hBefore the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 618.
Instituted on : 02.11.2017.
Decided on : 15.05.2019.
Smt. Preet Kaur wife of Late Sh. Kuldeep Singh, age 45 years, Resident of Near DAV School, House No. 53/3, VPO Kalanaur, District Rohtak.
..………..Complainant.
Vs.
1. LIC of India, Opp. All India Radio,
Subhash Road, Rohtak, through its Branch Manager.
2. LIC of India, Divisional officer,
SCO No. 3-4-5, Sector I, Rohtak, thorugh its Divisional Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Sandeep Kataria, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. V.K. Groha, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant’s husband had got his life insured with the respondent for a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- vide policy No. 170957865. That on 16.07.2014, the complainant’s husband had died due to murder. It is alleged that the respondents have paid the amount of the similar policies to the various claimants, but the respondents are illegally not paying the amount of the policy in question to the complainant. It is further alleged that on 05.01.2017, the complainant had also served a written complaint alongwith original LIC policy bond to the opposite parties, but on 21.02.2017, the respondents denied to pay the amount of policy to the complainant. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs. 1,25,000/- as amount of insurance alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of withholding the same till realization and Rs.22,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that it is wrong that complainant’s husband had got his life assured with the respondents for a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- vide above said policy. It is further submitted that the respondents have issued policy for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. It is further submitted that the respondents had never paid any claim amount in the similar policies to the various claimants in similar conditions. It is further submitted that the complainant is not entitled for double accidental benefit because it is a case of Murder simplicitor. It is further submitted that the death claim of Rs. 2,05,000/- have been paid on 22.08.2014 to the nominee of the life assured and nothing had been pending against the respondents. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and has closed his evidence on dated 19.07.2018. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex.RW/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and closed his evidence on 28.08.2018.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the accident benefit under the policy has been repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that the deceased LA was died due to murder and not due to accident. Hence the same is not covered under the policy. To prove this fact ld. counsel for the respondent has placed on record copy of copy of judgment Ex.R4 passed by Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Rohtak on dated 19.11.2015 and copy of judgment Ex.R5 passed by Hon’ble Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Rohtak on dated 15.09.2016, whereby it is proved that deceased Kuldeep Singh was murdered and the accused were convicted by the Hon’ble Court. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has placed reliance upon the law of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Prithvi Raj Bhandari Vs. LIC of India & Ors., III(2006) CPJ 213(NC) whereby Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “Insured murdered-Intentional killing proved-Murder not ‘accident’-double accident benefits not payable”.
6. On the other hand, contention of ld. counsel for the complainant is that it is not disputed that the deceased LA was murdered but the murder is to be counted as accident and has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Pawan Balram Mulchandani in First Appeal No.1357 of 2016. As per this judgment Hon’ble National Commission noted that the death of the Insured took place due to injuries caused by external, violent, visible means, and did not find any evidence suggesting that the Insured put himself to risk of injury by either an immediate wilful deliberate act or carelessness or instigation or aggression. The National Commission thus reached the conclusion that in case the immediate cause of injury was not the result of any deliberate or wilful act of the Insured and the incident was not expected on the part of the Insured, the murder was to be considered an "accident". We have also perused that the Exclusion Clause of the policy as mentioned in Ex.R1 whereby the policy contained exclusions for "injuries resulting from riots, civil commotion, rebellion, war, invation, hunting, mountaineering, steeple chasing or racing of any kind.” Since the insurance policy did not explicitly state that the Insurer would not be liable for death caused due to the act of murder. Hence the exclusion clause of the policy is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the aforesaid law placed on record by ld. counsel for the complainant, which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that opposite parties are liable to pay the accident benefit to the complainants. Initially the present complaint was filed by Smt. Preet Kaur being nominee but as per copy of ration card placed on record as ‘Annexure-A’, the deceased have two another LRs. namely Gurvinder Singh and Supreet(copy of Aadhar Card placed on record) and they are also entitled for the insurance claim equally.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and it is directed that the opposite parties shall pay the accident claim of policy no.170957865 amounting to Rs.100000/-(Rupees one lac only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 02.11.2017 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant Smt. Preet Kaur, Gurvinder Singh and Supreet in equal share within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
15.05.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
..........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
