H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SHIMLA First Appeal No. : 158/2019 Date of Presentation : 20.04.2019 Order Reserved on : 15.06.2022 Date of Order : 15.07.2022 ……

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Mandi, HP through its Senior Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, 3^rd Floor, Block No.7, SDA Complex, Kasumpti, Shimla-9, H.P.

……Appellant/Opposite part No.2 Versus

1. Smt. Gumta w/o late Sh. Taritar Kumar, Resident of Village Chandpur,Post Office Kandha, Tehsil Chachiyot, District Mandi, HP ……….Respondent No.1/complainant

2. Corporation Bank No. 163, Ground Floor, Ram Nagar, Mandi Town, District Mandi, HP ……Respondent No.2/Opposite party No.1.

Coram Hon’ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President Hon’ble Ms. Sunita Sharma, Member

1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the Appellant: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1: Mr. Devinder K. Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondent No.2: Exparte Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President O R D E R Instant appeal is arising from order dated 19.03.2019 passed by learned District Forum Mandi, in Consumer Complaint

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?

No.260/2017 titled Smt. Gumta versus Corporation Bank and another.

Brief facts of Case:

2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that, her husband Sh. Taritar Kumar was having a saving bank account with opposite party No.1. He was insured for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- under Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna (PMBSY) after payment of premium. Insurance was valid w.e.f 08.05.2015 to 07.05.2016. During the subsistence of the insurance policy, on 23.09.2015, he suffered injuries due to fall from his motor cycle. The insured was rushed to the hospital but on 24.09.2015, he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The complainant being nominee lodged the claim before the opposite parties, but the same was declined. She has been harassed. The opposite parties indulged in unfair trade practice and are deficient in providing the service.

3. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties by filing a joint reply. It is admitted that the husband of the complainant was insured under the policy in question and that during the subsistence of the policy, he died in an accident. It is contended that the insured, who was owner-cum-driver of motor cycle No.HP-32B- 1796 was driving the same under the influence of liquor at the time of mishap. The urine and blood samples were also preserved. Quantity of ethyl alcohol in the blood of the deceased was found

163.92mg%. Liability of insurance company is contractual. There is fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The complainant is not entitled to the money claimed.

Therefore, the claim has rightly been repudiated.

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

Both the parties had adduced their respective evidence.

5. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, the learned District Forum, below allowed the complaint of the complainant.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Ld. District Forum, the appellant/opposite party No.2 has filed the present appeal before this Commission.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record carefully.

8. Learned counsel of the appellant has submitted that whole dispute in the present appeal arises whether deceased at the time of accident was under the influence of liquor. He further submitted that as per FSL report, deceased had consumed 163.92 mg% of alcohol prior to meeting with the accident and further submitted that since deceased was under the influence of alcohol, the insurance company is not liable to make payment of the insurance amount. He further submitted that FSL report is public document and has been issued by the public authority while discharging public duty and it is per se admissible under section 293 of Cr.P.C and upon the judgments as mentioned in