An insurance company cannot deny compensation for a personal accident claim based on allegations of intoxication unless there is concrete evidence that the consumption of liquor was sufficient to cause the driver to lose control of the vehicle.

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of Award dated 15.12.2025 (Annexure P-4) whereby learned Permanent Lok Adalat (for short ‘PLA’) has allowed private respondents’ application filed under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short ‘1987 Act’).

2. The insured purchased an insurance policy from petitioner-insurer with respect to his vehicle bearing registration number HR-02-AB-5687. He paid additional premium of Rs.320/- for compulsory Personal Accident cover for owner-driver. Insured car met with an accident on 11.09.2021 and driver- Harpreet Singh suffered injuries. He died during treatment on 01.10.2021. FIR No.217 dated 12.09.2021 under Sections 279, 337, 427, 304A IPC was registered at Police Station Derabassi, District SAS Nagar (Mohali). Legal heirs of deceased filed claim petition before MACT, Kurukshetra which was allowed. The private respondents, who are legal heirs of the deceased, on the basis of policy lodged claim. The petitioner examined the matter and formed an opinion that there was suppression of facts, thus, claim is liable to be repudiated. Accordingly, petitioner rejected their claim. The private respondents filed an application under Section 22C of 1987 Act before learned PLA which sought response of the petitioner. Matter was tried to be reconciled, however, was finally adjudicated on merits. Learned PLA has concluded that there was no occasion to repudiate applicants’ claim, thus, petitioner has wrongly rejected the same.

3. As per petitioner, Harpreet Singh was drunk at the time of accident and as per terms & conditions of the policy, no compensation is payable if owner-driver is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner on being asked failed to point out any concrete evidence proving level of consumption of liquor by insured which could make his family members disentitled to compensation.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. The only argument of petitioner is that insured was under the influence of liquor when the alleged accident took place. The petitioner is not disputing insurance policy, entitlement of insured, use of vehicle, accident and existence of legal heirs. The petitioner is only disputing that the deceased was found positive qua liquor consumption. In the absence of any concrete evidence that deceased had consumed liquor to the extent that he had no control over the vehicle, the petitioner cannot deny benefit of compensation to the dependents of insured. Learned PLA has recorded categoric finding that the petitioner-insurance company cannot absolve itself of its liability to compensate the dependents of insured. There is no material illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court.

7. In the backdrop, the petition stands dismissed.