Accidental claims cannot be rejected solely on presumed intoxication without conclusive blood evidence.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 18^th day of March, 2026 This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

“ i. Issue a writ of certiorari and to quash Ext.P7 award passed by the respondent.

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or order commanding the 1^st respondent to reconsider the Ext.P6 complaint preferred by the petitioner.”

2. The petitioner is the wife of one Balachandran, who met with a road traffic accident on 02.01.2023 and succumbed to death. On the fateful day, while deceased Balachandran was riding an auto rickshaw bearing No.KL 33 L 5866, a car bearing No.KL 23 B 6677 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto rickshaw, resulting in Balachandran sustaining fatal injuries. While undergoing treatment in the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, Balachandran breathed his last, on 20.01.2023. According to Ext.P2, post mortem certificate, death of deceased Balachandran was due to injuries sustained in chest and its complications. The auto rickshaw driven by deceased Balachandran at the relevant time, was having Ext.P3, a valid insurance policy, with the 2^nd respondent. The policy was also having a personal accident coverage for the driver of the auto rickshaw and hence, the petitioner approached the 3^rd respondent seeking the coverage amount. But the 3^rd respondent rejected the claim, as per Ext.P4 order dated 20.09.2023, stating that the claim cannot be allowed since, deceased Balachandran was under the influence of alcohol, at the time of accident. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent by filing Ext.P6 complaint but, the same was dismissed, as per Ext.P7 award. It is in such circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court seeking the afore reliefs.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P7 award passed by the 1^st respondent cannot be sustained since, there is no cogent material to find that deceased Balachandran, at the time of accident, was under the influence of alcohol. Relying on the decision of this Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2022 (6) KHC 651 ], he contended that, even if a person had consumed alcohol in excess of the limit prescribed under the MV Act, such person cannot be stated under the influence of alcohol. He added that, in the instant case, admittedly, no blood test has been conducted to ascertain the quantity of alcohol in the blood and therefore, the finding of the respondents cannot be sustained.

5. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for 2^nd and

3^rd respondents supported the impugned award and contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the same. He, by relying on Exts.R2(b) and R2(c), contended that doctor who examined the deceased at the relevant time has specifically found that he was under the influence of the alcohol at the relevant time and has recorded the same in the afore documents. He also submitted that as per clause (2) of Section (IV) of Ext.R2(a) policy, no compensation is payable for personal accident, under the personal accident coverage, if the accident has happened whilst such person was under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs.

6. On a anxious consideration of rival submissions and the materials on record, I find considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is to be taken note that the only documents which are relied on by the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 to support his contention, are Exts.R2(b) and R2(c). Ext.R2(b) is an accident register-cum-wound certificate issued by the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam and Ext.R2(c) is the case record from the same hospital. It is true that, a perusal of Exts.R2(b) and R2(c), would show that the history and alleged cau