Complaint is filed on 5-6-2009
Compliant disposed on 3-6-2010
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM::AT:: KARIMNAGAR
PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI K. DEVI PRASAD, B.Sc., LL.B., PRESIDENT
SMT. E. LAXMI, M.A.,LL.M.,PGDCA (CONSUMER AWARENESS), MEMBER
SRI. K. CHANDRA MOHAN RAO, B.COM ., LL.B., MEMBER
THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND TEN
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 92 OF 2009
Between:
- Smt. Penti Aruna, W/o. Late Surender, Age 39 years, Occ; Housewife.
- Master Penti Sanath, S/o. Late Surender, Age 15 years, Occ: Student, R/by his natural guardian mother Smt. Penti Aruna.
- Master Penti Rochith, S/o. Late Surender, Age 12 years, Occ: Student, R/by his natural guardian mother Smt. Penti Aruna.
- Penti Laxminarayana, S/o. Papaiah, Age 68 years, Occ: LIC agent.
- Penti Amruthamma, W/o. Penti Laxminarayana, Age 62 years, Occ: Housewife.
All R/o. MIG-II 128, A.P. Housing Board Colony, Karimnagar.
… Complainants
AND
- M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd, Divisional Office, NTPC, Jyothingar, Ramagundam, Karimnagar district R/by it’s Divisional Manager.
- M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd, Near R&B Guest House its Branch Manager, Karimnagar.
…Opposite Parties
This complaint is coming up before us for final hearing on 12-5-2010, in the presence of Sri A. Srinivas, Advocate for complainant and Sri Mehaboob Hussain, Advocate for opposite parties, and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration this day, the Forum passed the following:
:: ORDER::
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs with interest and costs.
2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainants no.1 to 5 are the legal heirs of one Penti Surendar who was murdered on 5.1.2007 at Karimnagar and his dead body was traced out in Septic Tank at Sai Enclave, Karimnagar on 18.4.2007. During his life time the said P.Surendar obtained Janatha Personal Accident Insurance Policy from the opposite parties bearing policy no.050801/47/56/47841/97 Dt: 7.11.1997 for Rs. 5 lakhs and the said policy was inforce for a period of 10 years commencing from 7.11.1997 to 6.11.2007. As per the terms and conditions of the policy it covers the risk of insured for Rs. 5 lakhs payable in the event of accidental death of the policy holder. The policy holder was missing from 5.1.2007 along with his Motor Cycle, hence his father, complainant no.4 filed a complaint with II Town Police, KNR on which a crime is registered in Crime No.6 of 2007 for man missing. Subsequently his dead body was found on 18.4.2007 as he was murdered by one K.Sridhar and S.Geeta at Sripuram Colony and a Charge Sheet is filed against them for murdering the policy holder.
3. After his death the complainants filed a claim before the opposite parties claiming Rs. 5 lakhs towards the sum assured under the policy. But the opposite party no.1 repudiated the claim of the ground that the murder of the policy holder was pre-planned and it is not an accidental one. The opposite parties refused to pay the said amount relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2003 Supreme Court, 698. The opposite parties sent a letter of repudiation on 25.2.2008. It is submitted by the complainants that, as per the terms and conditions of the policy the opposite parties are bound to pay the sum assured as the death of the policy holder is an accidental one and that the opposite parties refused to pay the amount relying on a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Infact the facts of this case are entirely different from the facts of that case. After repudiation of the claim, the complainants approached the superior officers of the opposite parties, but no amount was paid. Therefore, the complainant no.1 approached Insurance Ombudsman at Hyderabad but the same was dismissed holding that the death of P.Surendar was a pre-planned murder. It is submitted that the opposite parties are liable to pay the sum assured even as per the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2008 (3) CPJ 120 (NC). Failure to pay the sum assured by the opposite parties constitutes deficiency of service, therefore, the complainants sought direction for payment of the amount with interest and costs.
4. The opposite parties filed counter admitting the relationship of the complainants with the deceased policy holder P.Surendar. It is also admitted that he was a policy holder of JPA Policy where under the risk of insured is covered in the event of his accidental death. It is submitted that the policy holder was murdered but it was a pre-planned one which does not amounts to accidental death. When the complainant no.1 submitted claim for payment of the sum assured it was repudiated on the ground that the death of the policy holder was pre-planned murder. As per the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India no amount is payable where the policy holder was murdered in a pre-planned incident. In this case the policy holder had extra marital relationship with one of the accused S.Geeta and continued the same for long time. Subsequently the other accused Sridhar enjoyed money given by the policy holder and subsequently both of them decided to kill him. Therefore, they constructed bathroom within the house without any ventilation and as per this plan invited P.Surendar to the house and made him to consume liquor. When he went to bathroom they bolted it from outside let the LP Gas into the bathroom through a pipe due to which he died and subsequently his body was dumped in the Septic Tank. All the above facts clearly show that the death of the policy holder was pre-planned and as per the terms and conditions of the policy no amount is payable. It is submitted that the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission relied on by the complainants is not applicable to the facts of this case.
5. The complainant no.4 filed his Proof Affidavit reiterating the averments made in the complaint and filed documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A8. Ex.A1 is the copy of FIR in Cr.No.6 of 2007 on the file of P.S.Karimnagar II Town Dt: 9.1.2007. Ex.A2 is the copy of Inquest Report Dt: 18.04.2009. Ex.A3 is the copy of PME Report Dt: 19.4.2007. Ex.A4 is the copy of Death Certificate of P.Surendar Dt: 12.6.2007. Ex.A5 is the copy of Family Members Certificate Dt: 22.6.2007. Ex.A6 is the copy of JPA Policy no.050810/47/56/47841/97 Dt: 7.11.1997. Ex.A7 is the original repudiation letter no.2980/2008 by United India Insurance Co., Karimnagar addressed to complainant Dt: 25.2.2008. Ex.A8 is the copy of letter by United India Insurance Company addressed to complainant Dt: 14.10.2008.
6. The opposite party filed the Proof Affidavit of it’s Divisional Manager reiterating the averments made in the counter and they did not choose to file any document.
7. The points for consideration are:
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
- If so, to what relief the complainants are entitled?
8. Heard both sides.
9. It is contended by the complainants that P.Surendar was the policy holder of Janatha Personal Accident Policy issued by the opposite parties on 7.11.1997 where under they have assured to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs in case of accidental death of the policy holder. The said policy under Ex.A6 is in force for a period of 10 years from 7.11.1997 to 6.11.2007. The policy holder was murdered by two persons namely K.Sridhar and S.Geeta in a house at Sripuram Colony, Karimnagar on 5.1.2007 and dumped his dead body in the Septic Tank. The complainant no.4 who is the father of insured filed a complaint with Police on 9.1.2007 informing about missing of his son. On which Police II town Karimnagar registered a crime bearing no.6 of 2007 under man missing case and issued FIR under Ex.A1. Subsequently the Police recovered the dead body on 18.4.2007 under Inquest Report in Ex.A2 and it was sent to hospital for PME and the report is Ex.A3. Subsequently the complainants filed claim before the opposite parties for payment of assured sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as the death of the policy holder was an accidental one. But the opposite parties sent a letter under Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 repudiating the claim of the complainants informing them that no amount is payable under the policy as the insured was murdered with a pre-planned by the accused persons. It is contended by the complainants that when the policy holder died as a result of murder it amounts to accidental death and the Insurance Company cannot escape from the liability to pay the sum assured. The complainants relied on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission and A.P.State Commission. The reasons given by the opposite parties for non-payment is untenable in law and as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the opposite parties are bound to pay the sum assured. Therefore, complainants prayed for allowing the complaint.
10. It is contended by the opposite parties that the criminal case records under Ex.A1 to A3 reveals that the murder of the policy holder was a pre-planned one and as per the terms and conditions of the policy no amount is payable to the complainants under Janatha Personal Accident Policy. When the claim is received from the complainants enquiry was made on which it is revealed that the accused persons called the policy holder to their house and made him to consume liquor and when he went into bathroom they have sent LPG gas into bathroom due to breathlessness he died. After that his dead body was thrown into the Septic Tank located in the compound. When the death is a pre-planned murder it does not amount to accidental death. The opposite parties repudiated the claim relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and sent a letter of repudiation under ex.A7 and A8. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
11. A perusal of Janatha Personal Accident Policy under Ex.A6 discloses that the deceased P.Surendar obtained Janatha Personal Accident Policy from the opposite parties on 7.11.1997 by paying premium of Rs.1,375/-. The period of insurance is from 7.11.1997 to 6.11.2007 and under the policy the opposite parties assured to pay Rs. 5 lakhs towards the capital sum assured in case of injury “or” accidental death of the policy holder. The criminal case records under Ex.A1 to A3 and Death Certificate under Ex.A4 discloses that the policy holder was murdered on 5.1.2007 at Sripuram Colony, Karimnagar. After his death a claim was made for payment of the sum assured, but the same was repudiated by the opposite parties on the ground that the murder of policy holder was a pre-planned one. The repudiation letter under Ex.A7 reveals that the opposite parties relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2003 Supreme 698 in a case between Smt. Rita Devi and others Vs M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd in which the accidental murder and murder was differentiated.
12. The Hon’ble National Commission in a decision reported in III (2008) CPJ 120 (NC) referred the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt.Rita Devi & Ors Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd and held that Supreme Court contended and interpreted a phrase providing “death due to accident arising out of Motor Vehicle” and arrived at a conclusion in Dasharath Singh case who was employed to drive an auto was murdered by the passenger who hired auto held that the difference between murder which is not an accident and murder which is an accident depends upon the proximity of the cause of such murder. If the cause of murder or out of murder was originally not intended as the same was caused in furtherance of any felonious act then such murder is an accidental murder arising out of the use of Motor vehicle and held that the Insurance Company was liable to reimburse the claim. Then from the case referred by the opposite party is not relevant to the present case.
13. The complainants claimed that when the death of the policy holder was accidental one the Insurance Company is liable to pay the sum assured. In this case the policy holder was murdered by two persons namely K.Sridhar and S.Geeta who are charged for murdering him. The claim of the opposite parties for non-payment of the sum assured is untenable in law. Even the murder of a person is a pre-planned one Insurance Company is liable to pay the sum assured. The complainants relied on the judgment rendered by National Commission reported in III (2008) CPJ 120 (NC) between Maya Devi Vs LIC of India in which it is held that even willful murder is accidental and to be described as “by chance” or “fortuitous”.
14. In another judgment relied on by the complainants rendered by Hon’ble A.P.State Commission reported in IV 2005 CPJ 543 between G.Padmavathi Vs Andhra Bank and another, it is held that murder is an accidental death and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the sum assured.
15. The criminal case records clearly disclosed that the policy holder was murdered by accused persons namely K.Sridhar and S.Geeta who are facing trial. Admittedly there is no involvement of any of the family members of the deceased policy holder in the incidence of murder to make wrongful gain for payment of the sum assured. Admittedly the Insurance Policy under Ex.A6 was obtained on 7.11.1997 and the policy holder was killed on 5.1.2007. When the policy holder was murdered the opposite parties are bound to pay the sum assured in terms of the Insurance Policy. Such benefit cannot be denied to the legal heirs of the policy holder on the ground that the murder was a pre-planned one. Since the death is not a natural one the opposite parties are bound to pay the capital insured sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. Having undertook to pay the assured sum the opposite parties failed to pay the same which constitutes deficiency of service. In view of above said reasons and relying on the judgments of Hon’ble National Commission and A.P.State Commission, we hold, that the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs. 5 lakhs to the complainants towards the sum assured under the policy.
16. The Family Members Certificate issued by Tahsildar Karimnagar under Ex.A5 reveals that the complainants are the legal heirs of the policy holder and all of them are entitled to receive the above said amount as follows. Out of Rs. 5 lakhs the complainant no. 1is entitled to receive Rs.2 lakhs, the complainant no.2 & 3 are entitled to receive Rs.1 lakh each and complainant no.4 & 5 are entitled to receive Rs.50,000/- each towards their shares. The amounts awarded to the minor complainants no.2 & 3 shall be invested in fixed deposit till they attain the age of majority.
17. In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.5 lakhs to complainants together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 5.6.2009 till the date of realization along with Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the complaint within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Out of the awarded amount of Rs.5 lakhs the complainant no.1 is entitled to receive Rs.2 lakhs with proportionate interest, complainant no.2 & 3 are entitled to receive Rs.1 lakh each with proportionate interest, complainant no.4 & 5 are entitled to receive Rs.50,000/- each with proportionate interest. The amounts awarded to the minor complainants no.2 & 3 shall be invested in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank till they attain the age of majority.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, after correction the orders pronounced by us in the open court this the 3rd day of June, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
NO ORAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADDUCED ON EITHER SIDE FOR COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 is the copy of FIR in Cr.No.6 of 2007 on the file of Police Station, Karimnagar II Town Dt: 9.1.2007.
Ex.A2 is the copy of Inquest Report Dt: 18.04.2009.
Ex.A3 is the copy of PME Report Dt: 19.4.2007.
Ex.A4 is the copy of Death Certificate of P.Surendar Dt: 12.6.2007.
Ex.A5 is the copy of Family Members Certificate Dt: 22.6.2007.
Ex.A6 is the copy of JPA Policy no.050810/47/56/47841/97 Dt: 7.11.1997.
Ex.A7 is the original repudiation letter no.2980/2008 by United India Insurance Co., Karimnagar addressed to complainant Dt: 25.2.2008.
Ex.A8 is the copy of letter by United India Insurance Company addressed to complainant Dt: 14.10.2008.
FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES: -NIL-
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
