This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that one Chanchal Ghosh since deceased had taken a life insurance policy bearing no.578339432 for sum assured Rs.2,00,000/- only with double accident benefit from the OP1 and complainant is the legally married wife of Chanchal Ghosh, since deceased and said Chanchal Ghosh paid premium regularly and the policy was in force on the date of death of the policy holder and complainant was the nominee in the above policy and the sole heir of the deceased and said Chanchal Ghosh died on 14-10-2010 and life assured was found lying dead in a pool of blood it was presumed to be murdered.  Complainant lodged claim with the insurance company for payment of the sum assured with accrued bonus, profits and double accident benefit of the said policy and insurance company paid Rs.2 lakh only towards sum assured on 15 -07-2013 but refused to pay bonus, profit and double accident benefit of the policy.  Complainant by letter dated 01-08-2013 requested the OP1 to pay the bonus, profit and double accident benefit and sent a notice for releasing said benefit on 05-10-2013 on the insurance company by its letter dated October, 2013 refused to pay the same on the ground that policy holder was not murdered and practically she is not entitled to get the same and took a plea that deceased life assured was murdered so, double accident benefit is not payable.  A prosecution case was started against the complainant u/s.302 and 201 of I.P.C. but murder was not established and complainant was acquitted.  So, OP is bound to pay the sum but OP is refusing to pay, so, the present case is filed.

          On the other hand, OP by filing written statement submitted that on 14-10-2010 just after one month and 15 days of commencement of the policy and just after paying one yearly premium, the life assured was murdered and in the death claim complainant has submitted that the case of death is murder.  Thereafter, post mortem of the body was conducted by the appropriate authority and it was found that the death was due to effects of head injury made by sharp edge like metallic heavy instrument and mortem and homicide in nature and after getting intimation of death of the life assured, the death benefit of Rs.2 lakhs was paid to the complainant on 09-07-2013 as per the terms and conditions of the policy and that was accepted by the complainant but double accidental benefit was not paid and as per post mortem report it is clearly established that life assured was murdered and the double accidental benefit was not admissible as per the circular no.CO/CRM/607/23 dated 15-10-2007 and in view of the observation of the National Commission in case of Prithvi Raj Bhandari vs. LIC of India the present cause of the death was murder which does not come under the purview of the accidental murder and the nominee of the life assured was not paid the double accident  benefit but only the death benefit was paid and according to the occurrence of the murder in the flat the said murder can be termed as murder simplicitor and no accidental benefit is to be paid in such case. 

          Fact remains complainant lodged complaint to the Shibpur policy Station on 14-10-2010 i.e. on the date of murder her husband was threatened by his first wife Smt. Jyotsna  Das and said complaint letter also reveals that it was a murder simplicitor and fact remains complainant was arrested for making an extra-judicial confession before the members of the public and she was accused for the murder of her husband that is the deceased life assured and a criminal case being no.ST 411/11 was instituted by the State before the Ld. Court of Additional Dist & Session  Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Howrah,  and the prosecution case cannot be proved by the circumstantial evidence for which the complainant was released.  So, this murder cannot be termed as accidental murder and therefore, not entitled for double accident benefit.  So, there was no deficiency or negligence on the part of the OP and in view of the said claim could not be considered.

Decision with Reasons

On careful consideration of the materials on record and also considering the fact that on 24-10-2010 dead body of the complainant’s husband was found with sharp cut injuries.  Police case was started and complainant herself was arrested and against her a Session Trial being no.411 of 11 instituted, however, for lack of circumstantial evidence she has been acquitted and considering the present facts and circumstances, it is clear and in the particular case it is clear that the complainant was accused in connection with murder of her husband Chanchal Ghosh and she has been acquitted for want of evidence.  But truth is that the dead body of her husband was found in flat while complainant has been living with her husband as husband-wife.  Now, the question is the present murder is an accident or not and in this regard we have gone through ruling reported in case no.204 of 99 of Prithivi Raj Bhandari  of LICI of India it is found that 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 simplicitor, 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 and considering that principle of law and present facts and circumstances it is clear that complainant has failed to prove by any cogent evidence that this murder is on accidental murder on the ground on 14-10-2010 Chanchal Ghosh was murdered that is one month and 15 days from the commencement of the policy and practically Chanchal Ghosh paid only premium and another factor is that the judgment of the Additional Session Judge, Fast Track Court-II reveals that Ld. Court has come to a conclusion that the complainant as accused was acquitted for lack of circumstantial evidence.  So, considering the material situation and the circumstances of death of Chanchal Ghosh we are convinced that this murder is not accidental death.  But for getting some benefit he was murdered.  So, in view of the above materials and also considering the judgment of National Commission we are convinced to hold that the present accidental death claim is not admissible when this murder was caused with some intention and invariably the family members are involved to get benefit of his policy etc.  Moreover, in this case it is clear that complainant is not legal wife of Chanchal Ghosh and that Chanchal Ghosh married another lady Jyotsna Das for which the present complainant became annoyed and present complainant became furious to take revenge.  So, circumstances are of such a nature to hold that it was not an accidental murder in the eye of law but purposefully he was murdered invariably by the dissatisfied person who had their intention to take revenge against Jyotshna Das the first wife of Chanchal Ghosh and considering all the above facts and circumstances we are convinced to hold that this murder was caused with intention for getting the accidental death benefit of Chanchal Ghosh but not otherwise and in view of the fact we are convinced that it is not accidental murder and for which the present complainant is not entitled to get such accidental death benefit of the policy but as per rule OP already paid the normal death benefit to the complainant.  So, no negligence or deficiency of the OP is proved.

In the result, the complaint fails

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost against the OP.