Life Insurance Corporation of India vs SULAKSHANA SHARMA @ SONIA

-BY this order, we propose to dispose of appeal Nos. 103/2007 and 104/2007 since identical questions of law and fact are involved in these appeals. Insured-late Shri Jitender Sharma @ Sonu was the insured in both these appeals, who admittedly died as a result of accident, and was also further insured under two policies of insurance covering different amounts. Both policies were admittedly Double Accident Benefit policies, meaning thereby that in the event of accidental death, besides the basic sum insured, an amount equivalent to the said sum was also payable by the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation.

MR. Narender Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellants by referring to the complaint files of both these appeals, urged that accident was on account of the fact that the deceased was intoxicated, therefore, his client was not liable for payment of any compensation over and above what has been paid, meaning thereby that the deceased having died while he was intoxicated, the double accident benefit under the terms of the policy cannot be extended in his case. Thus, he prayed for allowing both these appeals on this short ground alone. Merely because a person was intoxicated, in itself, in our opinion, cannot be made the basis for rejecting the claim. In each case to justify the rejection, it has to be further shown by the insurer as to what was the extent of alcohol found in the blood as well as the urine of the deceased and whether the intoxicated state of the deceased was the cause of his death. Though this is not the situation on facts in both these appeals before us.

Reason for dismissal of these two appeals is that the deceased was travelling in a vehicle bearing No. HR-29G-0013. Therefore, unless it was shown that either he was driving the vehicle or the accident was in any manner attributable to his begin intoxicated, Double Accident Benefit could not be denied to the respondent. This is enough to negative the plea of Mr. Narender Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation.

WE may notice another plea urged in support of these appeals by Mr. Sharma, that being intoxicated is enough ground to reject the claim under the Double Accident Benefit policy in these appeals. Again this plea is without any substance, for the simple reason that unless the accident is attributed to the insured being intoxicated, there is hardly any distinction that can be drawn between the person who was intoxicated and the one who has not consumed alcohol at all. No other point was urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion, both these appeals are without any merit and are accordingly dismissed with costs which are quantified in the consolidated sum of Rs. 2,000 in both these cases. All interim orders passed from time-to-time in both these appeals shall stand vacated forthwith. Office is directed to place an authenticated copy of this order on the file of Appeal No. 104/2007. Learned Counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copies of this order free of cost in both the cases from the Reader of the Court. Appeals dismissed.