V.K. Jain ORDER
V.K. Jain, J. (Presiding Member)
1. The complainant/respondent owned a vehicle which he had got insured with the petitioner company. The vehicle having met with an accident, on 04.12.2010, the intimation of the accident was sent to the petitioner company on 04.02.2011. The complainant thereafter, lodged a claim for re-imbursement in respect of the loss suffered by him on account of damage to the vehicle. The claim however, was repudiated vide letter dated 14.03.2011 which to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:
"With reference to the above mentioned claim, we observe from the claim papers that the driver of the vehicle was under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time of accident, for which company is not liable under section 1(c) of the policy.
Also there has been a delay in intimating the loss to the company by 62 days thereby violating the condition no. 1 of the policy.
Condition No. 1 reads as follows:-
'Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any accidental or loss or damage............
Hence, we regret our inability to entertain the claim."
2. Being aggrieved from the repudiation of the claim, the complainant/respondent approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.
3. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner primarily on the ground on which the claim had been repudiated.
4. The District Forum having dismissed the complaint, the complainant/respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The State Commission having allowed the appeal and having directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,75,285/- to the complainant, alongwith compensation quantified at Rs. 5,000/- and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs. 2,000/-, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
5. Condition no. 1(c) of the insurance policy, reads as under:
"(c) any accidental loss or damage suffered whilst the insured or any person driving the private car with the knowledge and consent of the insured is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs."
It would thus be seen that if a person driving a private car with the knowledge and consent of the insured, is under influence of liquor or drugs at the time an accidental loss or damage is suffered by the vehicle, the insurance company is not liable to reimburse the said loss. Admittedly, the vehicle was being driven by one Mr. Dadubhai Maldebhai Ravaliya, at the time it met with an accident. The report from Director of Forensic Medicine, Gujarat State would show 0.0377 gram percent W/V of Ethyl Alcohol was found in his blood.
6. The next question which arises for consideration is as to whether on account of the above referred quantity of alcohol having found in the blood of the driver, he can be said to be under influence of intoxicating liquor or not. This issue came up for consideration of this Commission in Lakshmi Rohit Ahuja v. SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., RP No. 3249 of 2015, decided on 28.04.2016 and the following view was taken:
7. As per the FIR, the vehicle was being driven by the deceased at the time it met with an accident. As per the chemical analysis report in respect of the viscera of the stomach and intestine of the deceased, there was 120 ml of Ethyl alcohol per 100 gm in the blood of the deceased. Hence the question which arises for consideration is as to whether a person having 120 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of his blood can be said to be under influence of intoxicating liquor. This question came up for consideration of this Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 401 of 2014 Baby Apoorva Rai v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Decided on 03.9.2015 and the following view was taken:
8. There is no direct evidence of the deceased being under influence of intoxicating liquor at the time he got drowned in the swimming pool. The only evidence relied upon the insurance company to substantiate the plea that he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time he died, is the report of the laboratory reporting ........