the 3-judge bench of UU Lalit, Indira Banerjee and KM Joseph*, JJ has held that while in the case where there is a blood test or breath test, which indicates that there is no consumption l at all, undoubtedly, it would not be open to the insurer to set up the case of exclusion, however, the absence of test may not disable the insurer from establishing a case for exclusion from liability on the ground of drunk driving.
How to decide if the driver was “under the influence of intoxicating liquor”?
If in a case, without there being any blood test, circumstances, associated with the effects of consumption of alcohol, are proved, it may certainly go to show that the person who drove the vehicle, had come under the influence of alcohol. The manner, in which the vehicle was driven, may again if it unerringly points to the person has been under the influence of alcohol, be reckoned.
“Evidence, if forthcoming, of an unsteady gait, smell of alcohol, the eyes being congested, apart from, of course, actual consumption of alcohol, either before the commencement of the driving or even during the process of driving, along with the manner in which the accident took place, may point to the driver being under the influence of alcohol. It would be a finding based on the effect of the pleadings and the evidence.”
What does Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act state?
Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act creates a criminal offence dealing with driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs. The Section mandates the proving of the objective criteria of the presence of alcohol exceeding 30 mg per 100 ml. of blood in a test by a breath analyser.
Being a criminal offence, it is indisputable that the ingredients of the offence must be established as contemplated by law which means that the case must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and evidence must clearly indicate the level of alcohol in excess of 30 mg in 100 ml blood and what is more such presence must be borne out by a test by a breath analyser. With effect from 01.09.2019, the following words have been added to Section 185, that is “or in any other test including laboratory test”.
“The law does not prohibit driving after consuming liquor and all that is prohibited is, that the percentage of liquor should not exceed 30 mg. per 100 ml. of blood. Therefore, the understanding appears to be that only in circumstances, where the act of driving, having consumed liquor, attracts the wrath of Section 185 and an offence is committed thereunder, that the opprobrium of the Exclusion Clause in the Contract of Insurance, for own damage, is attracted.”
Read the full text of the provision here.
Why will lack of scientific material not disable the insurer from establishing a case for the exclusion?
If the prosecution has not filed a case under Section 185, that would not mean that a competent Forum in an action alleging deficiency of service, 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. 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.”
Further, should the Insurer fail to establish a case in terms of Section 185 BAL (Blood Analyser Test), it would fail, may not be the proper approach to the issue.
“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.”
Hence, in such circumstances, 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 that is well within its rights under the contract.
[IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. Pearl Beverages, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 309, decided on 12.04.2021]