DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 266 of 9.11.2015
Decided on: 19.4.2017
Gurmeet Singh aged about 56 years son of Pritam Singh, resident of House No.651, street No.16, Old Bishan Nagar, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
United India Insurance Company, Sai Market, Opposite Polo Ground, Patiala through its Branch Manager.
…………Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.S.S.Sahni,Advocate,counsel for complainant.
Sh.D.P.S.Anand,Advocate, counsel for Opposite party.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Gurmeet Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.) praying for the following reliefs:
- To pay a sum of Rs.2,28,000/- the sum insured of the car in question
- To pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony, financial loss and physical harassment
- To pay Rs.50,000/- as costs of complaint and litigation expenses
- To pay 18% interest on the above said amounts
- To grant any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he got his car bearing registration No.PB-11-AT-0284 comprehensively insured from the OP vide Comprehensive Package Policy No.1110003112P300455166 for the period from 14.9.2013 to 13.9.2014 and paid Rs.6299/- as premium to the OP. The insured value of the said car was Rs.2,28,000/-.On 28.6.2014, Prabhjit Singh, relative of the complainant took the car for going to Kasauli. Unfortunately on 28.6.2014, while coming back from Barog to Patiala, when reached near Kumar Hatti at about 7.45 PM, Prabhjit Singh, who was driving the car, lost his control over the car, and the car fell into the gorge about 500 meter below the road. Prabhjit Singh(driver) and his occupants Sarvshri Surinder Singh, Amarjit Singh and Baljit Singh sustained grievous injuries. Prabhjit Singh and Surinder Singh succumbed to the injuries and were declared dead while Baljit Singh survived. In the said accident, his car was totally damaged. He lodged the claim with the OP and filled up the necessary claim form and submitted the required documents. The OP vide its letter dated 14.10.2014 has repudiated the claim on the ground that ‘driver has been analyzed to have consumed liquor beyond permissible limits and since the same is exception, no claim can be awarded’. The repudiation of the claim by the OP is without any basis and amounts to deficiency in service. Due to non settlement of his genuine claim, he is suffering from huge financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment.
3. On being put to notice, the Op who appeared and filed the written version taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable. On merits it is admitted that the above said car was insured with it for the period from 14.9.2013 to 13.9.2014, in a sum of Rs.2,28,000/-.It is denied that on 28.6.2014 Sh.Prabhjit Singh (since deceased) took the car from the complainant for having gone to Kasuali. It is also denied that the car was met with an accident on 28.6.2014 at about 7.45PM near Barog and police station Dagshai. It is denied that FIR no.96 dated 28.6.2014 was registered under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC.It is stated that on 17.7.2014 on receipt of the intimation of loss , it deputed Sh.Vinod Bhardwaj approved IRDA surveyor and loss assessor r/o Solan for spot survey and Sh.R.K.Bansal approved IRDA Surveyor and Loss Assessor R/o Patiala was deputed for final survey. Sh.R.K.Bansal, surveyor and loss assessor in his report dated 11.8.2014 assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,98,000/- on net salvage basis with RC. It is further stated that M/s Bee Vee Investigation Agency, Patiala was also deputed to investigate the matter. Its Investigator contacted Sh.Harsimran Singh, son of the insured, who explained that on 28.6.2014 at 8.15 p.m., he received a call from the brother of deceased Sh.Prabhjeet Singh that the car has met with an accident between Barog and Kumar Hatti and the police authorities had registered FIR no.96 dated 28.6.2014.The post-mortem on the dead bodies of Sh.Prabhjeet Singh, Sh.Amarjeet Singh and Sh.Surinder Singh was also got conducted. The blood reports of the dead persons were supplied on 9.9.2014.The Investigator during investigation found from Dr.V.S.Jamwal (Assistant Director) Chemistry & Toxicology Division, State Forensic Science Laboratory HP Junga who vide report No.1403 , SFSL Chem.(682)/14 of dated 15.7.2014 had stated that contents of parcel were subjected to Chemical Analysis in which Ethyl Alcohol was deducted in the contents of the parcel P/1, P/2 and P/3 and the quantity of Alcohol found was as under:
P/1(blood of deceased Surinder Singh) = 322.50 mg%
P/2(blood of deceased Amarjeet Singh)= 117.84 mg%
P/3 (blood of deceased Prabhjeet Singh) = 113.67 mg%
The investigator opined that the driver of the vehicle was driving the car under the influence of alcohol , more than the permissible limits of 30 mg% , which amounts to violation of terms and conditions of the policy and thus the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the Op vide its letter dated 14.10.2014.After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. In support of the case, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA the sworn affidavit of the complainant, Ex.CB, the sworn affidavit of Baljit Singh, along with documents Exs.C1 to C8 and closed the evidence.
On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the Op, tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, sworn affidavit of Smt.Kanta Devi, Ex.OPB, the sworn affidavit of Sh.H.S.Bedi,Investigator, Ex.OPC, the sworn affidavit of Sh.R.K.Bansal, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP16 and closed the evidence .
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant had got his car comprehensively insured from the OP, for the period from 14.9.2013 to 13.9.2014. On 28.6.2014, when the said car was driven by one Prabhjit Singh, relative of the complainant, unfortunately, it met with an accident. Accordingly, he lodged the claim with the OP but it vide its letter dated 14.10.2014 has repudiated his genuine claim illegally.
7. On the contrary, the ld. counsel for the OP vehemently argued that at the time of accident of the car, the driver of the car was under the influence of liquor. As per clause No. 2( c ) of the policy, the OP was not to indemnify the complainant and it has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.
8. As per section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988, the permissible limit while driving the vehicle of alcohol in 100 ml of blood is 30 mg. From the report Ex.OP9 given by State Forensic Science Laboratory Himachal Pradesh, Junga-171218, after examining the blood of deceased Prabhjeet Singh, it is evident that he had 113.67 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood. Thus, from the said report, it is clear that late Prabhjeet Singh, when met with an accident was under the influence of liquor. As per term No.2 of the insurance policy, Ex.OP16, which reads as under:
The company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of:-
(a) ….........................
(b) …........................
( c ) any accidental loss or damage suffered whilst the insured or any person driving the vehicle with the knowledge and consent of the insured is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs”.
the OP is thus not liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss suffered by him and has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant, as such it cannot be said to be deficient in providing the service. Our view is supported by the case titled as Baby Apporva Rai Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. & others. 2015(3)CLT 18,(NC) in which the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had held that: “if a person is found to have consumed more than 103.14 mg of alcohol/100 ml of his blood, which is position in the case before us, it would be reasonable to say that he was under the influence of the intoxicating liquor at the time he died or got injured”.
9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:19.4.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
