State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Oic Ltd. vs Smt. Shakuntla Devi & Ors. on 4 September, 2008
H
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, SHIMLA
Appeal No. 560/2007
Date of Decision 04.09.2008.
The
Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., through its
Branch
Manager Mandi, Distt. Mandi, HP.
..Appellant.
Versus
1.
Smt. Shakuntla Devi W/o Sh. Mani Ram,
2.
Kumari Nitu D/o Sh. Mani
Ram,
3.
Kumari Promila D/o Sh. Mani
Ram,
4.
Mukesh Kumar S/o Sh. Mani
Ram
5.
Smt. Goverdhanu Devi W/o Sh.
Tarehru Ram
aged 55 years Chachiot, Distt. Mandi, HP.
All R/o Vill. Durgain, PO Kot Tehsil Chachiot, Distt. Mandi
HP,
6.
The HP State Co operative Bank Ltd., through its
Branch Manager Gohar
Distt. Mandi, HP.
.Respondents.
Honble Mr.
Justice Arun Kumar Goel, President.
Honble
Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.
Whether Approved
for reporting? No.
For the Appellant. Mr.
Narinder Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar,
Advocate.
For
the Respondent No. 6 Mr. G.S. Rathour,
Advocate.
O R D E R:
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President (Oral) This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.10.2007 in Complaint Case No. 230/2007 passed by District Forum, Mandi.
While allowing the complaint, appellant has been directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the respondents in the ratio of 2:1:1:1:1. The shares of the minors have been ordered to be invested in fixed deposit co-terminus with the age of their majority. Interest has been allowed @ 9% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of institution i.e. 7.9.2007, alongwith cost assessed at Rs. 2,000/-. Hence this appeal.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record of the complaint file. By referring to Annexure R-II Mr. Sharma learned counsel for the appellant pointed out, that the policy in this case was Kisan Credit Card (KCC) Holder Insurance Policy whereby his client had covered the risk in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- only.
Therefore according to him, even if his complaint is to be allowed, still the impugned order deserves to be modified and he prayed for accordingly. Though he maintained that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground, that deceased was intoxicated and in this behalf he referred to the report of Sh. Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate Mandi, Annexure OP-1 which is at page 40 of the complaint file.
3. Both these pleas have been contested and resisted on behalf of the respondents by their learned counsel.
4. So far submission of Mr. Sharma, that the risk covered in terms of Annexure R-I was only to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- is concerned, it has substance. In this behalf we may observe that Annexure R-II speaks of total sum insured per KCC holder is Rs. 50,000/-. Similarly in the master policy attached in respect of the KCC holders, shows that name of Sh. Mani Ram S/o Sh. Thrahru figures at Sr. No. 17 and in the master policy on personal accident insurance to KCC holders liability in case of death due to accident (within 12 months of the accident) caused by outward, violent and visible means is confined to Rs. 50,000/- only. In this very policy there is exclusion clause wherein exclusions are mentioned. Appellant is not liable for payment of any amount if the death, injury or disablement of the assured was while he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug.
5. In our opinion consumption of alcohol always cannot be termed as an intoxicated state. It will be dependent upon situation to situation keeping in view the quantity of alcohol consumed. In this behalf we refer to a decision of this Commission in the case of Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., II (2007) CPJ 118. Wherein after placing reliance on the decision of the National Commission, and also after referring to Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by HWV Cax, 7th Addition, its Table 7.5.1, it was held that it is the insurance company who is liable to indemnify the Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (HRTC). According to us this case squarely covers the present appeal. Besides this death in this case is due to fall while the deceased was going on a Pagdandi (village narrow path). Death was not due to the deceased being intoxicated nor he himself caused the death. As such to say that the fall was due to his being under the influence of intoxication would not be correct as was being emphasized by learned counsel for the appellant.
6. Another reason to take this view is that the visera report is not on the file and the post-mortem examination conducted by the doctor clearly speaks that final opinion can be given after receipt of visera report. We specifically asked learned counsel for the appellant as to why the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory was not produced on record, which is per-se admissible under the law, he had no answer, save and except by referring to the certificate of the Advocate, referred to hereinabove. We cannot accept this stand. Reason being that when the law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, a party like appellant cannot be allowed to give a go-bye to it. No decision to the contrary referred to in the preceding para has been brought to our notice either of the Honble Supreme Court or of National Commission.
7. No other point is urged.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, while partly allowing this appeal it is ordered, that respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are entitled to Rs. 50,000- with interest at the rate and from the date as ordered by the District Forum below and the impugned order in Complaint No. 230/2007, dated 23.10.2007 stands modified to this extent. Respondents are also held entitled costs as assessed by the District Forum below. Subject to this modification this appeal stands disposed of in these terms.
All interim orders passed from time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith.
Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the copy of this order from the Reader free of cost as per rules.
Shimla.
4th September, 2008. (Justice Arun Kumar Goel) Retd.
President.
(Saroj Sharma), d.kZ* Member.