IMPORTANT POINT
Damage to vehicle in accident – Onus to prove that driver was in drunken condition always remain upon insurance company and insurance company without proving its onus, cannot be permitted to deny claim of claimant.

ORDER

Inder Singh Mehta, President—Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated 19.04.2022 of learned District Consumer Commission, Chamba, passed in Consumer Complaint Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? No.01/2019, titled Shashi Kumar Mahajan Versus The United India Insurance Company Limited, whereby the complaint was partly allowed and opposite party was directed to pay Rs.5,28,400/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of repudiation of claim till its actual payment. The opposite party was also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs.

Brief facts of Case:

2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that complainant is registered owner of vehicle (Xylo) bearing No. HP-57-5600 and had insured the same with the opposite party/insurance company w.e.f. 05.01.2016 to 04.01.2017. On 01.07.2016, the vehicle in question met with an accident and suffered extensive damage. Intimation of accident was given to the police as well as to the insurance company. A surveyor was appointed by the insurance company, who visited the spot and inspected the vehicle. A sum of Rs.5,70,398/- was incurred on the repair of the vehicle. After completion of necessary formalities, the claim was submitted to the insurance company, but the same was repudiated vide letter dated 19.03.2018 on the flimsy ground that driver of the vehicle was under the influence of liquor. By alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, the complainant has filed the complaint before District Commission.

3. The opposite party/insurance company filed reply and stated that on receiving intimation of accident, surveyor was appointed, who assessed the loss at Rs.5,28,400/- subject to terms & conditions of policy. During investigation, it was observed that driver of the vehicle in question namely Sh. Ravinder Kumar was under the influence of liquor at the time of accident, hence, there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The claim has rightly been repudiated. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the insurance company. A prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.

4. A rejoinder was filed by the complainant thereby denying the contents of reply and reiterating those of the complaint.

5. The parties thereafter led evidence in support of their pleadings.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, Ld. District Commission partly allowed the complaint.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Commission, the appellant/insurance company has preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record, carefully.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company has submitted that at the time of accident, driver of vehicle, in question, was under the influence of liquor, which fact is also proved from MLC report Annexure OP-1. He has submitted that vehicle was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of policy, hence, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the complainant. He has submitted that findings given by District Commission below that insurance company has not filed affidavit of doctor is bad in law and he has relied upon the order of this Commission in case tilted NIC Versus Shri Hira Nand Sharma FA No. 14/2018 dated 16.11.2018 wherein it has been held that MLC has been issued by public servant in discharge of his public duty and could be used for corroborative purpose. He has also relied upon the orders of Hon’ble NCDRC in case titled Dharam Pal Versus UIIC RP No. 921 of 2012 dated 03.12.2012 and The NIAC Ltd. & Ors. Versus Smt. Kiran & Ors. RP No. 792 of 2020 dated 03.06.2024 and prayed that appeal be allowed.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has submitted that the impugned order does not require any interference and prays