IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Harmonizing Policy Clauses with Section 185 of the MV Act – Commission clarified that insurance companies cannot repudiate a claim simply because any amount of alcohol is detected. For a claim to be validly rejected on the grounds of “drunken driving,” the alcohol level must exceed the statutory limit defined in Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Any policy clause that attempts to lower this threshold is unenforceable against the insured.
(2) Validity of Repudiation – Commission held that since the driver was operating the vehicle with an alcohol level far exceeding the permissible limit, it constituted a fundamental breach of the insurance policy and the law. Consequently, the insurance company was not liable for the “total loss” claim of the vehicle, and the State Commission’s order to dismiss the complaint was upheld.

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 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) — 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 Rs.9,92,750 and registration expenses of Rs.1,07,577. All necessary documents RC 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 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. There