National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Shri Dayaram Agrawal S/O. Ghisaram ... vs The New India Assurance Company Limited ... on 4 December, 2025
I!
UN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : 03.10.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : .04.12.2025
SECOND APPEAL NO. 423 OF 2025
(From the order dated 25.04.2025 in Appeal No. 708/2024 of the
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chhattisgarh )
With IA / 8829-30 of 2025
( exemption to file typed copies of documents, summon record)
Dayaram Agrawal Appellant (s)
Madhuban, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Ward
Behind Gujarati Colony
Ward No.5, District Dhamtari, Chattisgarh
Versus
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Respondent(s)
Through Divisional Manager
II Floor, LIC Campus, Investment Building Phase-1
Jeevan Bima Marg, Pandri, Raipur, Chattisgarh
BEFORE:
HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER
For the Appellant(s) Ms. Panchajanya Batra Singh, Advocate.
Ms. Mamta, Advocate
Mr Himalya Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent Mr. J P Sheokand, Advocate
ORDER
DR.INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER The present Second Appeal (SA) has been filed by the Appellant against Respondent as detailed above, under section 51 (2) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the order dated 25.04.2025 of the State SA/423/2025 Page 1 of 14 Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in First Appeal (FA) No. 708 of 2024 in which order dated 07.10.2024 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Dhamtari (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no 24 of 2013 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 25.04.2025 of the State Commission.
2. While the Appellant (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Commission, the Respondent herein was Appellant before the State Commission and Opposite Party before the District Commission.
3. Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 29.07.2025. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 24.09.2025 ( Appellant) and 22.09.2025 (respondent) respectively.
4. Brief facts of the case as presented by the Complainant and as emerged from the SA, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that Appellant/complainant is the registered owner of vehicle No. CG 05 AN 7834, insured with the respondent under Private Car Package Policy Add On Cover, valid from 03.02.2023 to 03.02.2024. On 22.08.2023, while driving near National Highway No. 30, Raipur-Abhanpur (Parasatti), Police Station Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.), two two-wheelers -- Activa No. CG 04 NY 1416 (with two women and one man) and motorcycle No. CG 04 NY 1372 (with one man and one woman) -- SA/423/2025 Page 2 of 14 were moving parallelly and conversing with each other. During this, both two- wheelers collided. In an attempt to avoid the collision, the driver of the complainant's car moved the vehicle toward the divider, causing it to hit the divider. Subsequently, the rider of motorcycle No. CG 04 NY 1372, due to his own negligence, collided with the car, resulting in the accident. After the accident on 22.08.2023, the complainant immediately informed the agent of the opposite party, following which a claim was registered for the vehicle damage. The surveyor appointed by the opposite party inspected the accident site, took photographs, and assessed the loss as a total loss with an IDV of ?9,92,750 and registration expenses of ,07,577. All necessary documents
-- RO book, driving license, and insurance certificate -- were submitted by the complainant. As instructed by the insurance company, the damaged vehicle was taken to the Maruti showroom for repairs. However, on 27.02.2024, the insurer rejected the claim, alleging that the car driver was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. When the complainant went to the Police Station Aabhanpur and investigated the matter, the complainant was told that a charge sheet under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304A IRC had been filed against the driver of the car. A breath test was conducted by Police Station Rakhi, in which driver of the car was fully conscious and he himself went to the Police Station, whose mouth was tested, in which the smell of alcohol from his mouth was found to be 59 micrograms ( 0.059 mg) per 100 ml of blood. The I.O. (Investigating Officer) said that driver has not consumed alcohol but if the person who is being tested takes cough SA/423/2025 Page 3 of 14 medicine or eats rice 6 to 7 hours before the test, then it is possible to smell some amount of alcohol. The driver was driving the car at controlled speed. Being aggrieved of the rejection of the claim, the Complainant filed CC before the District Forum and District Forum vide order dated 25.04.2025 partly allowed the Complaint. Being aggrieved, the opposite party filed an Appeal before the State Commission and State Commission vide order dated 25.04.2025 allowed the appeal of the Opposite Party. Therefore, the Appellant lis before this Commission now in the present SA.
5. Appellant has challenged the said Order dated 25.04.2025 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:
(i) The impugned order of the Hon'ble State Commission suffers from non application of mind, as it contains inconsistent findings regarding the driver's alleged alcohol level. In Para 2 of the order dated 25.04.2025, the Commission records the alcohol level as 59 micrograms/100 ml (59 pg/100 ml), while in Para 5, it wrongly records it as 59 milligrams/100 ml (59 mg/100 ml), and again as 59 micrograms/100 ml (59 pg/100 ml) later in the same paragraph.
(ii)The OPD slip dated 22.08.2023, issued on the day of the accident, clearly mentions the Breath Alcohol Concentration (BrAC) as 59 pg/100 ml, not 59 mg/100 ml, The latter (milligram) being punishable under section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988.
SA/423/2025 Page 4 of 14
(iii)The detected level of 59 micrograms/100 ml is a negligible amount that can occur naturally due to consumption of cough syrup, fermented foods etc. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Vs. Pearl Beverages Ltd. AIR 2021 SC 2277,
(iv) The State Commission failed to properly evaluate the facts and evidence relating to the allegation of intoxication. The accident site was about 70 kilometers away from the appellant's residence, and a person truly under the influence of alcohol could not have safely driven such a long distance without incident, indicating that the driver was not intoxicated.
(v)The mere smell of alcohol from the driver's mouth is not a reliable indicator of intoxication . Mere consumption of alcohol containing product may not lead to intoxication sufficient to affect driving abilities or cause him to be out of his senses or cause impairment of reflexes. The claim of intoxication was not conclusive as no urine or blood sample was taken during the medical examination. The high pulse and blood pressure of appellant's driver as described in the medical examination denotes that he was fully in his senses and under stress as a consequence of the accident.
(vi) The police document pertaining to medical examination stated that he was oriented to time, place and event and the police never pressed a case under section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 leading SA/423/2025 Page 5 of 14 to the inference that driver was not intoxicated to attract the same.
There was no evidence to prove that the stomach contents had traces of alcohol and whether blood and urine samples of the driver were collected or not. The mere presence of smell of alcohol by itself cannot in anyway imply that he was under the influence of alcohol.
(vii) The Private Car Package Policy mentions influence of intoxicating liquor but does not refer to degree of intoxication.
(viii) A per Motor Final Survey report, the vehicle was a new vehicle, registered seven months prior to date of accident.
(ix) State Commission treated smell of alcohol from mouth as conclusive proof of the state of intoxication.
6. Heard counsels of both sides. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the SA, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.
6.1. Learned counsel for the Appellant apart from repeating the points which have been stated in para 5 argued that OPD slip issued after the accident clearly records that driver of the appellant was conscious, oriented to time, date and person. The Breath Alcohol Test report establishes that a mere 0.59 ug/100 ml of alcohol was found in the driver's breath, which is way below the prescribed value of 30 mg /100 ml as stipulated in Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act. The police did not register any case under section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, since SA/423/2025 Page 6 of 14 the driver was not found drunk. It is also argued that judgment relied on by the State Commission is based on different facts and circumstances than the present case. Learned counsel also filed extract of the various journal(s) like Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology and website printout on how to convert Microgram ( mcg) to Milligram ( mg) accurately.
6.2. Learned counsel for the Respondent argued that driver was under influence of intoxicating liquor. Contents of the alcohol was found (0.059 mg) per 100 ml blood as per the medical test done of the driver by the police and as per Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, if the contents of alcohol are found more than 0.030 mg, the driver cannot have control over the vehicle. It is clear cut violation of the policy condition that if the insured vehicle is being driver by the driver under influence of intoxicating liquor, insurance company is not liable for any claim as mentioned in Section 1 of the Policy. Learned counsel also argued that Motor Insurance Policy is governed by the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. It is immaterial that whether police never pressed a case under section 185 of Motor Vehicle Act. The driver was in drunken position at the material time of accident and the police has proved the same beyond doubt. There is breach of condition 8 of the policy which says that it is the duty of the insured to comply with the terms and conditions of the policy. The appellant did not comply with the condition of the policy. The appellant did not provide the material information in SA/423/2025 Page 7 of 14 the claim form regarding injury / death caused to the third party in the accident caused by insured vehicle. Counsel relied on the following judgments :
a. Shree Ambica Medical Stores and Others Vs. The Surat People's Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Ors. - Civil Appeal No. 562 of 2020 b. General Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chandmull Jain AIR 1966 SC 1644 c. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Peral Beverages Ltd. 2021 NCI 385 (SC)
7. Challenge is to the order dated 25.04.2025 of the State Commission vide which appeal filed by the respondent - insurance company was allowed and order of District Commission was set aside. The claim in question was repudiated by the respondent insurance company vide its letter dated 02.02.2024 and 27.02.2024 on the ground that driver of the vehicle in question was under the influence of alcohol at the time of driving, which is in violation of the condition of the policy. It is contended by the appellant herein that even as per the report of the police, the breath alcohol level was .59 ( point 59) microgram / 100 ml, which is far below permissible limit of 30 mg / 100 ml under section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act. Counsel for appellant contends that as per report of the. police, it is .59 (point 59) and even if it is assumed that it is 59, it is far below the permissible limit under section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act as the unit in the report shown as ug/100 ml is in micro grams and not mg SA/423/2025 Page 8 of 14 ( milligrams) envisaged under Section 185, submitting further that 1 mg is equal to 1000 microgram.
8. Respondent on the other hand contends that if the driver of the vehicle was under influence of alcohol, irrespective of the level of such alcohol, it is violation of their policy entitling the insurance company to repudiate the claim. Hence, according to the insurance company whether level is .59 (point 59) or 59 ug / 100 ml, whether ug is microgram or milligram, it is in violation of the policy.
9. In the Memorandum of Appeal, following questions of law have been listed by the Appellant:
a. Whether the Appellant can be deprived of insurance amount when the premium has been paid out of his hard earned money on time precisely to cover the kind of incident / accident that happened with the appellant's vehicle that was virtually brand new at the time of the accident? b. Whether the Hon'ble State Commission can dilute the norms to determine drunkenness laid down under section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and thereby release the insurer from its liability to pay its customer? c. Whether Hon'ble State Commission can determine the state of drunkenness of the appellant's car driver to the appellant's disadvantage even though the police had not initiated any action under section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for driving by a drunken person? SA/423/2025 Page 9 of 14 d. Whether Hon'ble State Commission erred by overturning the Hon'ble District Forum's order merely on grounds of drunkenness notwithstanding the statutory parameters pertaining to degree of intoxication and consequent culpability?
10. Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( in short, the Act) deals with driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs. The said Section is reproduced below:
185. Driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs. - Whoever, while driving, or attempting to drive, a motor vehicle, [(a) has, in his blood, alcohol exceeding 30 mg. per 100 ml. of blood detected in a test by a breath analyser, [or in any other test including a laboratory test,] or]
(b)is under the influence of a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle, shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine [of ten thousand rupees], or with both; and for a second or subsequent offence, [***], with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine [of fifteen thousand rupees], or with both.
[Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, the expression "drug" means any intoxicant other than alcohol, natural or synthetic, or any natural material or any salt, or preparation of such substance or material as may be notified by the Central Government under this Act and includes a narcotic drug and psychotropic substance as defined in clause (xiv) and clause (xxiii) of section 2 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.] In the light of the above said provision, which makes the drunken driving punishable only if the blood alcohol exceeds the limit specified in the section, we are unable to accept the contention of the respondent - insurance company that if the driver of the vehicle was under the influence of alcohol SA/423/2025 Page 10 of 14 irrespective of level of such drunkenness, it is violation of their policy, entitling the insurance company to repudiate the claim. Any such clauses in the . insurance policy being violative of section 185 of MV Act, 1989 cannot be enforced against the insured. It is only if the level of blood alcohol exceeds the limit specified in the section, it can be classified as a case of drunken driving, entitling the insurance company to repudiate the claim. Hence, in the paras that follows, we will examine whether the driver in the present case was driving with blood alcohol exceeding the limit specified in Section 185 of the Act or not.
11. When the police uses a breath analyser, especially the portable ones, normally it measures the level of alcohol in microgram of alcohol per 100 ml of breath. The symbol pg is used to represent the microgram. Sometimes, if such gadgets used by the police do not support symbol pg, it is indicated as ug. In the present case, police breath analyser test shows the blood alcohol level ( BrAC) as 59 ug /100 ml ( and not .59 or point 59/100 ml as contended by the Appellant). The said report is reproduced below: SA/423/2025 Page 11 of 14
CHHATTISGARH Pdlitt ALCOHOL ■TE.3T1HG REPORT I i y4 tti 141 v -t £441 Sr. to,: ARPO122 Calibrated 0n:lI/32/2v22 $»T $ 19 ? th r<4 h t-t »t h4 4'* Record to.; oa0284 £ £ £^'4.4:14: j t r X '14' £4' * 4' ACTIVE TEST RESULT 3rA.C 5S usZIGBpI 22/38/2323 16:01;fi8 Hrs to: TEJKiO DIWH licence:
Ve-bH Ito >:
?. /■ :
Location: NAYA RAIPUR
p.-V'
S''-':;; Palice: THAHA RAKHI
SA/423/2025 Page 12 of 14
12. As indicated above, Section 185 is in terms of milligram / 100 ml of blood but the devise used by the police gives the result in terms of microgram (pg or ug/100 ml) of breath. Some of the scientific studies1 show that 1ml. of blood contains about 2100 times more alcohol than 1 ml of breath. Hence 30 mg / 100 ml of blood indicated under section 185 correspond to about 13.6 micro gram (pg or ug/100 ml) of breath. Hence, if the breath analyser show 14 ug /100 ml of breath ( 14 micro gram /100 ml), it corresponds to legal limit of 30 mg /100 ml ( 30 miligram per 100 ml) of blood as per section 185 of the Act, Hence any result above 14 ug / 100 ml of breath means the person is legally drunk. In the present case, police report indicates the BrAC ( Breath Alcohol Level) as 59 ug/100 ml which will correspond to 126.42 mg per 100 ml of BAG ( Blood Alcohol Level) which is far above the permissible limit of 30 mg /100 ml of blood under section 185 of the Act. Hence, in the present case, going by the police breath analyser report, the driver was drunk in accordance with section 185 of the Act. Hence, the insurance company is justified in repudiating the claim on this ground, although, State Commission has not elaborated in its order these aspects to justify its findings that there has been no deficiency in service on the part of the OP- Insurance Company. 1 Forensic perspective of detecting ethanol with a breath analyser by Dr. B K Singh, Reflections on variability in the blood-breath ratio by A.W. Jones, Significance of variations in blood : breath partition coefficient of alcohol by T.A.Alobaidi SA/423/2025 Page 13 of 14
13. In view of the foregoing, we hold that driver in the present case was driving in violation of provisions of Section 185 and hence, the insurance company is justified in repudiating his claim. Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere with the findings of the State Commission in setting aside the order of the District Commission and dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, second appeal is dismissed.
14. Pending lAs, if any, also stand disposed off.
SdA ( DR. INDER JIT SINGH ) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
AmZ ( DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.)
MEMBER
SA/423/2025 Page 14 of 14