PRESENT: SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT

 

Friday, 7^th November 2008

 

1. Guladurthy Lakshmi Devi, W/o Late G. Venkata Subba Reddy.

2. Guladurthy Rajyalakshmi, D/o G. Venkata Subba Reddy.

3. Guladurthy jaganmohan Reddy, S/o G. Venkata Subba Reddy.

4. Guladurthy Venkata Subbamma, D/o G. Venkata Subba Reddy.

Vs.

 

1. Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Rep. by its

2. United India Insurance Co. ltd., Rep. by its

 

This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 6-11-2008 in the presence of Sri T. Venkata Ramaniah, Advocate, for complainant and Sri K. Rama Kondaiah, Advocate for R2 and R1 called absent and set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-

 

1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The 1^st complainant is the wife of late D.Venkata Subba Reddy. The complainants 2 and 4 are the daughters and complainant No.3 is the son of late G.Venkata Subba Reddy. The 1^st complainant’s husband late G.Venkata Subba Reddy was murdered on 16.5.07 as per the First Information Report in Crime No.22/07 of Kalamala Police station. The deceased G.Venkata Subba Reddy was a Kisan Card Holder of the 1^st respondent bank and availing loans from it. Under the Kisan Card a farmer will be covered insurance coverage for an assured sum of Rs.50,000/- on payment of premium by the 1^st respondent after debiting to the Kisan Card account to the second respondent company. In the case of the deceased G.Venkata Subba Reddy also premium was collected and remitted to the second respondent company covering the risk of assured sum.   The deceased G.Venkata Subba Reddy was murdered during the currency of the Policy. There is no dispute with regard to coverage of policy to claim assured sum from the second respondent company through the 1^st respondent bank.   After the death, the complainant approached 1^st respondent bank and submitted all requisite papers to process the claim from settlement by second respondent company. The 1^st respondent bank forwarded the claim to the second respondent company for payment of assured sum of Rs.50,000/- as per the policy entered between 1^st respondent bank and second respondent company. The second respondent Insurance Company instead of settling the claim for Rs.50,000/- repudiated the claim on the ground that the murder is not accident. As per the policy in case Kisan Card Holder dies due to accidental nature of death he/she would be entitiled for the assured sum of Rs.50,000/- The case of the 1^st complaint’s husband death also would come within the purview of the expression accidental death and therefore all the complaints are entitled for the assured sum of Rs.50,000/-. The claim was repudiated on 05.09.2007 by showing the reason that the murder is not an accidental. The murder is an accidental death which no person could expect. Therefore the reason shown for  non-settlement of the claim is highly illegal irrational and against the terms and conditions of the policy. It is a clear case of deficiency in service. Hence the present complaint would fall under deficiential service defined in the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complainants  payed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to a) direct the respondents No.1 and 2 pay the assured sum of Rs.50,000/- jointly and severally to the complainants, b) grant an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and c) grant cost of Rs.2,000/- and such other relief’s as the Hon’ble Forums deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.

3. The R1 called absent and set exparte. 

4. R2 filed a counter denying that allegations in the complaint filed by the complainants which is neither just nor maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. The complainants are put to strict proof of all the allegations averred in the complaint except those which are specially admitted by R2.  The complainants stated in their complaint that the deceased D.Venkata Subba Reddy was Kisan Credit Card Holder through first opposite party is true. And also, it is true that whenever the Kisan Credit Card Holder dies accidentally within the period of the policy, the insurance company i.e., O.P.No.2 is liable to pay Rs.50,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased.   In this case, the deceased Venkata Subba Reddy, was murdered on 16-5-05. After the murder of the deceased, the complainants claimed the policy amount through the first opposite party to this opposite party. But the opposite party No.2 after through verification of the criminal records pertaining to the murder of the deceased Venkata Subba Reddy, repudiated the claim of the complainants stating that the murder of the deceased was not fallen under the meaning of “murder an accident”. In this regard, this opposite party submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court crystal clearly defined in what circumstances a murder falls under the meaning of the “accident or not”. In a land-marked judgment reported in Rita Devi and others Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd., which is reported in Supreme Court cases 2000 (5) page No.113, the Supreme Court held that “No doubt” murder”, as it is understood in the common parlance as a felonious act where death is caused with intent and the perpetrators of that act normally have a motive against the victim for such killing. But there are also instances where murder can be by accident on a given set of facts. 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. If the dominant intention of the Act if felony is to kill any particular person then such killing is not an accidental murder, but is a murder simpliciter, while if the cause of murder or act of murder was originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of any other felonious act then such murder is an accidental murder” In this case, the murder of the deceased was a pre-planned and pre-motivated murder. It is clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. and Charge sheet that the assassinators of the deceased have a conspiracy to murder the deceased and they prepared for committing murder of the deceased on account of the existing ill-feelings. And also, it is clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. that the deceased and his family members, knew that the assailants of the deceased were making plan to murder the deceased and also some of the well-wishers of the deceased were already alerted the deceased and his family members. So, all these facts clearly establish that the murder of the deceased was not fallen under the meaning of “murder an accident”. The judgement which was relied on by R2, as referred above, is very suitable for this present case. Hence, R2 has no liability to pay any compensation to the complainants. Accordingly, R2 repudiated the claim and the question of negligent in services does not arise at any stretch of reality.  R2, therefore, prayed the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the petition with costs, in the interests of justice.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. 

i.                   Whether the complainants are entitled for the relief as prayed for?

ii.                 To what relief?

6. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A6 were marked. No documents were marked on behalf of the Respondents.    Oral arguments were heard from both sides.  

7. Point No. 1 Ex. A1 is the Xerox copy of FIR in Cr. No. 22/2007 U/s 147, 148 and 302 R/w 149 IPC of Kalamalla Police Station, dt. 16-5-2007. Ex. A2 is the Xerox copy of Inquest report in Cr. No. 22/2007 of Kalamalla Police station, dt. 16-5-2007. Ex. A3 is the Xerox copy of post mortem certificate of the deceased G. Venkata Subba Reddy in Cr. No. 22/2007, dt. 18-5-2007 issued by Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Proddatur. Ex. A4 is the original repudiation letter dt.  5-9-2007 of the Branch Manager Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Yerraguntla. Ex. A5 is the Xerox copy of family members certificate issued by the Tahsildar, yerraguntla, dt. 22-6-2007. Ex. A6 is the Xerox copy of certificate dt. 8-9-2007 issued by Inspector of Police, Yerraguntla. 

8. As could be seen from the documentary evidence the husband of the complainant No.1 by name D. Venkata Subba Reddy, was a Kisan Credit Card Holder of R1 bank. He  was murdered on 16-5-2007 vide Ex. A1. As per Ex. A4 the claim of the complainants was repudiated on the ground that the murder of the deceased is not an accident in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in S.S.C No. 2005 (5) page 113. The solitary point for consideration in this case is whether the murder of the deceased husband of the complainant No.1 is accidental one or not. The learned counsel for R2 relied on a citation i.e. SC 2000 (5) page 113 in the case of Rita Devi and others Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and another in which his lord ship held that the murder is accident.

9. The citation relied by the learned counsel for the R2 Tatties with the facts and circumstances of the present case in favour of the complainants and not in favour of the Respondents. 

10. The learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand contended that murder is an accident. He relied on the following decision.  1) 2006 ACJ 2606 in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and others Vs Ummadi Shankunthala and others. The Hon’ble A.P. High court held that the murder is an accident and insurance company is liable to pay the amount, 2) 1998 CTJ 485 (CP) (NCDRC) in the case of Smt. Manda Savarna Vs. Branch Manager, LIC of India and another. The Hon’ble National Commission held that the murder is an accident and LIC is liable to pay compensation to the complainant. 

11. In view of the above circumstances the murder of the deceased husband of the complainant No.1 very much attracts the meaning of accidental death because the deceased husband of the complainant No.1 could not have expected that he could be killed on a particular day at a particular place and time. So the complainants are entitled to receive the claim from LIC as the deceased husband of the complainant No.1 was murdered which is an un-expected event.  

12. Point No. 2. In the result, the complaint is allowed. Directing the R2 to pay Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) without interest to the complainant Nos. 1 to 4 equally along with Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs, within two months from the date of receipt of this order. The case against R1 is dismissed without costs.   

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 7^th November 2008

 

 

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant    :       NIL                                            For Respondent :     NIL

Exhibits marked for Complainant : -  

 

Ex. A1         X/c of FIR in Cr. No. 22/2007 U/s 147, 148 and 302 R/w 149 IPC of

Kalamalla Police Station, dt. 16-5-2007.

Ex. A2         X/c of Inquest report in Cr. No. 22/2007 of Kalamalla Police station,

dt. 16-5-2007. 

Ex. A3         X/c of post mortem certificate of the deceased

G. Venkata Subba Reddy.

Ex. A4         Original repudiation letter dt. 5-9-2007 of the Branch Manager Andhra

Pragathi Grameena Bank, Yerraguntla. 

Ex. A5         X/c of family members certificate issued by the Tahsildar,

yerraguntla, dt. 22-6-2007. 

Ex. A6         X/c of certificate dt. 8-9-2007 issued by Inspector of

Police, Yerraguntla. 

 

Exhibits marked for Respodnents : -         NIL

 

 

 

 

1) Sri T. Venkata Ramaiah, Advocate.

2) Sri K. Rama Kondaiah, Advocate.

3) Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Rep. by its

 

2) Copy was dispatched on      :

3) Copy of delivered to parties :