ORDER :- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. Respondent No. 3 filed complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking a direction against the petitioner, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd through Sri Nikhil Verma Manager for disbursing an amount of Rs. 2,11,906/- towards the cost of repair of the car of the respondent, which met with an accident on 28-12-2007. Complainant, respondent No.3 also moved an application for interim injunction for getting the vehicle in question repaired during the pendency of the proceedings. 3. The Insurance Company put in appearance before the Court below and filed his detailed objections interalia that the driver of the vehicle, who was examined in the Safdarganj Hospital after the accident, was under influence of alcohol much beyond the permissible limit of 30 m.g. per 100 mililitre in his blood. 4. The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Meerut by the impugned order dated 17-4-2008 issued the direction to the petitioner to get the vehicle repaired within a period of one month. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner filed a revision No. 55 of 2008 before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission U.P. at Lucknow, which has been dismissed on 14-5-2008 upholding the decision of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Meerut. 5. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are three pronged :- (1). The Courts below have allowed a relief at the interim stage, which is under the nature of final relief, which could not have been granted. (2). Under Section 1(4) (c) the term of the policy taken by the Insurance company was not liable to make any payment. Such Clause (c) of Section 1 provides that "the company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of :- 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". AND (3). The Court has not recorded its subject satisfaction on deficiency of service on the part of the Insurance Company or with regard to prima facie case balance of convenience and irreparable loss. 6. The petitioner counsel has relied upon para 19 of the Writ Petition and the medical report in support of his submissions. 7. AND (3). The Court has not recorded its subject satisfaction on deficiency of service on the part of the Insurance Company or with regard to prima facie case balance of convenience and irreparable loss. 6. The petitioner counsel has relied upon para 19 of the Writ Petition and the medical report in support of his submissions. 7. A perusal of medical report appended as annexure No. 5 to the Writ Petition shows that Pradeep Singh s/o Ram Avtar Singh aged about 23 years was examined by Alcohol Meter in which the contents have been found to be "(B) 01726-161 mg/100ml." 8. No other point has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not able to place any material before the Court to establish as to whether Pradeep Singh s/o Ram Avtar who was examined at the hospital after the accident was in fact driving the car at the time of accident? whether he was given any medical treatment, which might have been increased the alcohol contents in his blood. 10. From Clause-C quoted in paragraph 19 of the Writ Petition relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. It is clear that for denial of claim for payment to the insurance company has to establish beyond doubt that either the insured or any other person, who was driving the vehicle with his consent under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs at the time of accident. However there is no material before this Court from which it can be deduced that Sri Pradeep Singh s/o Ram Avtar Singh was driving the car at the time of accident and no other person and that it was being driven by the person in a state of intoxication or influence of drugs with the consent of insured who are other persons with him travelling in the car is also not known. It is further not brought out from the record as to any of the other person was driving the car at the relevant point of time for the reason that Pradeep Singh who was medically examined and it was concluded that he was not in a fit state of physical alertness to drive the car. It is further not brought out from the record as to any of the other person was driving the car at the relevant point of time for the reason that Pradeep Singh who was medically examined and it was concluded that he was not in a fit state of physical alertness to drive the car. These questions require adjudication on basis of oral and documentary evidence may be adduced by the parties before Courts below before question of grant of insurance money is decided. 12. This Court for the aforesaid reasons therefore, cannot come to any conclusion at this stage as to whether the insured is liable to get the whole of the insurance amount or the insurance company i.e., the petitioner is not liable to payment in respect thereof. 13. In the admitted set of facts that the car is extensively damaged and the Courts below by the impugned orders has issued interim injunction for repairing of the vehicle by the Insurance Company. 14. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no defect in service and the fact whether there was breach of the terms of the Insurance policy would be adjudicated upon before any relief can be granted to the respondent No. 3 are questions for determination on the final hearing of the case. 15. For the reason stated above prima facie only from a perusal of the medical report, breach of policy is not apparent. As long as the Adjudication Authority does not record a categorical finding on the said counts, interim relief in the impugned order cannot be denied for the reason that it is always subject to final relief. The vehicle cannot be allowed to show in the garage which damage is to be paid with passage of time. In case the petitioner succeeds in his defence he can always show the amount with interest in accordance with law. 16. In view of above, the Writ Petition is disposed of with following directions to the petitioner Insurance Company to deposit the sum of Rs. 2,11906/- and any damages which are payable to the garage upto date before District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Meerut within two weeks from today which will remain in dispute with the Forum till the final adjudication by it. AND the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Meerut will decide the case within two months from today. 2,11906/- and any damages which are payable to the garage upto date before District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Meerut within two weeks from today which will remain in dispute with the Forum till the final adjudication by it. AND the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Meerut will decide the case within two months from today. 17. For the aforesaid purpose any of the parties may file a copy of this order before the Forum within 10 days from today. On receipt of the order District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Meerut will fix a date in near future for evidence of the parties and thereafter decide the case within two months as directed above. 18. The amount deposited above shall be paid to the successful party within three weeks of the decision by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Meerut. 19. The parties to bear the own cost. Order accordingly.