The Supreme Court on Monday 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.
A three-judge Bench of Justices U.U. Lalit, Indira Banerjee and K.M. Joseph passed this judgement while hearing a Civil Appeal filed by IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.
In this Appeal, an accident, which took place on November 22, 2007 involving a car belonging to the respondent-Company, which was insured with the appellant, has resulted in this appeal against the order by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
The question which arises in this appeal is, whether the NCDRC is correct in holding that the appellant is not entitled to invoke the shield of Clause (2c) of the Contract of Insurance, under which, it was not liable, if the person driving the vehicle, was under the influence of intoxicating liquor, or drugs.
The State Commission rejected the complaint of the respondent finding that there was evidence to show that the person who drove the vehicle, had consumed liquor and was under the influence of liquor.
The NCDRC, by the court order, on the other hand, found that there was no material to establish that the driver of the vehicle was under the influence of intoxicating liquor within the meaning of the Exclusion Clause.
The vehicle was driven by one Aman Bangia. Following the accident, an FIR has been lodged. The accident took place in the early morning at about 02.25 a.m. on December 22, 2007. The FIR was lodged in the case under Section 279/427 of the IPC and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The court was considering an appeal filed by the insurance company against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which held the insurer at fault for excluding the policy liability on the ground of drunken driving.
According to the 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.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission said 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.
The 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.
Shivam Singh, Counsel for the appellant said that this is a clear case where unimpeachable material in the form of official records established that the car was being driven by a person who was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
He further pointed out that the Court may appreciate the nature of the case set up by the driver of the vehicle. It is pointed out that it was contended by the respondent that the vehicle was not driven rashly and negligently.
The apex court 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 the 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 Court further noted that the medical practitioner had discerned the smell of alcohol in the body of the driver. The incident took place during the wee hours. There was no explanation from the parties regarding the cause of the accident. The driver and the co -passenger were in their late twenties. Both of them had consumed alcohol.
The car, a Porsche, which has a very powerful engine and capable of achieving enormous speed, is reported to have gone out of control and hit at a massive force with the footpath of the road near India Gate at New Delhi. The car overturned and caught fire. Fire services had to come to douse the fire. The car was rendered a total wreck.
The Court held that there would be very less traffic at the time of the accident and that the road was very wide. So something out of ordinary must have happened to cause the accident.
The Court stated 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.
The apex court held that 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 Court said.
The court stated that 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.
“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 judgement reads.
The Supreme Court, allowing the appeal of the insurance company, said 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”