Skip to main content

Right of insurers when breath analyser or blood test not done in case of drunk driving

In IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs PEARL BEVERAGES LTD., 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 impugned 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, as aforesaid.

In this matter, the driver of the vehicle was observed travelling at high speed during early hours of the morning, hit the road divider then the wall of a park, overturn and burn so much so that the car was a complete wreck. The driver and his companion had to be pulled out from the burning wreck. The police official who was said in the FIR that he found the driver to be intoxicated. During the course of investigations, the driver admitted having caused the accident but refused to admit intoxication but at the same time could not explain the reason behind the accident. 

The Supreme Court observed that the expression “under the influence of intoxicating liquor” does not appear to be of recent origin in a Contract of Insurance. It has been around for quite a while. In this regard, the English Court in Mair (Administratrix) v. Railway Passengers Assurance Co. (Limited), said that the words “under the influence of intoxicating liquor” would be sufficiently satisfied by construing them to mean under such influence of intoxicating liquor as disturbs the balance of a man’s mind. There is a point up to which any stimulating liquor, with most people at least, possibly benefits, at any rate for the time, the exercise of the intellect. There is a point beyond which it certainly impedes – disturbs it. I concede that it is very difficult even in language – certainly in the English language – to ascertain with precision where that point is; but it is enough to say that there is a point, and it seems to me these words would be satisfied when the influence of intoxicating liquor is found in point of fact to be such as to disturb the quiet and equable exercise of the intellectual faculties of the man who has taken the liquor........if I think there is evidence to satisfy me that the intoxication in this case was enough to have gone to the point of contributing to the accident, it follows a fortiori that it had arrived at the disturbing point which I think, speaking for myself, would be enough to satisfy the words of the proviso.

It is clear that Section 185 deals with driving or attempting driving of a motor vehicle a person with alcohol in excess of 30 mg per 100 ml in blood which is detected in a test of breath analyser. However, 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. Drunken driving, a criminal offence, under Section 185 along with its objective criteria of the alcohol-blood level, is not the only way to prove that the person was under the influence of alcohol. 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 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.

In cases, where there is no scientific material, in the form of test results available, as in the case before us, it may not disable the insurer from establishing a case for exclusion. The totality of the circumstances obtaining in a case, must be considered. The scope of the enquiry, in a case under the Consumer Protection Act, which is a summary proceeding, cannot be lost sight of. A consumer, under the Act, can succeed, only on the basis of proved deficiency of service. The deficiency of service would arise only with reference to the terms of the contract and, no doubt, the law which surrounds it. If the deficiency is not established, having regard to the explicit terms of the contract, the consumer must fail.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more