Soni Satti
The Supreme Court ruled that a breath analyzer test or blood test, as required by the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is not mandatory for an insurer to deny an accident policy claim on the ground of drunken driving.
In the case, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd v Pearl Beverages Ltd, a Division Bench comprising Justices Uday Lalit, Indira Banerjee, and KM Joseph observed that if the insurance provider can prove from the evidence that the driver was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident, it would not be denied its right to exclude the policy reward only because scientific tests for alcohol presence were not performed.
The court further held that if the attendant conditions prove that the accident was triggered while driving under the influence of alcohol, the insurer may invoke the exclusion clause of the insurance contract, even if the precise alcohol level contained in the body has not been determined.
The Court was hearing a plea filed by the insurance company against a decision by the National Consumer Disputes Redress Commission that found the insurer liable for excluding policy liabilities due to drunken driving.
The insurer had to show that the alcohol level was greater than 30 mg/100 ml of blood, as required by Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, according to the NCDRC.
The National Consumer Disputes Redress Commission (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 required by Sections 203 and 204 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The Supreme Court pointed out that Section 185 provision is in the form of a criminal offence and if the prosecutor has not brought a lawsuit under Section 185, this would not exempt a competent forum under the Consumer Protection Act from finding that the vehicle was driven under the influence of alcohol by the person.
Justice KM Joseph’s held that,
“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,”
