Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, VINEET SARAN, JJ.
Narbada Devi And Others – Appellant
Versus
H.P. State Forest Corporation And Another – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6379 of 2010
Decided on : 22-03-2021
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 – Section 3 – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 23 – Insurance – Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy – Repudiation of death claim – National Commission observed that State Commission had rightly held that deceased’s death was not accidental and Insurance Company had no statutory liability to compensate loss of life of deceased as per terms of Insurance Policy – Only if insured sustains any bodily injury resulting solely and directly from accident caused by outward, violent and visible means, Insurance Company would be liable to indemnify insured – As per Insurance Policy, only accidental death of insured shall be indemnified – Post-Mortem Report clearly indicates that there were no injuries found on body of deceased – Probable cause of death as per Final Opinion in Post-Mortem Report is asphyxiation caused by alcohol consumption and regurgitation of food into larynx – National Commission and State Commission rightly held that deceased’s death was not accidental, and that Insurance Company would not be liable to settle Appellants’ claim – Respondent No.1HPSFC was only acting as a mediator for depositing premium of employees with Insurance Company and had no liability as such under Insurance Policy – Liability of Respondent No.1HPSFC, if any, would be under 1923 Act, proceedings under which have already been settled by Commissioner – There is nothing on record to show that deceased was given to believe that Insurance Policy covered natural death as well – Insured is not entitled to compensation since on facts it is proved that he was intoxicated and that death was due to intoxication – Impugned Order passed by National Commission – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 7, 10.2, 12, 13, 15, 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal arises out of order and judgement of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, dated 24.04.2009, allowing Revision Petition filed by Respondent No.1 herein, Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation (HPSFC), against order dated 9.10.2006 passed by Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla in Appeal.
Findings of Court:
Respondent No.1HPSFC was only acting as a mediator for depositing the premium of employees with Insurance Company and had no liability as such under Insurance Policy. The liability of Respondent No.1HPSFC, if any, would be under the 1923 Act, proceedings under which have already been settled by the Commissioner, as recorded in impugned order.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
1. This appeal arises out of order and judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter 'National Commission') dated 24.04.2009 (hereinafter 'Impugned Order'), allowing Revision Petition No. 331 of 2007 filed by the Respondent No. 1 herein, Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation (hereinafter 'HPSFC'), against the order dated 9.10.2006 passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (hereinafter 'State Commission') in Appeal No. 281/2004.
2. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows: Om Prakash (hereinafter 'deceased') was an employee of Respondent No.1-HPSFC posted as a Chowkidar (daily wages) at their Divisional Office, Chopal. On the night of 7.10.1997, the deceased was coming from Banal Depot to Thundal along with one Chandermohan, the forest guard. On the said night, there was heavy rain and storm, therefore, the deceased might have been trapped in it. On the morning of 8.10.1997, on the way to Village Thundal, the deceased was found in a hapless condition around 9:00 AM, smelling of alcohol. When the Chowkidar, Mohan Singh, saw the deceased, he called the Forest Sub-Inspector, and the deceased was removed to the quarter of Chandermohan. Over there, he was given hot water bath and massaged. However, he subsequently died at about 1:00 PM on 8.10.1997. Thereafter, the forest guard, Chandermohan reached Chopal and lodged FIR on 9.10.1997 at about 2:30 P.M. The Assistant Manager of Respondent No. 1-HPSFC issued a certificate to the effect that the deceased had died on duty while he was working as a daily-rated Chowkidar.
3. The Post-Mortem Report dated 10.10.1997 stated that no injury was seen on any part of the body of the deceased. Further, that the cause of death was probably asphyxia resulting from regurgitation of food articles into larynx and trachea after consumption of alcohol amounting to about 34.5 mg per 100 ml of urine, which was calculated as per the chemical examiner's report. Expert opinion dated 6.07.1998 was obtained from one Dr. D.J. Das Gupta, M.D. & Former Professor & Head of Department of Medicine and Principal, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, which stated that the cause of death is due to alcohol ingestion and regurgitation of food into larynx. Medical opinion was also obtained from one Dr. D.S. Puri, M.D. & former Professor & Head of Department of Medicine, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla. As per his opinion dated 17.08.2002, "this level of alcohol in blood and urine is sufficient to cause deep sleep".
4. Under the Janta Personal Accident Insurance Scheme (hereinafter 'Insurance Scheme'), Respondent No.1-HPSFC had taken the Janta Personal Accident Insurance Policy dated 24.05.1996 (hereinafter 'Insurance Policy') for its 3008 employees from Respondent No.2-The New India Assurance Company Limited (hereinafter 'Insurance Company'). Under the Insurance Scheme, there was an insurance coverage of Rs. 1 lakh for all employees who were willing to opt for the said Scheme. Respondent No.1-HPSFC had been depositing premium for its employees, including the deceased, under the Insurance Policy, which was effective during the period from 22.01.1997 to 21.01.1998. Consequently, the legal heirs of the deceased, i.e., the Appellants herein laid a claim before the Respondent No. 2-Insurance Company under the Insurance Policy; however, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim vide letter dated 17.07.1998 and hence, the claim was not settled.
5. Aggrieved by the Insurance Company's repudiation of their claim, the Appellants herein filed a consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ('Consumer Protection Act') before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla ('District Forum'), alleging deficiency in service on part of the Insurance Company and claiming insurance amount of Rs. 2 lakhs along with interest and cost. By order dated 13.09.2004, the District
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
