Haryana

Ambala

CC/340/2012

IQBAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD - Opp.Party(s)

SUDHIR SEHGAL

11 Apr 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 340 of 2012

                                                          Date of Institution         : 29.11.2012                                                    

                                                          Date of  decision   : 11.04.2017

 

          Iqbal Singh son of late Sh. Surjeet singh resident of Village Dadiana PO            Kakru Tehsil & District, Ambala

 

……. Complainant.

 

1.       Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Himalya House, fifth floor,, 38-B,    J.L. Nehra Road ,Kolkata, through its Manager.

2.       The Manager Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd; SCO No. 88,     Vishal Complex, Prem Nagar, Ambala City.

3.       The Manager, GTFS, Training Service Ltd; Registered office S.B. Mansion,       16-R.N. Mukherajeet Road, Kalkata-700001.

 

….…. Respondents.

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                          

 

Present:       Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. Mohinder Bindal, counsel for Ops No. 1&2.

                   OP No. 3 already exparte.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the father of the complainant Surjeet Singh was posted as a field worker Junior Rank, coordinator with OP No. 3 having policy got himself issued with OP vide policy Number 15033312914000146 and their code number was 015598909 dated 10.10.2011 and the after of the complainant as fully insured with Op No. 1 & 2 from 16.11.11 to 15.11.12 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and paid the premium as such the father of the complainant was consumer of the Ops and can approach.  Further submitted that the father of the complainant had expired in a road side accident on 18.12.2011 and the complainant is nominee of the deceased being legal heir of the deceased and after the death of Surjeet Singh the complainant submitted his claim on 17.01.2012 and OP No. 3 demanded certain documents from OP NO. 1 vide letter No. GTFSMEL/CLAIMS/RPA/AD/0488 dated 31.01.2012 and the Officials of OP No. 1 and 2 came to the complainant and collected all relevant documents and assured that the claim will be settled shortly but till date no claim has been passed due to the death of father of the complainant. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written statement submitting that  the present complaint is ex-facie misconceived, vexatious, untenable and devoid of any merits. As a matter of fact the claim of the complainant was duly entertained in due course but since the insured deceased Sh. Surjeet Singh died while driving the car No. HR-01-W-7400 under the influence of liquor at the time of accident in question and this fact was duly proved as per report of Chemical Examiner for the Haryana Govt. Karnal and thus the said personal accident claim was found to be against terms and conditions of the insurance policy hence the claim of the complainant was held non payable and was repudiated as per law.

3                 To prove his version complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-X alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to annexure C-10 and closed his evidence. Counsel for OPs has also tendered affidavit as Annexure R-X alongwith documents Annexure R-1 and Annexure R-2 and closed his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file. The forth moot question is involved in this case, whether the deceased was under the influence of liquor and what was effect in this case? It reveals from the file Annexure R-1 i.e. report of Assistant Chemical Examiner for the Haryana, Karnal clearly shows that the deceased Surjit Singh who was driver of the Insured vehicle at the time of accident was under the influence of liquor with the quantity of 34.5 which is exceeds the parameter of prescribed limit. Moreover, as per terms and conditions of insurance policy placed on file in the exception clause 6, which is as under: -

                   “Payment of compensation in respect of death, injury or disablement of the insured person (a) from intentional self-injury, suicide or attempted suicides, (b) Whilst under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, (c) whilst engaging in aviation or ballooning whilst mounting into, dismounting from or travelling in any aircraft or balloon other than as a passenger (fare paying or otherwise) in any duly licensed standard type of aircraft anywhere in the world (d) directly or indirectly caused by venereal diseases AIDS or insanity (e) arising or resulting from the insured committing any breach of law with or without criminal intent. Standard type of aircraft means nay aircraft duly licensed to carry passenger (for hire or otherwise) by an appropriate authority respective of whether such an aircraft is privately owned or chartered or operated by a regular airline or whether such an accident has a single engine or multiengine”.

                   To strengthened his case, counsel for OP has placed reliance on case law settled by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi 2016(4)CLT 509 in which as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g)- Insurance Claim- Terms and conditions of insurance – held-that when the insured or any other person driving the vehicle is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug, the company is not liable to make payment for any accidental loss or damage.

5                 In view of above said discussion, it is very much clear that the driver Surjit Singh (father of the complainant) was under the influence of liquor with excess limit while driving the insured vehicle at the time of accident. Thus, the driver was driving the car in-contravention of Motor Vehicle Act and insurance policy. In this way, OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. We are of considered view that there is no deficiency proved on the part of OP’s. Hence, there is no substance in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :11.04.2017                                       

                                                                                                   Sd/-

                                                                                            (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                                 President

 

                                Sd/-

                   (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                                          Member