(Delivered on 27/06/2017)

Per Mrs. Jayshree Yengal, Hon’ble Member

1. The original complainant Mr. Rajendra Ganpat Musale has preferred this appeal challenging  the dismissal of Consumer complaint bearing No. 145/2011 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur on 7/2/2012.
2. The appellant Mr. Rajendra Ganpat Musale is referred as complainant and respondent No. 1 Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. and respondent No. 2 Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. are referred as opposite party ( for short OP) Nos. 1 and 2 for the sake of convenience.
3. Facts in brief as set out by the complainant in his consumer complaint are as follows.

1. Smt. Jayshree alias Rekha was the deceased wife of the complainant Shri Rajendra Musale. She owned two vehicles of LMV Sumo Vecta Model bearing registration No. MH-29-T-7633 and Tata Victa bearing registration No. MH-29/T-8142. She had availed loan from the OP for purchasing the same. The OP had given accidental insurance protection  cover by issuing a Group Personal Accident Master Policy bearing No. APG 00005055-000-00 for the period from 1/3/2009 to 29/2/2012. It is the contention of the complainant that as  the deceased wife of the complainant had availed financial loan twice to purchase two vehicles. he was entitled to the accidental benefit  for double the amount. The OP however supplied only one certificate of insurance to the deceased wife of the complainant. The accidental insurance for one vehicle was of Rs. 298337/-. The deceased Rekha alias Jayshree  went to visit her parents at Chincholi Budruk for some festival in the month of August 2010 on 29/8/2010. On   that date around 10.00 pm in the night she had  dinner with her parents and she went to  bed thereafter. It is the contention of the complainant that his deceased wife was in the habit of  walking while sleeping. Therefore on that night also, she walked out of the house in the night and accidently fell in the well. Nobody was aware of the mishap. However after much efforts, they found the dead body of deceased Rekha in the  well of the Gram Panchayat. The matter was immediately reported with the police and all  the formalities were completed and the body was sent for post mortem examination.
2. It is further contended by the complainant that he enquired with OP No. 2 about the transfer of the two vehicles in his name. OP No. 2 handed over the copy of certificate  of insurance to the complainant . The complainant for the first time came to know about the insurance coverage of the deceased.
3. The complainant immediately lodged the insurance claim with OP No. 1. The OP No. 1 by letter dated 15/04/2011 repudiated the insurance claim. It is the contention of the complainant that his wife was mentally fit. However she was in the habit of walking while sleeping which cannot be considered as any disease. Therefore her death due to drowning  in well was accidental and he was entitled to the accidental benefit under the insurance policy.
4. The OPs have adopted unfair trade practice and rendered deficiency in service by repudiating the claim and therefore alleging accordingly he filed the consumer complaint and sought for insurance claim  of Rs. 2,98,337/- each for two vehicles with 12 percent per annum interest. Rs. 50,000/- and 5,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and cost of proceeding, respectively.

4. The OPs resisted the complaint by filing their written version and denied all the adverse allegation of the complainant. The OP No.1 however has  not disputed the Group Personal Accident Policy issued to the OP NO. 2 and the certificate  issued to the deceased wife of the complainant was valid for the period from 1/3/2009 to 29/02/2012. The deceased wife had availed loan from OP No. 2. The OP has specifically submitted for dismissal of the complaint as aforesaid as a Consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not tenable as they have neither rendered any deficiency in service nor adopted unfair trade practice.
5. The Forum after hearing both the sides and perusing the documents on record, dismissed the complaint as aforesaid. The  Forum has specifically held that the coverage under the certificate of insurance issued by the OP No. 1was for   accidental death only and the complainant  had failed to prove that the death of the deceased wife of the complainant was accidental.
6. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the consumer complaint , the original complainant has preferred this appeal and challenged the impugned order mainly on the ground that the Forum erred in holding that the deceased wife of the complainant had committed suicide and that the death was not accidental. The appellant sought for quashing and setting aside of the impugned order.
7. We heard counsel for both the sides and perused the written notes of arguments filed by both the parties, we also perused copies of the complaint, written version and documents filed on record.

The appellant/original complainant has relied on the following authorities.

1. National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mousumi Bhattacharjee and others reported in IV 2016 CPJ 438 NC. In that case, it is held that an accident is something that happens unexpectedly and is not planned in advance. In that case it is further held that death due to Malaria on account of mosquito bite is covered under accidental death. 
2. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr. Vs. Ratan Kaur  (MSRDC, Mumbai) reported in III 2005 CPJ 576. In that  case, it is held that  insurance company is under obligation to prove breach of policy condition and on failure on the part of widow to place on record driving licence of her deceased husband  does not warrant adverse inference.
3. Bharti and Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company and Anr.( MSRDC Mumbai, Bench Aurangabad Reported in I 2010 CPJ 175. In that  case, it was alleged that death was suicidal and not accidental. But there was no evidence to prove that deceased committed suicide. Hence it is held that in the absence of concrete evidence regarding death, one cannot conclude that death was suicidal.
4. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jaiwanti Bai vishwakarma and Anr. Reported in II 2016 CPJ 99 NC.  In that case, there was no expert evidence to prove that wounds found  on the dead body of deceased  could have been come only in case where suicide was committed either by coming in front of moving training or by lying on railway track. It is therefore held that neither opinion of panchas nor opinion of police officer could have established that the deceased has committed suicide.

     The ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments is not applicable to the present case as the facts are not identical or similar as  discussed  below.

8. The facts about insurance  certificate by the OP in the name of the deceased wife of the complainant, the period of the policy, the  sum assured under  the policy and the coverage for accidental death, are not disputed. The only issue that survives for our consideration is whether the death was accidental or suicidal.
9. We perused the investigation report of the OP  in which it is recorded that the well in which the deceased died due to drowning is of stone and cement and its diameter is 10 ½ x10 ½  and the well is bound by a wall of 2 ½ ft. height above ground level. The said investigation report has also reproduced the statement of the complainant and statement of one Mr. Swapnil Bhurao Bobate, the nephew of the deceased. The complainant in his statement has mentioned that his deceased wife had been to her native place for Rakhi Festival and she was mentally disturbed. She had gone to see the well  and at that time she fell in the well. The statement of the nephew is recorded as “His aunt  had committed suicide by jumping into the well at Chincholi Village and her mental condition was not stable.”
10.  The observation recorded  from the aforesaid statements in the investigation report is that:-

“  In the statement of claimant it is stated that deceased Mrs. Jayshree Musale had gone to her native place in Chincholi for Rakshabandhan at the time of her death and she was mentally disturbed, but as per the statement of Mr. Swapnil Bhaurao Bobate (Nephew of deceased) the deceased Mrs. Jayshree Rajendra Musale has committed suicide and she was mentally fit at the time of her death.”  

11. The conclusion drawn from the aforesaid observation in that report is as:

“ From our overall investigation, collected statements, police papers, photographs and other relevant documents, we found that the incident happened is true and deceased Mrs. Jayshree Rajendra Musale died due to ASPHYXIA due to drowning with Cardio Respiratory Arrest but her death was not an accident and she has committed suicide.”

12. The OPs  repudiated the claim relying on the aforesaid investigation report as the death was not due to accident.
13. We perused the certificate of insurance  which depicts the coverage of insurance as “ Accidental Death Only” We also perused the exclusion No. 1 clause which is reproduced in the letter of repudiation which reads as “ Exclusion No. 1- The policy does not provide benefits for any death incurred as result of any injury attributable directly or indirectly to intentionally self-inflicted injury, suicide or any attempt  while sane or insane.”
14. The complainant has contended in his complaint that the deceased life assured was in habit of walking while sleeping and she accidentally fell into the well and got drowned. The legal notice dated 31/03/2011 issued by the complainant  simply mentions that Jayshree met with an accident in which she died on 30/08/2010. The statement of the complainant/respondent in the investigation report on the other hand mentions that “My wife had gone to her native place for Rakhi Festival but she was mentally disturbed. She had gone to see the well  of the Grampanchayat  of her village and at that time she fell in the well. We find aforesaid contradictions in the contentions of the complainant. Hence inference of accidental death cannot be drawn.
15. In our opinion it is highly improbable  that any person would go to the well  only to  see it that too in the midnight. It is equally improbable that the person would fall accidentally into it while walking in sleep, when undisputedly the boundary wall of the well is having height of 2.5 feet above ground level. This inference is also supported by the statement of Swapnil Bobate, recorded by the investigator  in which he has stated that the insured has committed suicide by jumping into the well.  No inference of accident can be drawn from the aforesaid facts & circumstances which are brought on record.  
16. We are therefore of the reasoned view that respondents/OPs have neither adopted unfair trade practice nor  rendered deficient  service to appellant by repudiating  his claim. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no glaring infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order and that the appeal deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merits.
17. In the result, we pass the following order.

ORDER

1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The impugned order dated 7/2/2012, passed by the District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur in consumer complaint bearing No. 145/2011 is confirmed.
3. No order as to cost in appeal.
4. Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.