Date of filing:- 17/09/2018.
Date of Order:-18/03/2021.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
B A R G A R H
Consumer Complaint No. 61 of 2018
Bedamati Rout, aged about 50(fifty) years, W/o Late Bidyadhar Rout, Resident of Budelpali, Po. Kalapani Chowk, Via-Tora, Ps/Tahasil/Dist. Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
- The Divisional Manager, L.I.C. of India, At-Divisional Office, Jeegvan Prakash Ainthapali, Sambalpur, Po/Ps/Tahasil/Dist. Sambalpur-768028.
- The Zonal Manager, L.I.C. of India, East Central Zonal Office, Jeevan Deep 6th Floor Exhibition Road, Patna- 800001
- The Branch Manager, L.I.C. of India, Bargarh Branch, Bargarh, At-old N.H.6, near Super Bazar, Bargarh, Po/Ps/Tahasil/Dist. Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri M.K.Satpathy, Advocate with associate Advocates.
For the Opposite Parties :- Sri M.Sahu, Adovcate.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.18/03/2021. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief Fcats of the Case ;-
The case of the Complainant in nut sell is that the son of the Complainant has obtained an Insurance Policy from the Opposite Parties to insure his life vide his policy No-594759422 by paying the required amount of premium.
During the subsistence of the Insurance coverage period the said insured person namely Pintu Rout was murdered on Dt.16.02.2017 consequently the Complainant being the Mother and class-1(one) legal heir of her deceased son is entitled to the Insurance amount thus she placed her claim before the Opposite Party No.1(one) with all relevant Documents but the Opposite Party deferred in paying the same with different pretext and ultimately repudiated the same on her complain before the Opposite Party No.2(two), he also did not pay any heed to the same, which as per her allegation is an act of deficiencies in rendering her due service coupled with unfair trade practice consequent upon which she has sustained mental ,physical and financial loss, as such she served the Opposite Parties with a pleader Notice but to no effect, thus has resorted to take the shelter of the Honorable Commission, relying on the Pleader Notice served on the Opposite Parties.
Having gone through the pleadings and on hearing the counsel for the Complainant prima facie it seemed to be a genuine case hence admitted and Notice was served upon them to appear before the Forum and to reply, in response, all of them appeared and file their version through their Advocate.
The rival contention of the Opposite Parties as per their version is a complete denial one, besides that also has made averment that they have already paid an amount of Rs.4,99,750/- (Rupees four lakh ninety nine thousand seven hundred fifty)only immediately to the Complainant through NEFT on Dt.20.05.2017 which was credited to her account on Dt.22.05.2017 as such her claim that they are deficient in rendering service is a baseless one, further has stated in their version that they have repudiated the further claim of the Insured amount and have informed her on Dt.25.01.2018 through a letter mentioning reason of such denial that since the deceased insured person was murdered in a preplanned way due to provocation made by him to the murderer, and such cause of death of the deceased assured person cannot be considered as accidental as has been envisaged in their claim manual, And also their said decision has been confirmed by the Ombudsman and was also confirmed in a writ petition filed by the brother of the deceased person vide order Dt.07.08.2008, and hence the claim of the Complainant is not maintainable against them hence prayed to dismiss the case against them.
Perused the pleadings of the parties and on hearing the respective counsels for the parties, we are of the view that the determination of adjudication of the case rests on issues as to whether there is any unfair trade practice and deficiencies in rendering service on the part of the Opposite Parties or not and whether the Complainant is entitled to any relief, in these context having gone deep in to the materials available in the record it came to our Notice that the insurance policy obtained by the deceased son of the Complainant is an admitted facts and also his death due to murder is also an admitted facts being admitted by the Opposite Parties and in furtherance to our observation the Opposite Parties has stated in their version in paragraphs No.8(eight) that since the policy was in force at the time of the death of the Complainant, a sum of Rs.49,750/-(Rupees forty nine thousand seven hundred fifty)only was paid to the Complainant namely Bedamati Rout, recorded Nominee mother of the deceased Late Pintu Rout through NEFT in her account on Dt.20.05.2017 which was credited in her account on Dt.22.05.2017. But subsequently thereafter have denied for further payments on the ground that since the death has been caused by murder hence cannot be considered as an accident in view of the provision of Claim Manual, in this particular context it is an established principle of Law envisaged in the Indian Evidence Act once a part of an action is done believing the same to be true further he is esstoped in denying the same and in this particular case a part payment of the sum assured has already been made but later on, further part of payments has been repudiated by the Opposite Parties where by the principle of estoppels is being attracted so in our prudent view such an act of the Opposite Parties is an act of unfair trade practice, furthermore the objection raised by the Opposite Parties in their version by citing a decision of an Ombudsman and have cited about a Writ Petition claiming the same to have been filed by the brother of the deceased Assured person but has failed to explain anything about the same, neither they have cited any number and anything about the Court or the said Ombudsman nor have filed any copy of those same decision so simply saying that the case has been decided by any ombudsman or in any Writ Petition cannot be believed and can be taken up for consideration, hence in view of such facts and circumstances we are of the view that the Opposite Parties have failed to substantiate their pleas.
And furthermore on the contrary the Complainant has relied on a Decision of “the Honorable Supreme court reported in AIR 2000, Page 1930 wherein it has been held by their Lordship that the difference between a murder which is not an accident and a murder which is an accident, depends on the proximity of the cause of such murder, in our Opinion, if the dominant intention of the Act of felony is to kill any particular person then such killing is not an accidental Murder but is a murder simplicitor, while if the cause of Murder or the Act of murder was originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of any other felonious act the murder is an accidental murder” so while considering the case in hand it has been observed that the Opposite Parties have failed to substantiate their pleas of the allegation of the deceased being murder in accordance with the principle laid down by the Apex Court of the Country, so we don’t have any other option but to go with Honorable Supreme Court as such our view is expressed in favor of the Complainant.
Secondly with regard to the claim of the Complainant for the sum assured amount and compensation amount towards her sufferings mentally, physically and financially due to the unfair trade practice and deficiencies in rendering service towards her, as we have already discussed elaborately and have expressed our consensus view in favor of the Complainant, now it is obvious upon us to express our view accordingly in favor of the complainant for which all the Opposite Party from No.1(one) to No.3(three) are jointly and severally liable, hence our order follows .
O R D E R.
Hence the Opposite Parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,50,000/-(Rupees five lakh fifty thousand)only with due deduction of the paid amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only with an interest @ 5 %(five percent) per annum from the date of filing the case to the Complainant and also further directed to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only towards compensation for the mental, financial harassment undergone by her due to such action on their part, within thirty days of receipt of the order in default of which the total amount of Rs.5,20,000/-(Rupees five lakh twenty thousand)only would carry an interest @ 9% (nine percent) per annum till the actual realization of the total amount.
In the result the Complaint is allowed against the Opposite Parties and the same being pronounced in the open court is disposed off to-day i.e .on Dt.18/03/2021. Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, ( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r (W).
Uploaded by
Sri Dusmanta Padhan
Office Assistant
