IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd Vs Pearl Beverages Ltd: Blood Test Or Breath Analysis Is Not Compulsory For The Insurance Company To Reject The Claims Over Drunken Driving

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12th April 2021

JUDGES: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Indira Banerjee, Justice K.M. Joseph

PARTIES

• IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd (Petitioner)
• Pearl Beverages Ltd (Respondent)

SUMMARY: The Supreme Court on April 12th, 2021 held that a breath analyzer or blood test as examined under the Motor Vehicles Act is not compulsory for an insurer to renounce an accident policy claim based on drunken driving.

AN OVERVIEW

1. During this Appeal, an accident, which happened on November 22, 2007, involving a car belonging to the respondent-Company, which was insured with the appellant, has resulted during this appeal against the order by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
2. The Court was hearing a plea filed by the insurance firm against a choice by the National Consumer Disputes Redress Commission that found the insurer responsible for excluding policy liabilities because of drunken driving.
3. The insurer had to point out that the alcohol level was greater than 30 mg/100 ml of blood, as needed by Section 185 of the automobiles Act, consistent with the National Consumer Disputes Redress Commission.
4. The NCDRC holds that the insurer cannot preclude responsibility without confirming the existence of the alleged alcohol content by scientific results of breath analyzer and blood samples, as needed by Sections 203 and 204 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

ISSUES

The following issues were analyzed by the court:

• Whether the NCDRC is correct in holding that the appellant isn’t entitled to invoke the shield of Clause (2c) of the Contract of Insurance, under which, it had been not liable, if the person driving the vehicle, was under the influence of intoxicating liquor, or drugs.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

• Section 279 Indian Penal Code - Rash driving or riding in a public way.
• Section 427 Indian Penal Code - Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards.
• Section 185 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs.
• Section 203 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Breath Tests
• Section 204 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Laboratory tests

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT

The Court analyzed that-

1. If the insurance firm is in a position to determine from the facts that the driving force was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident, it'll not be bereft of its right to exclude the policy benefit merely on the bottom that the scientific tests for alcohol presence weren't administered - "...in cases, where there's no scientific material, within the sort of test results available, as within the case before us, it's going to not disable the insurer from establishing a case for exclusion. The totality of the circumstances obtaining during a case must be considered", a division bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, Indira Banerjee, and KM Joseph observed.
2. Even if the precise alcohol content present within the body wasn't determined, the insurer can invoke the exclusion clause within the policy contract, if the attendant circumstances show that the accident was caused while driving under the influence of alcohol.
3. The Court was considering an appeal led by the insurance firm against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which held the insurer guilty for excluding the policy liability based on drunken driving.
4. According to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, 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, 1988. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that without proving the prescribed alcohol content presence through the scientific results of breath analyzer and blood tests as stated in Sections 203 and 204 of the MV Act, the insurer cannot exclude the liability.
5. Holding so, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reversed the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which had rejected the complaint of the insured against the denial of the policy.
6. The Supreme Court observed that case records showed that the smell of alcohol was radiating from the driver. The MLC report of the driver signaled the smell of alcohol. Even the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission proceeded because the driver had consumed alcohol, but had held that the alcohol content was not proved to be beyond the legally permissible limit. The Supreme Court observed that the need of Section 185 is in the context of a criminal offense.
7. If the prosecution has not led a case under Section 185 of MV Act, 1988, 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 who was under the influence of the alcohol.

CONCLUSION

As surveyed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 breath analyzer test or blood test isn't necessary for an insurer for repudiating an accident policy claim on the grounds of drunken driving held by the recent judgment of the Supreme Court. The court also held that if the insurance firm is in a position to determine from the facts that the driver was under the influence of alcohol during the accident, it'll not be bereft of its right to exclude the policy merely on scientific tests for alcohol presence. The need under section 185 of the motor vehicles act isn't to be conflated to what constitutes driving under the influence of alcohol under the policy of insurance in an own damage claim. The claim is to be considered on the character of the accident, evidence of drinking before or during the travel, and its impact on the driver.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement