IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. versus PEARL BEVERAGES LTD.

Citation: [2021] 14 S.C.R. 104 · Decided: 12-04-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
104
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 14 S.C.R.
[2021] 14 S.C.R. 104
104
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
v.
PEARL BEVERAGES LTD.
(CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1526 OF 2021)
APRIL 12, 2021
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDIRA BANERJEE AND
K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 –s.185 – Contract of Insurance –
Drunken driving – Liability of insurer – Exclusion Clause –
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.185 – Respondent-Company’s
car (Porsche) insured with the appellant, met with an accident and
was completely damaged – Appellant repudiated the claim by the
respondent – State Commission rejected the complaint of the
respondent – Order set aside by NCDRC – On appeal, held:
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, u/s.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, the Insurer cannot be barred from
proving his case otherwise – Where there is no scientific material,
in the form of test results available, as in the present case, the insurer
is not disabled from establishing a case for exclusion – NCDRC
was in error in conflating the requirement u/s.185 with that under
the exclusion clause in the contract of insurance –Further, the
appellant has established that the driver had consumed alcohol
and was driving the vehicle when the accident took place –Fact
that he smelt of alcohol, is indisputable, having regard to the FIR
and the MLC– View of the State Commission is a plausible view –
Order of NCDRC set aside – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.279, 427 –
Insurance.
Consumer Protection – Insurance – Contract of Insurance –
‘Own damage’ - Clause extricating the Insurer on the basis of the
driver being under the influence of alcohol – Contrasting Models
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
105
– Held: One of the models is represented by American cases where
all that required is that the person has in his body alcohol in any
degree – Under this model, it need not influence his conduct – Under
the other model the insurer must show that the person driving the
vehicle was under the influence of liquor.
Insurance – Contract of Insurance – Drunken driving –
Liability of insurer excluded – Exclusion Clause – “under the
influence of intoxicating liquor” – Interpretation of – Held: Mere
presence of alcohol in any small degree would not be sufficient –
Court cannot re-write the contract and hold that the mere presence
of the alcohol, in the slightest degree, is sufficient to exclude the
liability of the insurer – It requires something more, namely, that the
driver of the vehicle was at the time of the accident acting under
the influence of intoxicating liquor.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.185 – Blood Alcohol
Concentration (BAC) – Permissible level; variables correlated to –
Discussed.
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106 – Facts specially within the
knowledge of person – Burden of proof – Drunken driving – Car
completely damaged in accident –As per the respondent-insured
the driver had not consumed any alcohol – In the very next sentence,
it was pleaded that assuming that he had consumed alcohol, as he
was not intoxicated the exclusion clause is not attracted – Held:
Driver did not depose that he had not consumed intoxicating liquor
– He only stated that he was neither under the influence of
intoxicating liquor or drugs at the time of the accident – Car was
driven by the driver after having consumed alcohol – In such a
case as to what was the nature of the alcohol and what was the
quantity of alcohol consumed, and where he had consumed, would
certainly be facts within the special knowledge of the person who
has consumed the alcohol – Thus, it would be “disproportionately
difficult” for the insurer in the facts to prove as to whether the
driver has consumed liquor on an empty stomach or he had food
and then consumed alcohol or what was the quantity and quality of
the drink (alcohol content), circumstances relevant to consider as
to whether he drove the vehicle under the influence of alcohol –
Even if, the Section as such is not applicable to the Consumer
Protection Act, the principle can apply to proceedings under the
Consumer Protection Act.
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.