Summary
In an own-damage insurance claim, the exclusion for driving under the influence of liquor need not be proved through the criminal blood-alcohol threshold or a prosecution under section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The insurer may prove impairment and its contribution to the accident from the circumstances. Mere consumption is insufficient under this wording. On the combined evidence and absence of an explanation for the crash, the Court restored the State Commission’s rejection of the claim.
Issues
- Whether the contractual exclusion required proof of the section 185 criminal threshold through a scientific test.
- Whether the circumstances established driving under the influence of liquor in this own-damage claim.
Provisions considered
- Sections 185, 203 and 204, as applicable to the accident, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988The criminal offence and its testing provisions do not exclusively govern proof of a contractual own-damage exclusion. (¶¶ 37-39, 52-58, 101-106)
- Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Its underlying principle concerning facts especially within a person’s knowledge can inform summary consumer proceedings without removing the insurer’s initial burden. (¶ 76-83)
Held
- The wording of the policy controls. This exclusion required the driver to be under the influence of liquor, not simply to have any alcohol present. Consumption must affect faculties and driving skills so that it causes or perceptibly contributes to the accident. This was an own-damage dispute, not a determination of statutory third-party defences. (¶¶ 35-36, 50-51, 56, 106(G)-(H))
- Neither failure to prosecute under section 185 nor absence of a breath or blood test necessarily defeats the insurer. The contractual inquiry may proceed on other evidence and the total circumstances; the criminal statutory threshold is not an indispensable condition of this exclusion. (¶¶ 52-58, 88, 101-103)
- The insurer bears the burden of establishing the exclusion. Details of what, when, where and how much the driver drank were especially within his knowledge. Although the Evidence Act does not strictly apply to consumer fora, the principle of section 106 could be applied appropriately. (¶ 76-83)
- Res ipsa loquitur, as a negligence inference, was not itself an appropriate test of alcoholic influence. Nevertheless, the manner of the crash could be considered with other evidence; neither rash driving nor alcohol smell alone was treated as the complete inquiry. (¶¶ 84-85, 104-106)
- The driver and passenger smelt of alcohol; the driver did not support the pleaded denial of consumption, and he pleaded guilty to rash or negligent driving. The high-speed crash against the footpath, pole and wall, overturning and fire, on a wide road at a time of very light traffic, had no alternative explanation in his evidence. Taken together, these circumstances supported the State Commission’s conclusion on the civil claim. (¶¶ 89-97, 104-107)
Result
Insurer’s appeal allowed; NCDRC order set aside, leaving the State Commission’s rejection of the own-damage complaint effective. No order as to costs.