SURINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONLY question involved in this appeal is, whether late Shri Khyali Ram father of the appellant had died as a result of intoxication being under the influence of alcohol or due to accident.

(2.) ADMITTED facts giving rise to this appeal are, that deceased was working as a work charge employee with respondent No. 3 on the date of accident, i.e. 18.11.1998. Injuries suffered by him proved to be fatal. Accident had taken place at 2.00 p.m. Besides this, it is also not disputed inter se respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on one side, and respondent No. 4 on the other, that respondent No. 1 had covered all its daily waged and work charged employees under Janta Personal Accident Policy Scheme (JPA). Policy in this behalf had been issued by respondent No. 4 Insurance Company. It was not disputed by any of the respondents, that on the date of his death, Khyali Ram was one of the employees covered under the said policy.

(3.) IN this background, claim was lodged according to the appellant immediately after the death, when his family members were assured that the sum insured, i.e. Rs. 1 lac would be paid to them. Besides this, further case of the appellant is that on the date of accident, i.e. 18.11.1998, he was a minor and attained majority in 2003 and, therefore, became eligible to maintain the complaint against the respondents for being indemnified. His case was taken up by Bhartiya Majdur Sangh also, who approached the respondents for settling the same. In this background, alleging deficiency in service complaint was filed by the appellant seeking directions against the respondents to pay Rs. 1 lac along with interest @ 18% per annum. OP Nos. 1 to 3 admitted the factum of having introduced JPA and having got insured with OP No. 4 all its daily waged/work charged staff of all the departments including Boards/Corporations from 25.1.1996, when the accident in this case took place. Father of the appellant, i.e. late Shri Khyali Ram was working with the respondents was admitted by them. But they disputed allegations of accidental death. To the contrary it was pleaded by these respondents that deceased died at about 9.00 p.m. on 17.11.1998, and not at 2.00 p.m. on 18.11.1998. He was under the influence of intoxicating liquor in a state of intoxication as per report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga. Therefore, under the terms of the policy conditions, the appellant was not entitled for payment of the sum insured. Complaint was liable to be dismissed according to them.