Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd vs AJIT SINGH PARIHAR

THIS appeal by the complainant is directed against the order dated 29.12.94 passed by the District Forum, Madikeri in Complaint No. CPA/ K.69/94, dismissing the complaint. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows : -

THE husband of the complainant, late Shivacharya Shivalingappa had obtained a Life Insurance Policy for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ - on 31.8.90 covering the accidental risk, that is, if ever the insured were to die out of the accident, the L.I.C. shall pay the amount equivalent to the sum insured to the legal heirs of the insured. The insured, the husband of the complainant met with an accident at about 4.00 p.m. on 21.8.93, while returning to his house on his motor -cycle and died due to the head injury sustained by him. The complainant, thereafter, made claim with the opposite party for the amounts under the policy. The opposite party settled the claim on 9.1.94 and made payment of the insured amount of a sum of. Rs. 1,00,000/ - to the complainant, but declined to make the payment of the amount equivalent to the sum insured under the accidental benefit amount. The opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant of this accidental benefit amount on the ground that the insured died under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time of the accident. The complainant filed the complaint claiming the said amount, that is, the accidental benefit amount with interest thereon.

THE opposite party filed its version and averred that the accident was caused while the life assured was under the influence of the intoxicating liquor, and so, the complainant was not entitled to the benefit under the said clause under accident benefit Clause (1).

THE opposite party further averred that the complaint under the provisions of the Act was untenable as the repudiation of the claim of the complainant under the accidental benefit scheme was repudiated after due enquiry. During enquiry, the complainant examined herself as PW 1 and her relation one Mr. Shivakumar as PW 2 and got Exs. PI to P3 marked in evidence. Ex. PI is the receipt for the payment of premium. Ex. P2 is the certified copy of the Inquest Mahzar over the dead body of the deceased and Ex. P3 is the certified copy of the post -mortem report over the dead body of the deceased, the husband of the complainant. The opposite party did neither file any affidavit in evidence nor adduced any evidence.

THE District Forum on consideration of this material placed on record by the parties held that the opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the complainant, and in that view, dismissed the complaint.

WE have called for the records and received. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the material on record. It is not disputed that the late husband of the complainant had obtained a Life Insurance Policy for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. It also covered the accidental risk, that is, if the Life Insured were to die out of the accident, then the L.I.C. was liable to pay the amount equivalent to the sum insured to the legal heirs of the insured.

THE husband of the complainant, it is not disputed, died in an accident on 21.8.93. The husband of the complainant while he was returning to his house on his motor -cycle met with an accident, died due to head injury sustained by him.

IT is also not disputed that the opposite party paid the insured sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ - to the complainant on 9.1.94. But it repudiated the claim under the accident benefit scheme for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ - that is, the amount equivalent to sum insured to the complainant on the ground that the life assured while he met with an accident and died was under the influence of the intoxicating liquor. The complainant has stated that her husband was never taking any liquor and even on the date of the accident he had not taken the liquor. That is the evidence given by PW 2. But these two witnesses, that is, PW 1 and PW 2 were not the witnesses present at the time of the occurrence.

THE opposite parties though have not lead any evidence to show that at the time of occurrence, the life assured was also under the influence of the intoxicating liquor but have relied upon the documents Ex. PI, Inquest Report and Ex. P3, the Post Mortem Report.

THE said clause, Clause (1) under Accident Benefit Scheme which disentitles the benefit under the said scheme reads as under : - ''The Corporation shall not be liable to pay the additional sum referred to in (a) or (b) above, if the disability is under or the death of the life assured shall : (i) be caused by intentional self injury, attempted suicide, insanity or immorality or whilst the life assured is under the influence of intoxicating liquor, drug or narcotic.''

The expressions Intoxicating Liquor and Intoxication have been explained in Blacks Law Dictionary as under : - Intoxicating Liquor : -Any liquor used as a beverage, and which, when so used in sufficient quantities, ordinarily or commonly produces entire or partial intoxication. Any liquor intended for use as a beverage or capable of being so used, which contains alcohol, either obtained by fermentation or by the additional process of distillation, in such proportion that it will produce intoxication when imbibed in such quantities as may practically be drunk.''

Intoxication : -Term comprehends situation where, by reason of taking intoxicants, an individual does not have the normal use of his physical or mental faculties, thus rendering him incapable of acting in the manner in which an ordinarily prudent and cautious man, in full possession of his faculties, using reasonable care, would act under like conditions.

A disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from the introduction of substances into the body.

THE fact that a person charged with a crime who in an intoxicated condition at the time the alleged crime was committed is a defence only if such condition was involuntarily produced and rendered such person substantially incapable of knowing or understanding the wrongfulness of his conduct and of conforming his conduct to the requirement of law. An act committed while in a state of voluntary intoxication is not less criminal by reason thereof, but when a particular intent or other state of mind is a necessary element to constitute a particular crime, the fact of intoxication may be taken into consideration in determining such intent or state of mind. Under most state statutes dealing with driving while intoxicated, intoxication includes such by alcohol or by drug or by both.

CONFIRMED habits of intoxication caused by voluntary and excessive use of liquor is a ground for divorce under many state divorce statutes.''

THESE Expressions would go to show that the word Intoxication comprehends such a situation whereby reason of taking intoxicants, an individual does not have the normal use of his physical or mental faculties, thus rendering him incapable of acting in the manner in which an ordinary prudent and cautious man in full possession of his faculties, using reasonable care would act under like conditions. In the present case, as referred above, the opposite party has not placed any evidence on record to show that the time of the accident the life assured was under such a condition that he was not able to have the normal use of his physical or mental faculties.

EX . P3 is the post -mortem report over the dead body of the deceased life assured. At Column (IV) Abdomen it has been referred as under : - ''Semi digested food particles and unusual smell? (Alcohol)''

THIS would go to show that the Doctor who held the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased was not definite that it was the smell of alcohol as he found semi digested food particles and some unusual smell in it. Therefore, it cannot be positively said that it was the smell of alcohol.

THE opposite party L.I.C. relied upon another document Ex. P2, Inquest Mahazar over the dead body of the deceased, life assured. In the said Inquest Mahazar at Column No. 17, the mahazadar have expressed their doubt about the accidental death of the deceased life assured stating that, may be the life assured was under the influence of liquor at the time of the accident. They have also further stated that this fact was to be confirmed on receipt of the post -mortem report.

THIS opinion and the doubt expressed by the Mahazardas at the time of the inquest, as referred above, would not be sufficient to hold that the life assured at the time of the accident was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. In Ex. P2 at Column No. 8, the description of the place of occurrence, that is the accident place has been given. It has been referred therein that due to rain, the road was found covered with slushy mud. There circumstances would go to show that the accident might have occurred due to skidding.

HAVING regard to these materials on record, the finding recorded by the District Forum relying on Exs. P2 & P3 holding that the deceased life assured at the time of the accident was under the influence of alcohol was clearly erroneous and unsustainable.

THE material placed on record does not establish the fact that the deceased life assured was under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time of the accident. So, having regard to this material on record, we are constrained to hold that the finding recorded by the District Forum is erroneous and unsustainable. The opposite party, L.I.C., committed deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the complainant for the accidental benefit amount equivalent to the sum insured to the complainant.

In the result, therefore, this appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum dated 29.12.94 passed in Complaint No. CPA/K.69/94 is set aside. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ - to the complainant with interest at 12% p.a. from the date, that is from 21.8.1993 till the date of its payment to the complainant. The opposite party L.I.C. shall also pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/ - towards the costs of this proceeding to the complainant.

The opposite party -L.I.C. shall pay the sums so awarded to the complainant within a period of 60 days from this date.

Appeal allowed.