Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 445 (CHH)

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. RAINI SAI

2006-09-29

R.S.AWASTHI, V.K.AGARWAL, VEENA MISRA

body2006
ORDER R.S. Awasthi, Member:- 1. This is an appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘the act’) directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Durg (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for brevity) on 12/06/2006 in complaint no. 07/06. 2. District forum allowing the complaint has directed the OP to pay RS.5,00,000/- a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.500/- as cost of the complaint to the Complainant. 3. Facts not in dispute are that the complainant's husband one Rajendra Jangade had obtained a Janta Personal Accident Policy from the OP/Appellant through the Steel Workers Union for the period from 9/01/1999 to 8/01/2011. The policyholder Rajendra met with an accident while driving a motor cycle and expired on 17/11104. 4. Claim lodged with the OP/Appellant was repudiated on the ground that the policy in question was cancelled after due Intimation to the INTUC through whom it was issued and thus, it ceased to exist on the date of death of the Insured. It was also stated that the deceased insured was intoxicated at the time of accident and in view of the exclusion clause under sub clause 4 was disentitled from claiming the assured amount. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant assailed that impugned order on the ground that the policy in question did not exist on the date of the accident and therefore, the appellant was not liable for payment of any claim. 6. It was also submitted that the deceased was intoxicated at the time of the accident. Thus, there was a breach of the terms of the policy and hence no claim could be made out by the complainant. 7. Reference was made to the medical records relating to the treatment, Post Mortem Examination Report, and other relevant documents. 8. It was submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant that the District Forum has rightly held that the alleged cancellation of the policy did not affect the rights of the complainant. It was also submitted that there is nothing on record to hold that the insured deceased was under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident. 9. First Question for consideration is whether the policy in question ceased to exist as a result of cancellation, as claimed by the appellant, on the date when the cause of action arose. 10. 9. First Question for consideration is whether the policy in question ceased to exist as a result of cancellation, as claimed by the appellant, on the date when the cause of action arose. 10. The District Forum has elaborately discussed issue in the impugned order and In view of several orders referred to in the impugned order further discussion does not appear necessary. Therefore, In our opinion, the policy in question was very much effective on the date of accident. 11. As per the terms of policy, any act against common criminal law or under the influence of intoxication is excluded from the purview of the claim arising under said policy. It was submitted by the learned counsel for appellant that the deceased insured was intoxicated at the time of accident. Therefore, he is disentitled from claiming benefit under the policy. We have gone carefully through the discharge summary date 17.11.04 of the Medical Department of Bhilai Steel Plant hospital. The remarks in the said discharge summary mention ‘Alcohol smell’ on 17.11.04. Although, it was stated by the learned counsel for appellant that the deceased was intoxicated at the time of accident but we do not find any material to support the said contention. Mere smell of alcohol in breath does not necessarily lead to the inference of the deceased being intoxicated at the time of accident. Therefore, in our opinion, the impugned order is just and proper and the conclusions drawn are justified on the basis of material on record. 12. Thus, this appeal fails for want of merit. The impugned order is affirmed. The appellant shall bear its own cost of the appeal and also pay Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. two thousand) to the respondent. Appeal Rejected.