Thursday, 12 November 2026LatestVideosAboutContact
Latest
Editorial: Shadow of cynicism over Climate SummitHyderabad: Malkajgiri civic body organises 10-km ‘Sweat Run’ to promote water and energy conservationPumpkin seed protein puts a twist on nondairy coffee creamerSimulated collisions reveal how Phobos could preserve rocks blasted off MarsMumbai Consumer Commission Upholds ₹16.49 Lakh Compensation To Honda Accord Owner, Rejects Tata AIG AppealMaharashtra couple earns up to ₹50 lakh revenue growing saffron without soil in a 400 sq ft room, here's how they did itBYD DM-i Review: Is This An EV That Never Runs Out Of Battery?Mumbai Police Book 2 For Bursting Firecrackers On Public Roads In Malabar Hill Despite BanModi urges farmers to diversify crops, adopt natural farming and reduce chemical useGunjan creates history, becomes first Indian woman to win Youth Olympics boxing goldWATCH: Elderly Fan Makes Unusual Photo Request To Rohit Sharma, Virat Kohli; Team India Joins In For Special Picture | VIDEO ViralInnocent Gazans pay the price: Board of Peace reacts to hospital attack
NationalUpdated 11 min ago

Mumbai Consumer Commission Upholds ₹16.49 Lakh Compensation To Honda Accord Owner, Rejects Tata AIG Appeal

Image: Free Press Journal

Mumbai, November 12, 2026: The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has upheld an order directing Tata AIG General Insurance Company to pay ₹16.49 lakh to a Honda Accord owner whose insurance claim was rejected following an accident on allegations of drunken driving.

Dismissing the insurer’s appeal, the commission held that Tata AIG had failed to establish through reliable evidence that the vehicle was being driven under the influence of alcohol.

A bench comprising Presiding Member Dr Nisha Amol Chavhan and Member Vijay C. Premchandani dismissed the appeal on November 5, 2026, upholding the order passed by the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

Accident And Insurance Claim Rejection

The case dates back to May 14, 2005, when the Honda Accord met with an accident near Mahim around 6.30 am. An FIR was registered under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 183, 184 and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, alleging that the driver, Kabir Bhogilal, son of Nirmal Pratap Bhogilal, was driving under the influence of alcohol.

Following the accident, the driver of the vehicle was taken to K.B. Bhabha Hospital, where his blood sample was collected for medico-legal examination and subsequently sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL).

The laboratory report recorded an ethyl alcohol content of 0.126% weight by volume (126 mg per 100 ml of blood). Relying on the report, Tata AIG repudiated the insurance claim.

However, the District Commission found that the insurer had failed to establish its allegation of drunken driving through conclusive and reliable evidence.

It noted discrepancies in the collection and preservation of the blood sample, including the collection of only 2 ml of blood, the absence of a breathalyser test and questions over the timing and procedure of the forensic examination.

“The District Commission partly allowed the complaint, holding that the Appellant failed to substantiate the defence of drunken driving through conclusive, tamper-free evidence, noting discrepancies regarding the sample quantity (2 ml instead of the standard requirement), the absence of a breath analyser test, and questions surrounding preservation and the timing of analysis. Dissatisfied with the said order, the Appellant, i.e. Insurance Company, has filed the appeal before this State Consumer Commission,” the commission noted.

Before the State Commission, the vehicle owner's advocate also pointed out that the criminal proceedings against Kabir had subsequently been quashed by the High Court following an amicable settlement and an affidavit filed by the injured party.

The advocate argued that the FSL report could not be treated as conclusive evidence in the consumer proceedings without establishing the chain of custody and proper preservation of the sample.

Insurer Must Prove Policy Violation

Upholding the District Commission’s findings, the State Commission observed that when an insurance company relies on an exclusion clause, such as allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol, the burden of proving the alleged violation rests on the insurer.

“It is a well-settled principle of insurance law that when an insurer invokes an exclusionary clause to repudiate a claim, the burden of proof rests heavily on the insurer,” the commission observed.

It further held that merely relying on a police FIR or a disputed chemical analysis report, without establishing the chain of custody, preservation protocol and procedural integrity, was insufficient to justify repudiation of the claim.

Also Watch:

Mumbai: Consumer Commission Orders Mulund Housing Society To Introduce Rotational Parking, Pay ₹1.5 Lakh

The District Commission had directed Tata AIG to pay ₹16,49,370 to the vehicle owner after deducting 15 per cent depreciation, along with 12 per cent annual interest from July 20, 2005. It had also awarded ₹20,000 towards mental harassment, ₹20,000 towards garage charges and ₹5,000 as litigation costs.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/

This content is published by Free Press Journal and has not been created or edited by Hello Headlines. View original

More in National

See all