NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Public Sector Insurance Company. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P8 Award of the Permanent Lok Adalat at Thiruvananthapuram for Public Utility Services, finding that the petitioner is liable to compensate the petitioners before the Lok Adalat (respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein) under a Group Personal Accident Insurance coverage extended by the petitioner Company to the State Government Employees and Teachers.

(2.) The claim arose on account of the death of one Udayakumar, who died as result of an accident while riding a motor bike. The deceased Udayakumar was at the relevant time serving the Kerala Police as Assistant Sub Inspector. The petitioner-Company had repudiated the claim on the ground that the deceased was, at the time of the accident, riding the vehicle under the influence of alcohol. The party respondents herein approached the Permanent Lok Adalath, Thiruvananthapuram and the Permanent Lok Adalat, by Ext.P8 Award, has found that the petitioner is liable to pay the amounts due under the policy in question.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P8 Award of the Permanent Lok Adalat is legally unsustainable. It is submitted that, Ext.P2 is the Memorandum of Understanding executed between the Government of Kerala and the petitioner-Company. It is submitted that the Proviso to Clause (4) of Memorandum of Understanding clearly provides that no claim will be payable under the policy for any death or disability, if such death or disability happens while under the influence of intoxicating drugs or alcohol and also while committing breach of law with criminal intent. It is submitted that the terms of policy (which are on record as Ext.P3) would also indicate that the same Clause was carried forward to the terms. Reference is made in this regard to Clause (5)(b) and 5(e) of Ext.P3 policy. It is submitted that, in the present case, Ext.P6 report of the Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram will show that the deceased was found to be under the influence of alcohol. It is pointed out that in Ext.P6, the quantity of Ethyl alcohol per 100 ml of blood was found to be 86.25 mg while the limit prescribed in Sec. 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.V Act') is 30 mg. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also places reliance on the judgment of this Court in Sreedevi V. State of Kerala [2024(2) KLT 37] to contend that a challenge to a similar Clause, restricting the claim, if the person suffering disability or death was under the influence of alcohol, was found to be valid by this Court. Learned counsel also places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited V. Pearl Beverages Limited [(2021) 7 SCC 704] to contend that where there is clear material to show that the person who suffered disablement or death was under the influence of alcohol, it will be well within the right of the Insurance Company to reject the claim in a case where the terms of the Policy indicate that no claim will be entertained if it is found that the person who suffered disablement or death was under the influence of alcohol at the relevant time.