Case Title : IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd v Pearl Beverages Ltd
Summary
The Supreme Court has ruled that a breathalyzer test or blood test under the Motor Vehicles Act is not necessary for an insurer to repudiate an accident policy claim on the ground of inebriated driving. The court ruled that an insurance company may not be precluded from excluding a policy benefit solely on the basis that scientific tests for alcohol presence were not conducted if it can establish from the facts that the driver was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. In the case of IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd v Pearl Beverages Ltd, the Supreme Court determined that the accompanying circumstances demonstrated that the accident was caused while driving under the influence of alcohol, the insurer may invoke the exclusion clause in the policy contract, even in the absence of confirmed alcohol content in the body.
The Supreme Court noted that the necessity expressed in Section 185 pertains to a criminal offense and that a consumer protection act-compliant forum is not precluded from concluding that the individual operating the vehicle was under the influence of alcohol, even in the absence of a prosecution case filed under Section 185. The court also acknowledged the driver’s guilty plea in the prosecution’s case regarding reckless and imprudent driving in violation of Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. By applying the principles of res ipsa loquitor, the Court noted that the State Commission’s conclusion that intoxicated driving was the cause of the accident was a probable one.
About the case
In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court has held that a breathalyzer 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 inebriated driving. The Court ruled that an insurance company may not be precluded from excluding a policy benefit solely on the basis that scientific tests for alcohol presence were not conducted if it can establish from the facts that the driver was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. “…in situations where scientific evidence, such as test results, is unavailable, as is the case at hand, it does not necessarily preclude the insurer from establishing a case for exclusion.
The entirety of the circumstances prevailing in a case must be taken into account,” stated a division bench of judges UU Lalit, Indira Banerjee, and KM Joseph in IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd v Pearl Beverages Ltd. In the event that the accompanying circumstances demonstrate that the accident was caused while driving under the influence of alcohol, the insurer may invoke the exclusion clause in the policy contract, even in the absence of confirmed alcohol content in the body. Context: The court was examining an insurance company’s appeal against a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission order that implicated the insurer in excluding policy liability for drunken driving. Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act required the insurer to establish that the alcohol concentration in the blood exceeded 30 mg/100 ml, as per the NCDRC. As stipulated in Sections 203 and 204 of the MV Act, the NCDRC determined that an insurer cannot exclude liability for the aforementioned alcohol content without scientific proof in the form of breathalyzer and blood test results.
After reaching this conclusion, the NCDRC overturned the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s decision to reject the insured’s complaint regarding the policy repudiation. The Supreme Court determined that case documents indicated the driver was emitting an odor consistent with alcohol. The motorist reported an odor of alcohol, as indicated by the MLC report. Even the NCDRC proceeded on the basis that the driver had ingested alcohol, but had held that the alcohol content was not proved to be beyond the legally permissible limit. The necessity expressed in Section 185 pertains to a criminal offense, as noted by the Supreme Court. A consumer protection act-compliant forum is not precluded from concluding that the individual operating the vehicle was under the influence of alcohol, even in the absence of a prosecution case filed under Section 185. “Paragraph 57 of the judgment authored by Justice KM Joseph states, “The existence of alcohol surpassing 30 mg per 100 ml of blood is not an essential prerequisite for an insurer to successfully invoke the clause. Rather, proof of driving by an individual under the influence of alcohol is what is required.” “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). Facts of the case indicated drunken driving The Court noted that the medical practitioner had discerned the scent of alcohol in the body of the driver. Early in the morning, the incident occurred. Concerning the accident’s cause, neither party provided an explanation. Both a co-passenger and the driver were in their last decades of adulthood. Each had previously ingested alcoholic beverages. Allegedly veering off course, the Porsche, equipped with an exceptionally potent engine and the capacity to attain tremendous velocities, collided with the roadside pedestrian pathway in the vicinity of the India Gate in New Delhi with an immense force. The caterpillar overturned and ignited. A fire department was required to extinguish the blaze.
The vehicle was completely destroyed in the collision. As well as the road being extremely wide, the court noted that there would be minimal traffic at the time of the collision. Thus, an extraordinary circumstance must have transpired in order to trigger the catastrophe. “We can take judicial notice of the fact that the roads in the Capital City, particularly in the area, where the accident occurred, are sufficiently wide and the vehicle dashing against the footpath and turning turtle and catching fire, by itself, does point to, along with the fact that the alcohol which was consumed manifests contemporaneously in the breath of the driver, to conclude that alcohol did play the role, which, unfortunately, it is capable of producing” , the decision stated. Additionally, the court acknowledged the driver’s guilty plea in the prosecution’s case regarding reckless and imprudent driving in violation of Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. By applying the principles of res ipsa loquitor, the Court noted that the State Commission’s conclusion that intoxicated driving was the cause of the accident was a probable one. In reversing it in a perfunctory proceeding, the National Commission therefore erred.
