Per Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member

          Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short “the Act”) is to the order dated 14.11.2016 in First Appeal No. 243 of 2015 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short “the State Commission). By the impugned order, the State Commission has concurred with the finding of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kadapa (in short “the District Forum”) and dismissed the Appeal preferred by Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Insurance Company).

2.       The facts in brief are that the Complainants are the wife and minor children of  late Mr. B. Venkateswarlu, who is a registered owner of a two wheeler bearing registration No. AP 04 AK 1997. It is averred that he obtained a Motorized Two Wheelers Package Insurance Policy covering personal accident also for the period 29.01.2013 to 28.01.2014. While so, it is averred that on 11.06.2013, he was murdered while proceeding on his insured vehicle and the crime was registered under FIR No. 124 of 2013 was registered by Taluk Police Station, Kadapa under Section 302 of IPC. It is stated that since the murder was not preplanned and such a plan was not in the knowledge of the life assured, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the sum insured of ₹1,00,000/- to the Complainants, despite repeated requests, the Insurance Company failed to settle the claim and hence the Complainant got issued a legal notice dated 14.03.2014 calling upon the Insurance Company to pay the personal accident benefits. It is stated that despite receiving the said legal notice the Insurance Company did not chose to settle the claim. Hence the Complaint seeking the following reliefs:

“a) to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards personal accident coverage underpolicy bearing no. 10008/31/13/035052 together with 24% percent interest from 11.06.2013 till the date of realization.

b) to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing physical stain and mental agony.

c) to pay Rs.3,000/- towards the cost of the Complaint and other reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”

3.       The Insurance Company filed their Written Version admitting to the issuance of the Motorized Two Wheeler Package Insurance Policy bearing No. 10008/31/13/035052 for the period 29.01.2013 to 28.01.2013 for a sum insured of ₹1,00,000/- towards personal accident. It is stated that as per the documents filed, the life assured was working as a sales man- cum- accountant  in Veerabradhra Textiles for more than two years and has stopped working one and a half year prior to the murder and started his own business. It is averred that the life assured had cheated some third parties to a tune of ₹70,00,000/- worth of stock and due to some business relations, which  has  soured, the life assured was murdered on 11.06.2013.

4.       It is pleaded in the Written Version that the murder was not an accidental murder, but a murder simplicitor, which took place with the dominant intention of the Act of Felony to kill any particular person and therefore is not covered under the policy and hence the repudiation is justified. 

5.       The District Forum based on the evidence adduced, allowed the Complaint in part directing the Insurance Company to pay an amount of ₹1,00,000/- towards personal accident coverage to the Complainants under the subject policy together with interest @ 6% p.a. from 11.06.2013 till the date of realization. The District Forum also awarded cost of ₹2,000/- and compensation of ₹1,000/-.

6.       Aggrieved by the said order, on an Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company, the State Commission concurred with the finding of the District Forum and observed as follows:

“The case of the respondents has to be examined in the light of the principle mentioned in the aforesaid judgment. Ex.A2 is the FIR registered on the basis of the complaint given by the wife of the policy holder. Her version in the complaint was that the policy holder was originally working in a taxtile shop belonging to one Mr. Dhanunjaya. He left the job about 1½  year back due to differences and started his own shop and picked up the business. The erstwhile owner and his son were insisting on him to return their shop and as he was refusing to do so, the son of the former owner developed animosity against him. The FIR, except stating so, does not mention that the  policy holder was facing serious threat to his life or that there was some conspiracy or design to eliminate him. The deceased was living freely without any suspicion till the date of incident i.e. 11.06.2016. Therefore, from the FIR it cannot be said that the policy holder died due to dominant intention on the part of the accused. Except Ex. A1 there is no other material on record to prove that the death was caused by design. In this view of the matter, this Commission finds that there is no error committed by the Forum in holding that it was an accidental death.”

(Emphasis supplied)

7.       Learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner/ Insurance Company vehemently contended that both the fora below have erred in allowing the Complaint as the policy does not cover the murder simplicitor. He drew our attention to Section III-Personal Accident Cover for Owner-Driver, which reads as follows:

“Subject otherwise to the terms exceptions conditions and limitations of this Policy, the Company undertakes to pay compensation as per the following scale for bodily injury/ death sustained by the owner-driver of the vehicle in direct connection with the vehicle insured whilst mounting into/ dismounting from or traveling in the insured vehicle as a co-driver, caused by the violent accidental external and visible means which independent of any other cause ……”

8.       A perusal of the material on record shows that admittedly Personal Accident was covered in the Policy and a premium of ₹50/- was paid towards the same. It is the main case of the Insurance Company that it was a murder simplicitor and hence it is not covered under the policy. It is pleaded that the deceased was riding the insured vehicle, when he was attacked by some miscreants and killed. The FIR also does not show that the life assured was facing any serious threat to his life or that there was some deep rooted plan or conspiracy to eliminate him. Needless to add, there was no Complaint made by the life assured either to the Police or to any third parties that there was any suspicion with respect to somebody planning his murder. He was living freely without any suspicion till the date of accident. The State Commission has rightly relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rita Devi Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, 2000, Volume 2, ACC 291 (SC), in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that if the dominant intention of the act of Felony to kill any particular person then such killing is not accidental murder but is a murder simplicitor, but if the murder or act of murder was not originally intended and the same was cause in furtherance of any other felonious act then such murder is an accidental murder. The facts and circumstances of the instant case squarely falls within the aforentoed ratio. It is not the case of the Insurance Company that the life assured was not on the insured vehicle at the time of the attack. The personal enmity is also not proved by way of any documentary evidence. The onus which is on the Insurance Company to establish that there was some personal enmity and the murder was preplanned has not been discharged. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the murder is an accidental one. Now we address ourselves to the second contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that there should be direct connection between the vehicle which is insured and the incident which has happened. There is a specific pleading in the Complaint that when he was proceeding on the insured vehicle the life assured was murdered. Neither the FIR nor the material on record evidences anything otherwise, when the incident had happened. The post mortem report evidences that the cause of death is due to shock and hemorrhage on account of multiple injuries. Keeping in view the fact that the policy includes personal accident coverage of ₹1,00,000/-, that the circumstances depict that the murder was an accidental murder and not murder simplicitor and also that the Insurance Company did not discharge its onus to establish otherwise, we are of the considered view that both the fora below have rightly held that the Insurance Company was liable to pay ₹1,00,000/- covered under the policy towards personal accident.   

9.       In the result, this Revision Petition is dismissed with the aforenoted directions. No order as to costs.