment authored by Justice K.M. Joseph held (Paragraph 57). “If the Breath Analyser or any other test is not performed for any reason, the Insurer cannot be barred from proving his case otherwise.”
“It is not difficult to contemplate that the accident may take place with the driver being under the influence of alcohol and neither the Breath Test nor the laboratory test is done. A driver after the accident, may run away. A test may never be performed. However, there may be evidence available which may indicate that the vehicle in question was being driven at the time of the accident by a person under the influence of alcohol. It cannot then be said that merely because there is no test performed, the Insurer would be deprived of its right to establish a case which is well within its rights under the contract.” (Paragraph 58)
“The requirement under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not to be conflated to what constitutes driving under the influence of alcohol under the policy of insurance in an Own Damage Claim. Such a claim must be considered on the basis of the nature of the accident, evidence as to drinking before or during the travel, the impact on the driver and the very case set up by the parties.” (Paragraph 101, 106(G).
