State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Life Insurance Corporation Of India, vs N.A. Achuthan on 6 January, 2011
Daily Order
First Appeal No. 426/2005 (Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. of District ) The Divisional manager,LIC of India Vs. N.A.Achuthan BEFORE: HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT PRESENT: Dated : 06 Jan 2011 ORDER Disposed Off
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL No. 426/2005
JUDGMENT DATED: 06-01-2011
PRESENT:
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
APPELLANT
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Wadakkacherry P.O., Wadakkancherry.
Rep. by the Manager (H & HPF), LIC of India,
Divisional Office, Ernakulam, Kochi-682 001.
(Rep. by Adv. M/s Easwar & Mani)
Vs
RESPONDENT
N.A. Achuthan,
"Sreechitra",
Ambalapuram, P.O. Peringandoor,
Thrissur.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. V. Chitambaresh & others)
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties/LIC of India in OP No. 471/2004 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the complainant as accident benefit under the three LIC Policies with interest at 12% per annum from the date of claim and cost of Rs. 800/-.
2. The case of the complainant is that the deceased, son of the complainant by name Anil Kumar had 3 LIC policies with accident benefit coverage of the opposite parties. The policies are under Double Benefit Scheme. The petitioner's son met with a road traffic accident on 09-11-2001 and died. He was riding a motorcycle, which was hit, by a bus. A criminal case was charged against the driver of the bus u/ss 273, 304 A IPC. The claim was rejected with respect to the total accident benefit on the ground that the chemical analysis report disclosed that he had consumed alcohol. It is contended that the accident was not the result of negligence on the part of the deceased and has sought for the above amounts.
3. The opposite parties/appellants have contented that the policies specifically excluded the accident benefit if death is caused by intoxicating liquor, drugs or narcotics. A sum of Rs. 3,43,071/- was given being the sum assured plus bonus but rejected the accident benefit of Rs. 1,00,000/- each.
4. Evidence adduced consisted of Exts. P1 and R1 to R12.
5. The Forum has held that the death in the instant case was not the result of consumption of liquor as there is no evidence that the deceased was responsible for the accident or that the deceased was driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligence manner and directed the appellant to pay the accident benefit claims as well.
6. We find that as per Ext.R9 chemical analysis report of the vicera of the deceased the blood alcohol concentration is noted as 52mg/100 ml of blood. As contended as per Section 185 of the MV Act driving a motor vehicle while the person has in his blood alcohol exceeding 30 mg/100 ml of blood detected in a test of breath analyzer is punishable. The relevant Clause in the policies provides that the Corporation shall not be liable to pay the additional sum if the death shall: (i) be caused :- or whilst the life assured is under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Of course, it is evident from the documents produced that the driver of the bus has been made the accused vide Ext.P1 charge sheet. Further, no evidence has been adduced to indicate that the deceased was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner or that he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The Counsel for the appellant has contended relying on Ext.R10 letter of Dr. Alexander Thomas of Providence Diagnostic Center wherein 50mg of alcohol is mentioned as sufficient for mild incardination for non-habituated persons. On the other hand, the Counsel for the complainant/respondent has relied on the extract produced by the appellant titled Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) levels and effects wherein it is mentioned that alcohol may be produced in a putrefying body or during storage or autopsy by fermentation of proteins and carbohydrates in the blood through the action of bacteria and enzymes. It is seen from the documents produced that the accident took place on 09-11-2001 at 8.20 pm and the postmortem was conducted on 10-11-2001 at 1.01 hours (noon). No expert evidence was adduced to establish as to after how much of time the alcohol in the dead body will be produced by the action of bacteria and enzymes. It is the contention that 52 mg as per the chemical analysis report can be the result of fermentation of proteins and carbohydrates in the blood. In the same extract it is mentioned that the legal limit for driving is 50 mg% in India. Whatever be the same, we find that the relevant Clause in the policies only mentions that if the death of the assured is caused when he is under the influence of intoxicating liquor, the appellant is not liable to pay the additional benefit. Evidently, the deceased was having in the blood the quantity of alcohol far exceeding the limit prescribed by Section 185 of the MV Act and that he was committing an offence. All the same, it has also to be stated that it stands not established that he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor as to be under the influence of intoxicating liquor he has to be totally inebriated. The particular Clause in the policy did not specify that the death should be caused on account of the action of the assured due to the influence of intoxicating liquor. In the circumstances, we find that it would not be just to order the opposite party to pay the entire accident claim benefit. Hence the order of the Forum is modified as follows:
The opposite parties/appellants are directed to pay 50% of the amounts of accident benefit ie, Rs. 1,50,000/- altogether. The complainant will also be entitled for interest at 6% per annum from the date of the order of the Forum ie, 23-03-2005. The amounts are to be paid within three months from the date or receipt of this order, failing which complainant would be entitled for interest at 12% per annum from 06-01-2011, the date of this judgment.
The office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with a copy of this order.
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT M.K. ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER Sr. [HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU] PRESIDENT