MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.       This is an appeal filed by the OPs/appellants against order, dated 23.3.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only) in complaint case No. 1394 of 2009 vide which, it allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.2 lacs, as compensation, within 30 days, failing which to pay the amount with interest @ 12% p.a. The OPs were also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs. 

2.         Briefly stated, the facts of the case are, that the complainant ‘s car bearing registration No.PB-11-AK-0047, was duly insured with OP i.e. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited for the period from 1.6.2008 to 31.6.2009. It was stated that the car of the complainant met with an accident on 15.2.2009, when it being driven by Harminder Singh, Driver, and the complainant was sitting by his side. FIR No.21, dated 1.3.2009 was got registered at Police Station Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib, against the driver of offending Truck bearing No.PB-65-E-6755.  The complainant suffered multiple injuries in the accident, due to which, he became permanently disabled to the extent of 100%. It was further stated that the claim was filed with the Insurance Company (OPs) which repudiated it, vide letter dated 2.9.2009 as ‘No Claim’ under Section 3(b) of the policy. The complainant sent a legal notice to the OPs but to no avail. It was further stated that the above said act of the OPs amounted to deficiency, in service, and they also indulged into unfair trade practice. Hence,  the complaint was filed.

3.         Reply was filed by the OPs wherein they admitted the factual matrix of the case.  It was stated that the OPs duly considered the claim of the complainant (now respondent) and it was found that he was not covered under the policy, as he was found under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident.  It was further stated that as per Section 3 of the Insurance Policy, the owner-driver or owner-co-driver shall not be entitled to any compensation, if he was found under the influence of liquor or drug at the time of accident. As such, the OPs rightly dismissed the claim of the complainant as the same was not covered under the policy. All other allegations levelled by the complainant, in the complaint were denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

4.       The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.       The learned District Forum allowed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the judgment.  

6.          Aggrieved by the order, passed by the learned District Forum, the OPs/appellants filed an appeal. 

7.       We have heard Sh.Raj Karan, Advocate, for the appellants/OPs, Sh.V.S.Saini, Advocate, for the respondent/complainant, and, have perused the record, carefully.

8.       The learned Counsel for the appellants/OPs contended that the learned District Forum ignored the fact that the complainant had taken the insurance policy which related to personal accident cover for owner – driver and the OPs rightly repudiated the claim as ‘No Claim’ under Section 3(b) of the policy because at the time of accident, the complainant was under the influence of alcohol.

9.       The learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant, argued that the OPs wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant, by declaring it as ‘No Claim’ under Section 3(b) of the Policy, whereas, the case of the complainant did not fall under the purview of this Section. As per terms and conditions of the policy, Section 3(b) is applicable only where the insured vehicle at the time of accident was being driven by the person under the influence of alcohol, but in the present case, at the time of accident, the complainant was not driving the car. He was just sitting by the side of the driver (Sh.Harminder Singh). It was further submitted that nothing was mentioned in the policy that the owner would not be entitled to the insured amount or compensation, if he was only sitting by the side of the driver, under the influence of liquor.

10.     After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that the OPs wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant as ‘No Claim’ under Section 3(b) of the policy. At the time of accident,  the complainant was not driving the car and he was just sitting by the side of the driver in the capacity of the owner and not as owner-co-driver. Section 3(b) of the Insurance Policy Annexure C-7 reads as under.

“b) no compensation shall be payable in respect of death or bodily injury directly or indirectly wholly or in part arising or resulting from or traceable to (1) intentional self injury suicide or attempted suicide physical defect or infirmity or (2) an accident happening whilst such person is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs.”    

The plain reading of Section 3(b) of the policy extracted above clearly reveals that it only refers to owner-driver, and not the owner alone. In the instant case, as stated above, the complainant, being the owner, was not driving the vehicle at the time of accident. The vehicle, at the time of accident, was being driven by one Harminder Singh. The accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the truck. Had the complainant been driving the car, as owner-driver, at the time of accident, under the influence of liquor, the repudiation of the claim would have certainly been said to be valid. Section 3 of the policy clearly depicts that the complainant would be entitled to compensation if he suffers injuries while driving in it as a co-driver. There is no exclusion clause, in the policy, to the effect, that the owner would not be entitled to the insured amount, as compensation, at the time of accident, if he was sitting, in the vehicle, under the influence of liquor, even if, it was not being driven by him. Under these circumstances, the OPs, wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant, by resorting to Section 3(b) of the policy. The District Forum, was, thus, right in holding so.

11.          Annexure C-5 is the Certificate, issued by the Civil Surgeon, Rupnagar, showing that disability was 100% due to the injuries suffered by the complainant. According to Clause (a) of Section 3 of the policy, the complainant, was, thus, entitled to Rs.2 lacs as insured amount, on account of having suffered 100% disablement, due to the injuries received by him, in the accident. The District Forum was, thus, right in awarding Rs.2 lacs, as insured amount, to the complainant.

12.     In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the OPs is dismissed being devoid of merit alongwith costs of Rs.5,000/-. The order passed by the learned District Forum is upheld.

13.          Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.  

Pronounced.                                                                        

21^st April, 2011.