Karnataka High Court Recommends Amendments To Avoid Third Party Insurance Cover For Accidents Due To Drunken Driving

The Karnataka High Court has urged the Central and State governments to consider bringing amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 so as to absolve the liability of an insurer in drunken driving cases.As per Section 149 MV Act, insurer can avoid liability only in the circumstances specified in sub-section (2). Drunk driving is not a ground to avoid liability thereunder.Stating that drunken driving is a social crime and making insurer liable may inadvertently encourage this dangerous practice, Justice Umesh M Adiga said,"The Central and State Government shall think in this respect and shall make necessary amendments in the Motor vehicle Act, 1988 and Rules framed in this regard by the State."The Court thus partly allowed a plea by an Insurance Company challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's order directing it to compensate the claimant Rs 2,59,000 with interest in case of a road accident, where the offending vehicle's driver was driving under influence of alcohol. The court though upheld the compensation amount, it ordered that the Insurer will be at liberty to recover the compensation amount from the vehicle owner as per law. It further said:"The vehicle owner cannot claim that the vehicle was insured and that, under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer is bound to indemnify their liability. Contract of insurance impliedly includes trust and fidelity. If Courts or Tribunals award compensation in 'drink and drive' cases solely on the ground that such a defense is not available to the insurer under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it amounts to an injustice to other users of public roads. Such decisions may inadvertently encourage vehicle owners or drivers to engage in the dangerous practice of drinking and driving a vehicle in public places. In these circumstances, it is both just and necessary to absolve the insurer from liability, making the driver and/or owner solely responsible for paying compensation.”Drunk driving a social crime, Govt creates awareness but drunkards breach itThe bench also opined:“Drunk and drive is a social crime. The act of driving a vehicle after consuming alcohol, often merely for personal enjoyment, not only endangers the life of the driver but also poses a significant threat to pedestrians and other users of the road. Drivers who choose to drink and drive for their own pleasure create dangerous conditions on public roads. If we consider daily news reports, it appears that drunk driving has become almost a trend or a fashion.”It further said that Government spends a lot of money to create awareness not to "drink and drive", but the "drunkards follow in its breach". It emphasized, "For their self enjoyment, they drink and drive the vehicles on the public road, that itself endangers the safety of users of the road. It may lead to loss of life, loss of limb or permanent disabilities to innocent users of the road, if such drunkards cause accidents. Such reckless behavior burdens the health care systems, legal institutions and public resources.”The court observed that in the present case before it, the rider of the motorcycle was under the high influence of alcohol, and thus it is the liability of the owner to pay the compensation.It was the case of the claimant that while he was riding his motorcycle near Domlur flyover, the offending motorcyclist had rode in a rash and negligent manner and hit him. Following which he sustained injuries and a permanent disability, due to the same, he lost his job and lost his earnings. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.10 Lakhs.The tribunal on considering the records held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle and awarded total compensation of Rs.2,59,000/- with interest at 9% p.a., and directed the respondents No.1 (owners) and 2 (insurance company) to pay compensation amount jointly and severally. Challenging the order the company argued that the rider of the motorcycle (offending vehicle) was under the influence of alcohol and it was a drunk and drive case and under such circumstances, the Insurer is not liable to pay compensation.The Insurer fairly submitted that under Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Insurer cannot dispute its liability, if the accident was caused due to drunk and drive. The bench on going through the records said “Insurer has taken pain in proving the fact that the rider of the motorcycle was under the influence of the liquor. Ex.R2 and R3 support his version. The Report from the Manipal Hospital (Ex.R7) shows the result of the blood sample of the rider of the motorcycle contains alcohol at 126 mg/dl per 100 units of blood. Therefore, as per the provisions of Section 185(a), it should not exceed 30 mg/dl. It indicates that the rider of the motorcycle was under high influence of alcohol.”Rejecting the contention of the Insurance company regarding the amount of compensation awarded the court said “Considering the nature ...

Karnataka High Court Recommends Amendments To Avoid Third Party Insurance Cover For Accidents Due To Drunken Driving

Mustafa Plumber

Tags