Contracts of Insurance II

Aman Bangia completely damaged one Porsche, DL-1CJ-3577, at 02:25 AM on 22.12.2007. It is indisputable, he smelt of alcohol. There is no evidence of recording the exact nature of alcoholic drink which was consumed and there is also no material as to the quantity consumed. We cannot resist recording our disquiet at the conduct of the Police Officer in not pursuing the matter in the form of conducting a breath test or other tests and pursuing the matter under Section 185 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.  

A driver after an accident, may run away. A test may never be performed. However, there may be evidence available which may indicate, 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, merely because there is no test performed, the insurer would be deprived of its right to establish a case.

Pearl Beverages Ltd. has no case that, the accident occurred as a result of another vehicle being driven in any manner or any person or animal attempting to cross the road or otherwise deflecting the attention of the driver or there was any breakdown in the Porsche or its brakes. Aman Bangia deposed, “I was in my full senses and capable of exercising full control.” It is more probable his drink, really led to it.

Hon’ble Justic K.M. Joseph, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. v. Pearl Beverages Ltd., [SLP (Civil) No. 12489 of 2020].