Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In an interesting case, the 3-judge bench of UU Lalit, Indira Banerjee and KM Joseph*, JJ has held that while in case where there is a blood test or 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, the absence of test may not disable the insurer from establishing a case for exclusion from liability on 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 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 having 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 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 exclusion?

If 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 which 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]

*Judgment by Justice KM Joseph

For appellant: Advocate Shivam Singh

For respondent: Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: A Single Judge Bench of P. Ubaid, J., allowed the criminal miscellaneous case and quashed the prosecution under Section 294(b) of IPC and Section 15(c) of the Kerala Akbari Act (1 of 1077).

The petitioner was found on the road side consuming alcohol, and on being apprehended by the police, went on to castigate the officer by using distasteful language. He was subjected to an alco-meter test, and was taken to the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital for medical examination, where a certificate of drunkenness was issued. Howbeit, no record of the abuse or offensive language used by the petitioner was made. Furthermore, the police found 50 ml of liquor in a 1 litre bottle on the petitioner, which was not subjected to any chemical analysis. The alco-meter test gave a strange result, which the police accepted to be a mechanical defect in the device. After declaring the charge under Section 294(b) of IPC to be baseless, the Court relied on State of Kerala v. Sreedharan [1965 KHC 267] and Rajeev P. v. State of Kerala [2009 KHC 979] to state that mere smell of alcohol is not enough to prosecute a person under Section 15(c) of the Kerala Akbari Act, and in cases where a substantial amount of alcohol is involved, the liquid should be identified as liquor through chemical analysis.

The Court also distinguished the present case from the case of Soman v. State of Kerala [2011 SCC OnLine Ker 3944] which laid down that merely because chemical analysis was not undertaken could not be a valid reason to declare the prosecution unmaintainable. In the aforementioned case, there was a positive result on the alco-meter test and the liquid was identified as liquor through ‘taste and odour’ whereas in the present case, there was an absurd alco-meter finding to which no value could be attached.

Similar to cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, Section 15(c) of the Kerala Akbari Act can also allow for blood alcohol level testing in cases where there are no alco-meter test results. However, no test to determine the amount of alcohol in the blood of petitioner was conducted, and the issued certificate was on the basis of smell of alcohol on the petitioner. To prosecute, there must be proof of consumption of liquor at a public place, and the liquid must be identified as liquor, both of which were not satisfied in the present case. Accordingly the prosecution was quashed, stating it to be a sheer waste of time and an abuse of the legal process. [Mukesh M.K. v. State of Kerala, 2018 SCC OnLine Ker 2737, order dated 11.07.2018]