Lack of scientific evidence like blood test does not bar insurance company from claiming exemption on ground of intoxication: Supreme Court

Lack of scientific material in the form of blood tests or breath analyser results will not preclude insurer from establishing a case for exclusion from liability under the contract on the ground of intoxication, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday..The totality of the circumstances obtaining in a case must be considered in such cases, a three-judge Bench of Justices UU Lalit, Indira Banerjee and KM Joseph ruled..“We would think that in a case where, there is a blood test of breath test, which indicates that there is no consumption at all, undoubtedly, it would not be open to the insurer to set up the case of exclusion. However, 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 judgment said..The Court was dealing with a consumer case against IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company by Pearl Beverages whose car had met with an accident in November 2007.The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) had held that the insurance company could not invoke the Exclusion Clause in the contract on the ground 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 insurance had appealed to the Supreme Court against the NCDRC judgment. .Counsel for the appellant insurance company, Shivam Singh contended that there was unimpeachable material to establish that the car was being driven by a person who was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.The high speed and the manner in which the accident occurred, viz., the vehicle hitting against the pole, turning turtle and further catching fire, along with the fact that the FIR and the MLC indicating that the driver smelt of the alcohol sufficed to attract the Exclusion Clause and protect the insurance company..The impact of the accident, resulting in the car becoming a complete wreck, was emphasised, to point out that the circumstances existed which entitled the appellant to extricate itself from the huge financial burden in tune with the Exclusion Clause.Importantly, Singh also highlighted that in the criminal case, the driver pleaded guilty and the sentence, as already noticed, came to be pronounced by the Criminal Court. It clearly probablised the case of the appellant that the car was being driven rashly and negligently and this is attributable only to the fact that the driver was under the influence of intoxicating liquor, it was submitted..Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted that the investigator was very much at the scene of the accident till early morning but no steps were taken to ascertain the level of the alcohol in the blood of the driver. This, he contended, adequately countered the apprehension about the impossibility for the insurer to prove the level of alcohol.As far as the conviction under Section 279 of the IPC was concerned, he submitted that it was only a case of plea bargaining and, more importantly, it related to rash and negligent driving under Section 279 of the IPC..The Court said that as per the Medico Legal Case (MLC) the driver of the car had smell of alcohol.The Court further noted that though the respondent had claimed that the driver had not consumed alcohol, the driver, in his evidence (affidavit evidence), had not even stated that he had not consumed alcohol, as was the specific case set up in the complaint..The Court admitted that there was no evidence as to the quantity of alcohol consumed.“It is also true that there is no evidence other than the smell of alcohol being detected on both the driver and the co-passenger, of any other effects of consumption of alcohol,” the Court noted..However, the manner in which the accident occurred established that the driver was under the influence of alcohol, the Court said.“Driving, while under the influence of alcohol, is to be understood as driving when, on account of consumption of alcohol, either before commencement of driving or during the driving and before the accident, when consumption of alcohol by the driver would affect (influence) his faculties and his driving skills. We would expatiate and hold that it means that the alcohol consumed earlier was the cause or it contributed to the occurrence of the accident,” the judgment stated..Moreover, it was also noted that the respondent did not make any argument that the accident occurred as a result of a sudden event which took place, which necessitated the car being driven into the footpath.“For instance, if there was sudden attempted human or animal crossing, and the driver to obviate any such accident, may drive in the manner, which culminated in the accident. The driver, in his chief examination, has not given any explanation, whatsoever, for the happening of the accident. He does not have a case that there was any breakdown in the car or of the brakes,” the Court said.From the above, the Court concluded that the accident was caused due to the drunk driving and set aside the NCDRC order..[Read Judgment]