Insufficient evidence of intoxication leads to dismissal of insurance claim repudiation.

1. This appeal has been preferred under S.15 of the Consumer Protection Act ,1986 (hereinafter called as the Act) against order dated 29.5.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kinnaur at Rekong Peo, whereby complaint filed by the complainant under S.12 of the Act was partly allowed and the Opposite Party was directed to make payment of Rs.3,37,938 along with interest @ of 9% p.a. from the date of filing complaint till payment. The Opposite Party was further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000 towards mental harassment etc. and Rs.5,000 as litigation charges.

2. It would be apposite to mention here that the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum.

3. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant is registered owner of vehicle No. HP - 25B - 1299, which was insured with the opposite party for the period from 18.4.2013 to 17.4.2014. The said vehicle met with an accident on 11.8.2013 at 11.30 p.m. at HHC Power House, Kasang, District Kinnaur, H.P. The matter was reported to the police, upon which FIR was registered in P.S, Reckong Peo. Intimation about this accident was also given to the opposite party. In this accident the vehicle of the complainant was extensively damaged and the driver of the vehicle had also received fatal injuries and died on the spot. The opposite party appointed surveyor, who assessed the loss at Rs.3,39,438. After completion of all codal formalities, the complainant submitted his claim to the opposite party but the opposite party wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that at the time of the accident the vehicle in question was being driven by the driver under the influence of liquor.

4. The opposite party resisted and contested the claim of the complainant by filing its written version, in which various preliminary objections against the maintainability of the complaint have been taken. On merits, the opposite party has not disputed that the vehicle in question was insured with it and that the same met with an accident during the period the insurance policy was in force. It is also not disputed that the claim of the complainant was repudiated by it on the ground that at the time of the accident, the driver of the vehicle had consumer alcohol. However, the OP has denied that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated wrongly and illegally but pleaded that the vehicle in question was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, the OP is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.

5. The complainant has filed rejoinder in which the stand of the OP was controverted and the allegations made in the complaint were reiterated.

6. The parties have led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases. The consumer Fora below after hearing the parties partly allowed the complaint as aforesaid.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.5.2019 passed by the learned District Forum, the opposite party has filed the instant appeal on the ground that the learned District Forum while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate the pleas set up and evidence led on behalf of the opposite party in true prospective and as such the same is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside.

8. We have heard Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate Counsel for the opposite party and Ms. Mamta Bhatwan, Advocate, vice Counsel for the complainant and also carefully gone through the record of the case.

9. The learned Counsel for the appellant / opposite party while assailing the impugned order dated 29.5.2019 passed by the Fora below has vehemently argued