An insurance company cannot repudiate a claim based on intoxication solely by submitting photocopies of forensic reports; it must establish a proper chain of custody and prove the reports through the testimony of the conducting doctor and police witnesses.

For the Appellants: Ms. Kiran Sharma, Advocate vice Mr.

Arvind Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondents: Mr. Virender Sharma, Advocate.

Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President.

O R D E R:

Instant appeal is arising from order dated 19.04.2025 passed by learned District Commission, Shimla in Consumer Complaint No.113/2022, titled Smt. Bimla & Ors. Versus IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., whereby, the complaint filed by the complainants was dismissed.

Brief facts of Case:

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainants are legal heirs of the deceased Sh. Maan Singh who was registered owner of vehicle No.HP-52A-0862 (Maruti 800). The said vehicle was insured with opposite parties/insurance company w.e.f 17.05.2019 to 16.05.2020. A premium of the policy was Rs.2,649/- and a sum of Rs. 325/- was paid for PA cover for owner-cum-driver. The vehicle, in question, met with an accident on 18.03.2020 at village Khel Ka Chaura, District Shimla. Matter was reported at police station West Shimla and FIR No.78 dated 18.03.2020 was registered. In the said accident, owner of vehicle Sh. Maan Singh died. The complainants lodged claim with opposite parties/insurance company for loss of vehicle as well as claim for PA cover of owner-cum-driver. But, the insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainants vide letter dated 16.12.2020 on a false ground that deceased Sh. Maan Singh owner-cum-driver of vehicle was under the influence of alcohol, at the time of accident. Sh. Maan Singh was not under the influence of liquor and that the accident had not occurred due to effect of alcohol. The said act on the part of the opposite parties/insurance company amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint.

3. The opposite parties/insurance company filed reply and stated that on receiving the claim intimation, the opposite parties/insurance company immediately deputed a surveyor namely Sh. Rahul Thakur, who investigated the matter and as per his report and SFSL report dated 18.07.2022 "Ethyl alcohol was detected in the contents of parcels P/1, P/2 & P/4. The quantity of ethyl alcohol in the contents of parcel P/4 was 443.39 mg% (MOU +0.056)". Therefore, claim of the complainants was rightly repudiated. There is neither any deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. A prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.

4. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

5. After hearing the counsel for the parties, learned District Commission dismissed the complaint of the complainants.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Commission, the appellants/complainants have filed the present appeal before this Commission.

7. Augments heard on behalf of the parties and perused the record of the case carefully.

8. Learned counsel of the appellants/complainants has submitted that deceased Maan Singh was owner of vehicle bearing No.HP-54A-0862 which was insured with the insurance company w.e.f. 17.05.2019 to 16.05.2020 and Rs. 325/- was also paid for PA Cover. On 28.03.2020, the vehicle, in question, met with an accident and Sh. Maan Singh died in the said accident. She has further submitted that claim of the complainants was repudiated by the insurance company on a false ground that deceased Maan Singh was under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident. She has further submitted