1.  This Revision Petition No.2301 of 2015 filed on 03.09.2015 challenges the impugned order of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (‘State Commission’, hereafter) dated 11.05.2015.  Vide this order, the learned State Commission allowed Appeal No.898 of 2014 and dismissed the complaint. In turn, this Appeal was filed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (‘District Forum’, hereafter) dated 20.08.2014. Vide this order, the District Forum, had directed the Respondent/OP-National Insurance Company (‘OP’, hereafter) to pay Rs.7,53,822 as the full value of damaged vehicle as per insurance cover note, subject to submission of salvage of damaged vehicle, subrogation letter and other documents, if required by the OP. The OP was also burdened to pay Rs.3300 as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges. The said order was to be complied within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of commencement of this order till its realization.

2.      Briefly, the facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that the Complainant got his car bearing temporary registration No. HR 99 LSTP-2760 insured from Respondent/Opposite party for Rs.7,53,822 on 14.04.2012 and policy was valid up to 13.04.2013. On 07.05.2012 while driving the car, Shri Virender Malik stuck against tree and the car was totally damaged. FIR was registered at P.S. Rajound on that very day wherein false allegations were levelled that he was driving the car at a very high speed. Information about accident was also given to Respondent/ OP on that very day and it's authorized agent assessed the loss. The car was shifted to Akash Motors Limited, Kaithal and surveyor reported that this was a case of total loss. He duly replied the letter dated 21.11.2012 issued by the Respondent/OP to explain about report of surveyor and investigator, but, no action was taken. He was entitled for the insured value of the car and filed the Consumer Complaint before the District Forum.

3.      The Respondent/OP filed reply controverting the averments and alleged that the Complainant had concealed true facts. Shri Virender Malik was under the influence of liquor while driving the car, which was clearly proved from his MLR. Investigating and Detective agency namely M/s Royal Associates recorded the statement of Shri Virender Malik, Complainant Shri Sandeep Dhanda, Amar Pal and Rajesh Kumar, wherein it was admitted that Shri Virender Malik was under the influence of liquor. It was not a case of total loss and car was repairable as per report of surveyor. His claim was rightly repudiated keeping in view the terms and conditions of insurance policy and provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (In short "MV Act"). Objections about maintainability of complaint, locus standi, jurisdiction etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      On appeal, the State Commission, after hearing counsels on behalf of both the parties, allowed the same vide Order dated 11.05.2015 and dismissed the Complaint.  The State Commission reasoned as below:

“7.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that there is no evidence on the file showing that Virender Malik was under the influence of liquor at the time of accident. There is no medical report to the effect that level of Alcohol in blood was existing 30 mg per ML of blood. He was also not challenged for the offence punishable under section 185 and 202 of MV Act. Accused Virender Malik was acquitted in the criminal case vide order dated 20.05.2013. As there was no evidence about influence of liquor, O.P. wrongly repudiated his claim. Findings of the District Forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.

8.        This argument is of no avail. FIR was registered on the basis of statement of Rajesh Kumar, copy of which is EX.C-9. It is specifically mentioned therein that the car was being driven by Virender Malik and he was under influence of liquor. At the time of lodging FIR it was stated by Rajesh Kumar that his relative Virender Malik came to his house along with others and was under influence of liquor. He accompanied them to the house of Amar Pal Kundu. He further consumed liquor of about one and a half hour/ two hours at that place Thereafter he was driving car at the speed of about 150 K.Ms. They requested him to drive at a slow speed, but, he did not listen them. Ultimately this accident took place. This was the first version told to the police just after the accident. First version should be given weightage than the subsequent version.

9.        More so, when Royal Associates investigated the matter prior to submitting report Ex.R-1, statement of complainant, statement of Virender Malik Ex.R-2, statement of Amar pal Ex.R-3 and statement of Rajesh Kumar EX.R-4 were also recorded, which are bearing their signatures. Complainant and Rajesh Kumar admitted that at the time of accident Virender Malik was under the influence of liquor and that is why accident took place. Virender Malik also admitted this fact in his statement Ex.R-2. Admission is the best piece of evidence. Not only to this effect MLR of Virender Malik Ex.R-6 also proves that he was under the influence of liquor. To determine the level of Alcohol in his blood, test could not be conducted because he left the hospital against the medical advice. On 07.05.2012 police moved application about Virender and Rajesh Kumar to record their statements. It was reported at 9.00 A.M. that he (Virender) had gone for city scan. On subsequent application it was reported at 12.30 P.M. that Virender had left against medical advice. When he had gone from hospital it was possible for the police to collect the sample. In these circumstances on the basis of MLR, statements of complainant Virender and Rajesh before investigator it could be safely presumed that Virender was driving the car under the influence of liquor at the time of accident. Had it not been so he would not have run away from the hospital. If Virender has been acquitted by the Criminal Court vide judgement dated 20.05.2013 it does not mean that the case of insurance company should be thrown away. It is well settled proposition of law that in criminal cases the prosecution is to prove it's case to the hilt. If there is little bit doubt then the benefit of the same is to be given to the accused and not to the prosecution. Whereas in the civil litigation the preponderance of probability is to be seen. In that case it is nowhere opined that prosecution case was altogether false. In that case accused Virender could not be chargesheeted under section 185 of M.V.Act, 1988 because he left hospital to avoid to blood test as discussed above. In Criminal Court if Rajesh Kumar did not support the prosecution case it does not mean that the plea of insurance company should also fail in this case. While lodging FIR Ex.C-9 it was stated by Rajesh Kumar that Virender was his relative. To help him, he might have withdrawn from his previous statement given to the police. In the present case Surender Kumar had died. L.Rs of deceased and Rajesh etc. must have filed petitions for compensation under the provisions of M.V.Act. What was the fate those petitions and what statements were given by these persons before that Tribunal are not shown. Whether Rajesh has denied the factum of accident before those tribunals or not was not brought to the notice of District Forum. Statements made before Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunals (MACT) should have been produced to clear the picture, in these circumstances when the complainant is resiling from his own statement given before the investigator and signed by him it cannot be presumed that Virender was not under influence of liquor. His  self-serving statement cannot belie the contents of FIR and MLR. All these facts clearly show that Virender was under influence of liquor when he was driving the vehicle. Complainant cannot ask for compensation from insurance company as terms and conditions of the insurance policy were violated.

10.      The learned District Forum failed to take into consideration all these aspects. In these circumstances when car was being driven of under the influence of liquor, complainant cannot ask for the claim.  Hence impugned order dated 20.08.2014 is hereby set aside, appeal is allowed and complaint is dismissed.”

5.      It is against this order that this revision petition has been filed.          Counsel for the both the Parties were heard in detail on 26.9.2023 and Order was reserved.

6.      The learned counsel for the Petitioner reiterated the grounds stated in the Revision Petition and forcefully argued that although the medical officer, who examined the driver i.e. Shri Virender Singh, opined that the driver was under alcohol intoxication but this report would not conclusively establish that the driver at the time of accident was in a drunken state, as contemplated by Section 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 which states that a person driving a vehicle shall be held to be in a drunken state, if he has in his blood, alcohol exceeding 30 mg. per 100 ml. of the blood. But in the present case, the Respondent Insurance Company was unable to show any medical report to the effect that level of alcohol in blood existing 30 mg. per 100 ml. of blood of the driver of the vehicle i.e. Shri Virender Singh. He further alleged that Shri Virender Malik was acquitted in the criminal case vide order dated 20.05.2013. In the absence of evidence about influence of liquor, O.P. wrongly repudiated his claim. Findings of the District Forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Therefore, the order passed by the State Commission was unreasonable, unsustainable and illegal in the eye of law which deserves to be set aside. He has relied upon the following judgments:

(a) NIA vs. Anees Ahmed, 2009 (1) CLT pages 500;

(b) United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Sheela & Ors., III (2014) CPJ 64 (NC);

(c) Sultan Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2014) 14 SCC 664;

(d) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sheela & Ors., III (2014) CPJ 64 (NC);

(e) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Soma Devi & Ors., II (2012) CPJ 50 (NC);

(f) State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jai Lal & Ors., AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3318;

(g) Haji Mohammad Ekramul Haq. Vs. State of West Bengal AIR 1959 Supreme Court 488;

(h) New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Kumar (2009) 7 SCC 787.

7.      The learned Counsel for the Respondent reiterated the facts of case and raised objections which were already taken in the reply filed before the District Forum and Memo of Appeal filed before the State Commission and argued that the Complainant violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as the driver of the vehicle was under the influence of liquor and the speed of the vehicle was 150 kmph at the time of accident. The said version is also proved from the statements recorded and the MLR of Virender Malik was conducted on the very same date of the accident. He argued in support of the Impugned Order of the State Commission and prayed that the revision petition be dismissed with costs.  He relied Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pearl Beverages Ltd. (2021) 7 SCC 704; and G. Suresh Vs. Chellapandi and Anr., 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 39265;

8.      Admittedly, the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the insurance company, and timely intimation was provided. The driver, Shri Virender Singh, was acquitted in criminal court, emphasizing the prosecution's burden in criminal cases. However, civil litigation relies on preponderance of probability. The key issue is whether the insurance policy terms were violated due to the driver being under the influence of liquor and driving recklessly at 150 kmph. Both were proved from the statement of Complainant himself which was given before the investigator and signed. Therefore, he cannot demand insurance claim as terms and conditions of the insurance policy were violated. 

9.      Based on the discussion above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the impugned Order passed by the learned State Commission is upheld. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.

10.    All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.