Insurance companies get a shot in the arm from a Supreme Court judgment, here’s how

• Follow

The insurance company can now reject your claim even in the absence of a breath analyzer test or blood test as contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act. This is because a recent ruling by the Supreme Court states that “if the Breath Analyser or any other test is not performed for any reason, the insurer cannot be barred from proving his case otherwise.”

The judgement was passed by a three-judge bench of Justices comprising UU Lalit, Indira Banerjee and K.M. Joseph. The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal filed by IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd for an accident, which took place on November 22, 2007. The insurer appealed against the order by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

“We can take judicial notice of the fact that the roads in the Capital City, particularly in the area, where the accident occurred, are sufficiently wide and the vehicle dashing against the footpath and turning turtle and catching fire, by itself, does point to, along with the fact that the alcohol which was consumed manifests contemporaneously in the breath of the driver, to conclude that alcohol did play the role, which, unfortunately, it is capable of producing”, the judgement reads.

On the question of why the test is not necessary the judgment states: “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 that 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.”

“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.”