Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/117/2022

Darshana - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC of India through its Branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Ravinder Yadav

11 Dec 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI

                                                           Complaint No.: 117 of 2022.                                                                                Date of Institution: 09.05.2022.                                                                             Date of Order:      11.12.2024

Darshana  wife of Late Sh. Sombir, aged about 35 years and permanent resident of village and post office Jagrambass, Teshil Badhra and District Charkhi Dadri Mobile No.8683804004.

                                                                                      …..Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. LIC of India through its Branch Manager, Branch Office Loharu Road, Charkhi Dadri.
2. Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Rohtak Divisional Office, Sec-1, HUDA, Rohtak-124001.

 

….Respondents/OPs

COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

Sitting:        Hon’ble Shri Manjit Singh Naryal, President,

                   (Proceeded under Section 64 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

 

Present:       Sh. Ravinder Yadav, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Kender Mani, Advocate for OPs.

ORDER

 

1.           The case of the complainant in brief, is that the husband of the complainants namely Sombir purchased two Policy No.174450940 on dated 28.06.2005 for a sum insured Rs. 1,00,000/- and No. 178722994 on dated 28.05.2010 assured Rs.4,00,000/-. That under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, OPs agreed to provide total risk cover of Rs. 5 lac under both the policy, in case of natural death of life assured during the currency of insurance policy and double this sum assured if the death is accidental death. That complainant’s husband during his life time paid entire premium under the insurance policy and complainant being legally wedded wife is nominee under the aforesaid policy. That the husband of the complainant died accidental death on 14.10.20218 by bullet firing. Complainant being nominee under the insurance policy completed entire requirement for payment of basic and accidental death claim and on receipt of claim forms, OPs assured complainant that claim will be paid within a month. It is further alleged that OPs paid the basic claim but withheld accidental claim amount Rs. 5 lac under both the insurance policies. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 29.03.2022 but OPs did not pay any heed.  The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the OPs, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such he had to file the present complaint. 
2.           On notice, the OPs appeared and filed the written reply raising objections regarding locus standi, maintainability, cause of action as well as non joinder of necessary party. It is also submitted by the OPs that they have given the basic claim but withheld the accidental death claim due to non fulfilment of requirements by the complainant as well as death of life assured due to the bullet firing in land dispute and also contended that for considering the accident benefit claim in the polices, it is required to have police final report/court judgment/visra report and also contended that criminal case is still pending before the Trial Court.
3.           Both the parties in support of their respective averments tendered in documentary evidence alongwith their respective affidavits and adduced certain documents.  Reference of relevant record shall be given in this order. 
4.           We have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file thoroughly and after hearing the rival contentions of the parties, we are of the convinced view that the present complaint has merit and the same deserves acceptance for the reasons mentioned hereinafter.
5.            Both learned counsel for the parties reiterated the contents of the complaint as well as reply respectively. There is no dispute regarding insurance policy between both the parties. As on the dispute arising in this complaint that the OPs have withheld the claim of the complainant due to Murder of the husband of the complainant and no considered Murder as an accident. Secondly, The OPs have taken ground that the final judgment not come out so far with regard to the murder of the husband of the complainant. The counsel for the complainant has cited the judgment titled as Maya Devi Vs. LIC  (Revision  petition No.2824 of 2007 decided on 21.05.2008 by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi) in which the three Judges Bench of the National Consumer Commission concluded that murder is an accident. In support of his contention of the complainant also cited Pawan Kumar Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and anrs. (First appeal No. 535 of 2015 decided on 26^th May 2016 by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi), Pushpa Aggarwal Vs.  Insurance Ombudsman U.P. (Writ C-No.50352 of 2008 decided on  25.04.2012 decidced by Allahabad High Court),  whereby these judgment held that murder is an accident  and  murder cannot be called a natural death or it’s not intentional kill himself viz suicide. If murder caused due to scuffle between two parties and it’s result of heat of moment is also an accident. Moreover, the condition no.12 of the insurance policy says that in case of death of insurer the normal requirement for a claim is only a death certificate is sufficient.
6.           I am of the considered  view that murder has been held as an accident and as such when murder also amount to accident, the OPs have no right to retain double accidental  benefit, till the conclusion of the criminal trial regarding murder of deceased. As per the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C the husband of the complainant was died due to bullet shot and as per the Ex.C3 visra report reveals that the Sombir was died due to Bullet injury.  So as discussed above, I am of the considered view that complainant is entitled to double accidental benefit. As such the complaint is accepted and same is hereby allowed with cost by directing OPs as under:-  

1. To pay Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lakh only) for double accidental benefits of the policy alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of death till its realization.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only)  for mental harassment and agony.
3. To pay Rs. Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only)  as litigation expenses.

                   The above order be complied within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which further interest @12% will be paid by the OPs for the delayed period. 

7.                If the order of this Commission is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to file execution petition under Section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the defaulting party will be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which provides punishment of imprisonment for a term which shall not less than one month, but which may extend to three years or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty-five thousand rupees, but which may extend to Rs. one lac or with both. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs as per rules and this order be promptly uploaded on the website of this Commission. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.