IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd v Pearl Beverages Ltd[Civil Appeal No. of 2021 arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 12489/2020] - Synopsis
Team SoOLEGAL 17 Apr 2021

Supreme Court says Blood Test and Breath Analyzer Test not mandatory to repudiate an insurance claim

 

In the case of IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd v Pearl Beverages Ltd[Civil Appeal No. of 2021 arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 12489/2020], the Bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, Indira Banerjee, and KM Joseph, gave a landmark judgment regarding the insurance claim for a drunk driver. The Court observed that the required breath analyzer test or the blood test under the Motor Vehicles Act is not necessary to refuse an insurance claim in the matter of drunken drive.

The case was accepted as an appeal filed by the insurance company against an order delivered by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which considered the insurer at fault for excluding the policy liability on the ground of drunken driving. As per the conditions of NCDRC, the insurer needs to prove that alcohol content was above 30 mg out of 100 ml of blood, as mentioned under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The NCDRC also stated that without proving the mentioned alcohol content through a blood test and breath analyzer, as mentioned in Sections 203 and 204 of the Act, the insurer cannot exclude the liability. The Insurer grieved over the NCDRC order and filed the appeal to the Apex Court.

The Apex Court to this reference stated that the sole requirement of Section 185 of The Motor Vehicles Act is in a criminal case, it has nothing related to the case of indemnity. Though the evidence of alcohol content was not proven by any scientific results, still it was quite established from the shreds of evidence that the driver was drunk. In paragraph 57, Justice KM Joseph 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”

Though there was no proper case filed against the driver, the fact that he pleaded guilty for rash and negligent driving under Section 297 of the Indian Penal Code. From this, the State Commission took the view that the accident was caused due to drunken driving by applying the principles of res ipsaliquitor. The Apex Court supported this view and held that NCDRC was wrong in delivering the order.

To all this confusion the Supreme Court gave a landmark judgment stating “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.” 

×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.
×

SAARTHTo Know More

Launching Soon : SAARTH, your complete client, case, practise & document management SAAS application with direct client chat feature.

If you want to know more give us a Call at :+91 98109 29455 or Mail info@soolegal.com