AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
-THIS application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition stated that there is a delay of 96 days, but as per the Registry''s report there is a delay of 127 days. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and have considered the reasons set out in the application seeking condonation of delay. The only reason given is that the headquarters of the petitioner-Insurance Company is at Kolkata and, therefore, there was procedural delay in processing the matter and filing the revision petition. The reasons given in the application are too general and do not list out the other officers or authorities before whom the matter remained pending or at whose ends it was delayed, what to talk of explaining the day-to-day delay in filing the revision petition. The advancement of information technology has in fact come to the rescue of such persons/bodies which can be used for curtailing delays in such matter. In our view undue delay of 127 days remains unexplained and, therefore, we dismiss the application.
DESPITE dismissing the application for condonation of delay and holding that the revision petition is barred by limitation, we have considered the revision petition on its merits. The sole ground on which the petitioner-Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the respondent was that the claim fell under the exclusion Clause 1 (c) of the Insurance Policy which reads as under: "the company shall not be liable to make any payment in respect of: (c) any accidental loss or damage suffered whilst the insured or any person driving with the knowledge and consent of the insured is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. " Learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the respondent-Vinod Kumar-insured who was driving the insured vehicle in question at the relevant time when the vehicle met with an accident was under the influence of alcohol. In this connection, he has referred to the discharge paper dated 31st May, 1999 issued by the St. Stephen''s Hospital, Delhi which reads "alleged alcohol intake". Assuming that this is correct record of the hospital, we are at a loss to understand as to who alleged that the respondent Vinod Kumar had taken alcohol. The said discharge slip does not record any symptoms which would be commensurate to that of a person under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicant. Though it is claimed that a police report was made immediately after the accident but it has not been filed on record. Under the circumstances, it is not possible for us to hold that the respondent was in fact under the influence of any intoxication of alcohol or any other drug what to talk of holding that the respondent was heavily drunk or that he was not in a fit condition to drive the vehicle in question due to the influence of intoxicant. Therefore, we do not see any infirmity or illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission requiring interference by this Commission. Revision petition being devoid of any merits is as such dismissed. R. P. dismissed.