IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance Company is not liable to make payment of claim under insurance policy where driver was under influence of liquor at the time of accident.

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 12.09.2006, passed by the Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 71/2006, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Anand Singh Bagadwal, vide which, while partly allowing the appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nainital, dated 18.01.2006, allowing Consumer Complaint No. 48/2005, filed by the present respondent, was modified.

2. The facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent Anand Singh Bagadwal was the owner of a passenger bus, bearing registration no. UP22 7387, which he got insured with the petitioner Insurance Company for an Insured Estimated Value (IEV) of Rs. 3 lakhs, valid from 27.09.1999 to 26.09.2000. The said vehicle met with an accident on 12.10.1999, while carrying the passengers from Bageshwar to Haldwani. The bus was driven by the driver Bhuvan Singh at that time. It is stated that at about 1.30 pm, when the bus reached Devsthal, Hawalbagh, District Almora, the driver could not control the vehicle, as there were pits on the road dug by the Department of Tele-communications. The bus fell down into a ditch, as a result of which, it suffered extensive damage. It is also stated that eight persons lost their lives in the incident and many more got injured. The insured filed a claim for damage to the bus, which was valued at Rs. 6 lakhs. It is stated in the consumer complaint that despite several requests, the Own-Damage claim was not paid to the complainant by the Insurance Company. The complainant filed a petition with Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), bearing petition no. 200/2002, which was decided on 04.12.2004, awarding a compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs to the complainant, alongwith interest @ 5% per annum. The OP Insurance Company challenged the said award by way of an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand, which was allowed and the complainant was directed to avail appropriate remedy in an appropriate forum for which, the delay, if any, was allowed to be condoned. The complainant then filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OP Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs to them as damages for his vehicle, alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till payment, and also to allow the litigation cost.

3. The complaint was resisted by the OP Insurance Company by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that at the time of accident, the driver Bhuvan Singh was under the influence of liquor for which, he was charged by the competent authority under Section 279/337/338/304A of the Indian Penal Code. A magisterial inquiry had also been ordered into the incident by the District Magistrate, Almora. The OP further stated that the value of the vehicle with accessories was Rs. 3 lakhs only. The OP Insurance Company stated that there was no deficiency in service on their part as no right had accrued to the complainant to file the complaint.

4. The District Forum, after taking into account the averments of the parties, vide their order dated 18.01.2006, partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. Being aggrieved against the said order, the Insurance Company challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission, which was decided vide impugned order dated 12.09.2006. The appeal was partly allowed and the order passed by the District Forum was modified to say that the complainant was entitled for payment of Rs. 2,20,000/- as compensation after deducting the value of the salvage at Rs. 80,000/- as stated by the surveyor. It may be mentioned here that the surveyor, vide his report dated 26.10.1999, assessed the l