By this common order, we shall dispose of both these revision petitions since the facts and point of law involved in them are the same.  Facts are being taken from revision petition No.695/2010. 

-2-

Petitioner/complainant along with his wife jointly took a policy for Rs.50,000/- which commenced on 25.4.2003.  Wife died due to electric shock on the roof of her house on 05.5.2004.  The claim filed by the petitioner for double of the sum assured i.e. Rs.1 Lac along with bonus and other benefits was repudiated which prompted the petitioner to file a complaint before the District Forum.

District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.1 Lac i.e. double of the sum assured along with bonus and other benefits with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization and Rs.1,500/- as costs.

Respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission which has set aside the order of the District Forum.  It has been held that since the accident did not take place in a public place, the petitioner was not entitled to double of the sum assured in view of Clause 4 (b) of the policy which has been reproduced in the order.

We have perused Clause 4 (b) carefully.  As per this clause, the insurance company is liable to pay for the accidental benefit as the

-3-

incident had not taken place at a public place.  The incident had taken place at her own house and consequently, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief sought for.  Dismissed.  No costs.