STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 02.11.2017
Date of final hearing: 15.05.2023
Date of pronouncement: 17.07.2023
First Appeal No.1313 of 2017
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Jarnail Singh aged about 76 years, son of Sh. Nasib Singh, resident of Village Sarala Khurd, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala (Punjab).
....Appellant
Versus
- Chief Manager, Branch Office, LIC of India, Jagadhari Road, Ambala Cantt.
- Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Division Office, Model Town, Karnal.
- Zonal Manager, LIC of India, Northern Zonal Office, Jeevan Bharti, Connaught Palace, New Delhi-110001.
…..Respondents
CORAM: Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member
Argued by:- None for the appellant.
Sh. S.C. Thatai, counsel for respondents.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Challenge in this appeal No.1313 of 2017 has been invited by complainant to the legality of order dated 28.09.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-Ambala (In short “District Commission”) in complaint case No.306 of 2014.
2. Amar Singh S/o complainant got himself insured on 28.01.2001 from opposite party/respondent No. 1 i.e. Ambala Cantt. Branch Office of Life Insurance Corporation of India vide policy No. 172558661. Sum assured was Rs. 50,000/-. Policy was purchased with added benefit of Double Accident Benefit. Jarnail Singh-complainant was made nominee in policy. During currency of policy; assured Amar Singh expired, as he was found murdered on 04.06.2005. Complainant, being nominee under policy, approached OP/respondent No. 1 for death claim benefits along with documents i.e. Death Certificate, FIR, PMR. OP No. 1 admitted death claim liability under policy and released only basic sum assured along with accrued bonus amounting to Rs.59,850/- to complainant, but did not pay double accident claim amount of Rs.50,000/-. No reasons were assigned for withholding Double Accident Benefit amount. Complainant had been visiting at office of OP No. 1 for getting amount of Double Accident Benefit, but to no effect. He approached officer of OP No. 2 i.e. Karnal Divisional Office of LIC, vide his RTI application dated 19.12.2013. It was replied by OP No. 2, vide letter dated 11.02.2014. The reply was ‘In this regard we want to inform you that since cause of death is murder and Double Accident Benefit is payable only after decision of court in murder case.’ It is pleaded that decision to withhold Double Accident Benefit amount of Rs.50,000/- is unfair, arbitrary and unwarranted, being against terms and conditions of LIC policy. It is pleaded claim could be denied, only if case falls under exclusions mentioned in clause 10B of insurance policy. Insurer has travelled beyond terms & conditions of insurance policy. Autopsy conducted on body of deceased Amar Singh-life assured at PGIMS-Rohtak reveals cause of death of assured as throttling i.e. manual strangulation. As per autopsy report, injury over the head is also ante-mortem in nature, caused by hard and blunt object. Deceased did not die of natural causes. He was done to death in violent manner, due to out-word, violent means adopted by third person over which life assured had no command. Hence, death of assured amounts to death by accident. Complainant is an illiterate, rural rustic and aged person of 72 years. He served legal notice on 22.03.2014 upon OP No. 3, but to no effect. On these pleas by asserting cause of action complaint has been filed for issuance directions to OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- i.e. Double Accident Benefit to complainant, under policy along with interest @15% from 28.12.2005 when basic claim was paid; he be also paid Rs.25,000/- as compensation for causing undue physical harassment, mental agony/torture besides financial loss and be also paid Rs.11,000/- towards cost of forced litigation.
3. Upon notice, OPs raised contest. In defence; it is pleaded that complaint is not maintainable. It is time barred. Amar Singh died on 08.06.2005. Complainant, being nominee, submitted papers at Branch Office Ambala Cantt. and on those basis competent authority admitted liability of basic claim i.e. Rs.58,183/- and same has already been paid, vide cheque No. 135836 dated 28.12.2005. Now, reopening of matter and that too, after 8 years i.e. in December-2013 by asking some information under RTI, does not extend limitation. Limitation has already started on date of death and latest by 28.12.2005, when basic claim amount was accepted and amount was received by complainant. Claimant is not entitled to Double Accident Benefit. Alleged murder of Amar Singh, suo motu cannot be taken to, as accident. If dominate intention of the act of felony is to kill any particular person then such killing is not an accidental murder. In case, but is a “murder” simplicitor. In case in hand too, murder was not an accident, therefore, Double Accident Benefits were not payable. There is no deficiency in service on part of OPs and complainant is not entitled to any compensation. Complainant has failed to deposit all documents i.e. court judgment. Further, accident is not proved under terms and conditions of policy, under clause 10.2. Primarily on these pleas dismissal of complaint has been prayed.
4. Parties to this lis led evidence, oral as well as documentary.
5. On subjectively analyzing the same; learned District Consumer Commission-Ambala vide order dated 28.09.2017 has dismissed the complaint.
6. Feeling aggrieved; complainant has filed this appeal.
7. None has appeared on behalf of complainant/appellant on last five dates, beginning from 23.08.2022. Earlier also, on 11.11.2019 & 16.11.2021, nobody has appeared on behalf of appellant. Therefore, in wake of above, this Commission has been left with no to other option, but to peruse the memorandum of appeal filed by appellant. On the other hand, Sh. S.C. Thatai, Advocate has addressed arguments on behalf of respondents.
8. It is asserted in memorandum of appeal that impugned order dated 28.09.2017 is illegal as learned District Commission-Ambala has not appreciated evidence in right perspective. Police of Police Station District:Ghanour, District Patiala registered FIR No. 31 on 08.06.2005 under Section 302, 364, 201, 148, 149 IPC. However, till date, police has not filed final report i.e. either challan against accused or cancellation report. Complainant has also filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in Hon’ble High Court for issuance of direction to police to proceed further in case which was fixed for 06.11.2017. Complainant requested learned District Consumer Commission to adjourn the case to date beyond 06.11.2017, but instead of accepting his genuine request; learned District Commission has finally decided and dismissed the complaint. Learned District Commission has interpreted FIR in its own way. Basically, on these pleas, complainant has prayed for acceptance of appeal.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/OPs has supported the impugned order dated 28.09.2017 passed by learned District Consumer Commission-Ambala, by urging that it is outcome of proper appreciation of facts and evidence and no interference is warranted.
10. On critically analyzing the rival submissions: this Commission is of opinion that there is no denial with regard to incident of murder. FIR Annexure C-8 was registered on 08.06.2005 at Police Station:Ghanour, District Patiala under Sections 302, 364, 201, 148, 149 IPC. It is also admitted that: Life Insurance Corporation has initially accepted the basic claim and paid Rs.58,183/- vide cheque No. 135836. This amount has been accepted by complainant, who was nominee of his late son Amar Singh-life assured in the policy. Palpably, complainant has invoked the jurisdiction of learned District Consumer Commission-Ambala by pleading cause of action on the basis of his RTI application dated 19.12.2013 (Annexure C-3), posted on 15.01.2014 and received in Divisional Office of LIC of India at Karnal on 18.01.2014. It was replied by Divisional Office through letter dated 11.02.2014 (Annexure C-4) and text of this letter is the effect that: since cause of death is murder and Double Accident Benefit is payable only after decision of court in murder cases. From 28.12.2005, when basic claim was admitted by LIC and amount (Rs.58,183/-) was released to complainant which is evidence from Annexure C-2, till 15.01.2014 (date when complainant posted his RTI application dated 19.12.2013) which is Annexure C-3, there has been no overt act on behalf of complainant to pursue his cause and period of nearly above 8 years had passed. By any standard of legal interpretation, filing of consumer complaint on 05.11.2014, was clearly time barred. From phraseology of letter Annexure C-4, of Divisional office of OPs addressed to complainant, it is inferred that: decision of court in murder case, is condition precedent, for releasing the Double Accident Benefit. Jarnail Singh-complainant had got lodged the FIR Annexure C-8. Bare perusal of this FIR reflects that: there were five suspected accused named therein, as such. No evidence, worth the name, has been led by complainant before learned District Consumer Commission-Ambala about filing of challan by police against suspected accused to face trial, status in trial and ultimate decision of court, consequent to FIR No. 31 dated 08.06.2005. Evidence of this quality was required to be led by complainant alone and OPs being insurer and having issued insurance policy in the name of deceased Amar Singh, has absolutely no role to play in this regard. So, contention asserted in memorandum of appeal that OPs should have conducted inquiry at its own level into the allegations of FIR, does not sound any credence and same stood repelled.
11. Letter Annexure C-3 of OPs, addressed to complainant Jarnail Singh is dated 11.02.2014. Since, OPs has already conveyed its decision to complainant in its letter Annexure C-4 that: Double Accident Benefit is payable only after decision of murder case, therefore, on given facts; this decision of OPs cannot be found faulted. Consequently, there is no manifest error, legal or factual in the impugned order dated 28.09.2017 passed by Learned District Consumer Commission-Ambala and it is affirmed and maintained. Present appeal, being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.
12. Before parting, it is observed that: in case, at any subsequent time, complainant, being nominee in the policy issued in name of his late son Amar Singh, produces decision of court of law, in FIR No. 31 of 08.06.2005 under Sections 302, 364, 201, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station:Ghanour, District Patiala to OPs/insurer, then OPs would consider the claim of Double Accident Benefit, as per policy in question, strictly in terms of its own letter dated 11.02.2014 (Annexure C-4) so addressed to complainant.
13. Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
14. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
15. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 17thJuly, 2023
Naresh Katyal
Judicial Member
Addl. Bench-II
