Haryana

StateCommission

A/808/2015

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KAMLESH - Opp.Party(s)

J.P.NAHAR

15 Oct 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.808 of 2015

Date of Institution: 24.09.2015

                                                               Date of Decision: 15.10.2015

 

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch office, Opposite Hindu girls college, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager. (Insurer of the Motorcycle bearing No.HR-2-T-0403 vide policy cover note No.261701/31/2009/1342).

          Now through its authorized signatory, S.P.Singh, Regional Manager, LIC Building, Jagadhari Road, Ambala Cantt.

                                      …..Appellant

Versus

 

Smt. Kamlesh @ Anurit Kaur, widow of Shri Lakhwinder Singh S/o Shri Baldev singh previously resident of House No.87/A, Krishna Nagar, Yamuna Nagar, and at present resident of village Ratauli,Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

…..Respondent

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:              Shri J.P.Nahar, Advocate counsel for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          It was alleged that husband of the complainant Sh. Lakhwinder Singh was registered owner of Motor cycle bearing registration No.HR-02T-0403 registered with Motor Vehicle Authority, Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar, which was insured with opposite party (O.P.) from 21.05.2008 to 20.05.2009 for Rs.30,400/-.  Due to accident, husband of the complainant died and FIR No.75 dated 07.05.2009 was registered for the offence punishable under section 279,337 and 304 A of Indian Penal Code, 1960 (In short “IPC”). The complainant lodged  her claim with the O.P. but the same was rejected on 02.04.2010  with the remarks that “as per postmortem report wine was found in the bladder of late Sh.Lakhwinder singh who was driving the above-said motorcycle at the time of accident.”  The complainant requests several times to the O.P. to pay the insured amount but the O.P. did not pay any heed.

2.      Opposite party-appellant controverted his version and alleged that claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated on the legal and valid ground.  As per postmortem report wine was found in the bladder of the deceased Lakhwinder Singh who was driving the said motorcycle at the time of incident.  It violated the provisions of law and terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  The complainant was not entitled for any claim and same was rightly repudiated.  Obejctions about maintainability of complaint, non-joinder and mis-joinder, locus standi etc.  were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint and directed as under:-

“Resultantly we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OP to pay assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. The OP is also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P.-appellant has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that as per post mortem report (PMR) Annexure A-4, it is clear that there was wine in the bladder of husband (deceased) of the complainant.  It shows that he was under influence of liquor.  As per terms and conditions of insurance policy Annexure A-3 if any person is under influence of liquor and has met with an accident then compensation cannot be granted.  Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration this aspect and allowed the complaint, so impugned order dated 16.07.2015 be set aside and complaint be dismissed.

7.      This argument is devoid of any force.  As per PMR Annexure A-4 very small amount of wine was found in the bladder.  Appellant/O.P. has failed to prove that Alchohal was beyond the permissible limit.  If Alchohal is exceeding 30 mg per 100 ML blood then it is to be presumed that person was driving any vehicle under influence of liquor and not otherwise. 

8.      Learned District Forum has properly dealt with this point and there is no ambiguity in impugned order dated 16.07.2015.  It well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.  Resultantly the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-  deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision if any.

 

October 15th, 2015     Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                              Judicial Member                                                         Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

S.K.