Lack of Medical Test Proves Insufficient Evidence For Alcohol Consumption: NCDRC

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant, identified as a partnership firm, purchased a BMW from Bird Automotive for personal use by one of its partners. The vehicle was insured by Oriental Insurance Company Limited under a Private Car Package Policy. During heavy rainfall, the driver swerved to avoid hitting an animal, causing significant damage to the car. Although the driver was not injured, the police noted the smell of alcohol on him and charged him under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The insurer was informed of the accident, and a claim form was submitted. However, the insurer delayed appointing a surveyor until the vehicle was released from the police station and taken to an authorized service center for repair. Deutsche Motoren Private Limited provided an estimate for the repair, which was subsequently submitted to the insurer. Despite repeated requests, the insurer did not provide a copy of the survey report and eventually repudiated the claim on the grounds that the driver was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. The complainant argued that the insurer's repudiation was unlawful since there was no conclusive evidence of the driver's intoxication affecting his driving ability, and the policy had been issued in the complainant's name. The complainant approached the State Commission, and the commission allowed the complaint. Aggrieved by this, the insurer filed an appeal before the National Commission.

Contentions of the Insurer

The insurer argued that TDM Auto Lines had inspected the vehicle before obtaining the insurance policy. The policy was issued based on a Proposal Form submitted by the complainant under the name of M/s. Bombay Traders, without disclosing ownership details of the vehicle. The insurer argued that the claim of the accident being caused by a stray animal was implausible and contradicted by evidence, which indicated that the driver was intoxicated at the time of the accident. The vehicle was released from police attachment after the accident. The complainant submitted an estimate for repair, followed by the appointment of a surveyor and an investigator by the insurer. The insurer's examination found that the complainant was not the registered owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident, and the driver was intoxicated. Despite being served show-cause notices, the complainant did not respond. Therefore, the insurer repudiated the claim on the grounds that the complainant was not the registered owner of the car at the time of the accident and the driver was intoxicated, concluding that there was no deficiency in service.

Observations by the Commission

The Commission observed that the complainant was the registered owner and possessor of the vehicle at the time of the accident, which was insured under the insurer's name. Referring to the precedent in New India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Bimlesh, the commission affirmed that the ownership of the vehicle was based on the sale letter and delivery of possession, regardless of the subsequent transfer of the registration certificate. Regarding the allegation of the driver being under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident, the commission referenced the Supreme Court ruling in IFFCO Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pearl Beverage Limited, wherein it was ruled that driving under the influence of alcohol encompasses impairment of driving skills due to prior alcohol consumption. The commission highlighted that while the insurer cited a police report indicating the driver's intoxication, the lack of a medical test report meant there was insufficient evidence to prove that alcohol consumption contributed to the accident. Consequently, the commission found no violation of the policy condition. Regarding compensation, the State Commission's award aligned with the surveyor's assessment, and the impugned order was deemed legally sound.

Case Title: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Bombay Traders

Case Number: F.A. No. 90/2017