SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT

            Shortly stated the case of the complainant is that son of the complainant Saimul Ali took an insurance policy being No. 495157638 from the OP Insurance Co. In that policy the complainant was the nominee. Son of the complainant died on 13.04.2015. As per terms of the policy the petitioner claimed the death benefit of her son. She also submitted all the necessary documents. It is the case of the complainant that the OP paid only Rs. 1,35,000/-, not the DAB claim as per assurance.  Repeatedly the complainant made contact with the OP for payment of the DAB amount, but the OP repudiated the said claim.

Hence, the instant case with the prayers as made in the complaint petition on the allegation of deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

            The OP No.2 appeared and contested the case by filing written version.  This OP prayed for dismissal of the case as non maintainable under various provisions of law.

            The specific case of this OP is that the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the competent authority as it was evident from the PMR, FIR and final police report that the death was a planned murder.  Charge sheet was also framed against the accused person under Section 302/506/34/25/27 of IPC. Fact is that on 13.04.2015 at 7:30 P.M. while the DLA was returning home along with his mother driving his auto, at that time near Maa Mangola Temple the Accused person attacked him. The deceased was trying to escape but could not avoid clutch of the accused person. The accused person assaulted the DLA on various parts of his body. The DLA sustained severe bleeding injuries and was shifted to SUM hospital for treatment where he was declared dead. Murder is not an accident and murder which is an accident depends on the proximity of the cause of such murder. According to the OP if the dominant intention of the Act of felony is to kill any particular person then such killing is not an accidental murder but simply murder. Considering the above mentioned fact accidental benefits of the policy was rejected by the competent authority. But considering the basic condition of the policy a death benefit of Rs. 150,390/- was settled 15.12.2016.                                                                                                                                                                                                          

            In the aforesaid circumstance this OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the instant complaint.

            In spite of summons OP No. 1 did not turn up to contest the case. Hence, the case is heard ex parte against the OP No.1

            Point to be considered in this case is whether the case is maintainable and (2) whether Complainant is entitled to the relief(s) sought for by the complainant.

Decision with reasons

            Both the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience.

            We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainant, the written version. WNA  and all  the documents filed by both the parties and heard the submission of the ld advocate for the complainant.  Considered.

            Admittedly the son of the complainant  took an insurance policy No. 495157638 from the OP No. 1. Son of the complainant died  on 13.04.2015. complainant made a claim before the OPs as per the terms  of the policy issued by the OP insurance Co. and OP paid only Rs. 1,35,000/-  to the complainant but the OPs denied  to pay the DAB  clam as per assurance of the policy. Hence, the complainant has  claimed  Rs. 1,35,000/- along with other benefits  from the OPs.

             On the other hand, the OPs came to the conclusion after scrutinizing  the PMR, FIR and final police report  that the death  of the son of the complainant was a planned murder. Charge sheet has been filed against the accused persons u/sec 302/506/34/25 & 27 of IPC . According to the OPs son of the complainant had been murdered and h is death was not natural or accidental and hence the OPs claim that the complainant is not entitled to get any claim from the OPs.

            The question, therefore,   is can a murder be an accident in any given case ?. According to a decision  of 2005(5) SCC 113 it has been held that there is no doubt  that ‘murder’ as it is understood in the common parlance is 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 ‘’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 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.

            Ld advocate for the OPs argued that in the present case, murder of the son o the complainant  is established  and it can not be treated as a accidental death., Hence, the repudiation of the claim is justified.

         From the policy  conditions  it is clear that this claim is available only when the death is caused  and injury suffered in any accident caused by an outward violent visible means. In murder also injury is caused by an outwards violent visible means. But the question  to be considered is whether the injuries caused in an accident or not. The dictionary meaning of the word ‘accident’ is an unfortunate incident that happened unexpectedly and unintentionally and (2)something that happens  by chance or without apparent cause.  But in this case   it appears that  it is a planned murder caused but not in accident.

But the Ops admitted in their written version, particularly by the OP no 2 that policy  was issued from the LICI Tamluk Branch under Kharagpur Division on 11.052012  and the policy holder died  on 13.04.2015 due to murder and OP No. 2 settled the claim on the basic death benefit (Sum assured + vested bonus) at Rs. 1,50,390/- on 15.12.2016.  But subsequently the same was rejected by the LICI by its letter dated 28.07.2017 in relation to policy No. 495157638 of the deceased.  It also appears that the OP No. 2 admitted  that the claim was settled  at Rs. 1,50,390/-. The complainant has stated that the OP paid Rs. 1,35,000/-  but the complainant was denied the DAB claim as per assurance in the policy.  The complainant did not file  any paper to show that the complainant has received Rs. 1,35,000/- from the Ops along with other benefits.  

Considering the terms   of the policy and claim of the complainant we would give moiré force to the admission of the OP no. 2  in the written version that they had settled  the claim at Rs. 1,50,390/-. Hence, the complainant is entitled to  get Rs. 1,35000/-  from the OPs if not paid to the complainant  in the meantime.

Under the aforesaid circumstances we hold that  the complainant is entitled to get an award of Rs 1,35,000/-only as per claim of the complainant in the prayer portion of the complaint petition.

We also  do not want to impose any compensation on the OPs but the they would pay the litigation cost of Rs 3,000/- to the complainant.

            Both the points are answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.

            Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/ 22 of 2018 be and the same is allowed on contest against both the OPs.

The OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay the complainant an amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs. 3,000/- within one month from the date of this order, failing which an interest @ Rs 10 % per annum shall be imposed upon the OPs till full satisfaction of the awarded amount.

However, no order as to compensation is passed.

Let copy of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of cost.