Delay of 74 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

          Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Deceased wife of the petitioner took a policy on her life on 28.11.2000.  She died due to burn injuries on 24.2.2001.  Petitioner was tried for Murder in which he was acquitted.  Respondent insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that the

deceased had committed suicide within one year of taking of the policy.

          Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum which was allowed.  State Commission reversed the order of the District Forum and held as under:

          “The Principal Sessions Court Warangal acquitted the respondent for the reason as evidenced by Ex.A4 judgment, Due to non cooperation of PWs1 to 8, prosecution failed to prove that accused subjected the deceased to cruelty for additional dowry with a view to marry a second wife. However, the court had held that Pws1 to 5 and 7 in one voice stated that at no time, accused harassed the deceased.  All of them stated that they do not know why the deceased committed suicide. FIR was lodged by maternal uncle of the deceased who brought up her, stating  that the respondent harassed the deceased for additional dowry and in that regard a panchayat was held wherein the respondent was admonished and even after the said panchayat. The respondent harassed the deceased to give her consent for his second marriage and another panchayat was held by the elders who passed resolution directing the respondent

not to harass and lookafter the deceased well.  The deceased doused herself with kerosene due to unbearable harassment meted out to her by the respondent, The witnesses who are the blood relatives of the deceased also deposed before Sessions Court Warangal that the do not know why the deceased committed  suicide.  Therefore, it is clear that the deceased committed as per the statements made by the witnesses before the Sessions Court Warangal.  Hence, the fact remains that the deceased committed suicide. As against this the respondent had filed the affidavits of Gurrapu Narsaih and Ajjoori Bixapathi who are neither eye witnesses to the incident nor the witnesses examined by the police and listed as witnesses in the charge sheet.  Therefore, any their statement dose not carry any credibility for the aforesaid reasons. 

            We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  There is no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission.  Dismissed.