By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President<br /> <br /> Petitioner’s case is as follows:<br /> <br /> Petitioner is the father of deceased Shyju.P.N. The said Shyju was a beneficiary of Farmers Accident Policy, vide No.4776070000044 for the period from 2/10/1999 to 1/10/2000. The Shyju was seen murdered on 8/7/2000. The petitioner is the nominee under the policy. The petitioner submitted for the insurance claim with all documents, but was repudiated and letter was given. Hence this complaint.<br /> <br /> 2. Respondents 1 and 2 filed counter in support of complainant.<br /> <br /> 3. The counter of respondents 3 and 4 is as follows: The complaint is barred by limitation as per condition No.7 of the policy. Under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act also this petition is barred by limitation. Legal heirs of the deceased who are necessary parties are not impleaded. The petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground also. It is admitted that petitioner is a beneficiary under the scheme. As per Proviso 4 of the Policy, Company is not liable for payment of compensation. Since the cause of death of the insured is not come under the purview of the policy this respondent repudiated the claim and the matter was informed to 1st respondent. The repudiation is based on policy conditions and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 4. Points for consideration are<br /> 1) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?<br /> 2) Whether the petition is barred by limitation?<br /> 3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the policy benefit?<br /> 4) Reliefs and costs?<br /> <br /> 5. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P9 and Exhibits R1 to R13.<br /> <br /> Point No.1<br /> 6. The petition is for the insurance benefits of the petitioner’s son, who was seen murdered on 8/7/2000. The petitioner is the father. In the policy, the nominee is the petitioner. But in the petition all the legal heirs are to be impleaded as necessary parties. So the petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground only.<br /> <br /> Point No.2<br /> 7. The 2nd point to be considered is regarding limitation. The cause of action arose on 8/7/2000. The petition is filed only on 23/9/2004. The petition has to be filed within two years from the date of cause of action. Delay condonation petition is also not filed. So under Sec.24 Amendment (1) of the Consumer Protection Act the petition is not maintainable.<br /> <br /> Point No.3 <br /> 8.The policy conditions which are marked as Exhibit R13, Proviso 4 clearly stated that the Company shall not be liable under the policy for intentional self-injury, suicide or attempted suicide or murder. Here the policy holder was murdered and which is admitted by the petitioner in his petition. The documents also explained it. So the petitioner is not entitled to get policy benefits.<br /> 9. In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost and compensation.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open forum this the 16th day of June 2008.<br />