BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 496 of 2015
Date of Institution: 11.8.2015
Date of Decision: 29.4.2016
- Smt.Harkirat Kaur widow of Late S.Harbinder Singh
- Gurprasaad Singh son of Late S. Harbinder Singh
- Miss Sahiba daughter of late S.Harbinder Singh, all residents of 18, Sant Avenue, The Mall,Amritsar
Complainants
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation of India having its branch No. 3, Jeewan Parkash, 4-5 District Shopping Complex, Near M.K.Hotel,Ranjit Avenue,Amritsar Post Box No.4, Amritsar through its Branch Manager/Principal Officer
Opposite Party
Complaint under sections 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant : Sh.Sushil Kumar Sharma,Adv.
For the Opposite Party : Sh.M.S.Bhatia,Advocate
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Smt. Harkirat Kaur and other complainants have brought the instant complaint under section 11/12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that Dr. Harbinder Singh son of Santokh Singh, husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainants No.2 & 3 obtained two policies bearing No. 470449791 dated 28.3.1999 and 130784473 dated 28.10.1992 for Rs. 5 lacs and Rs. 1 lac respectively without additional benefit and two policies covering double accident benefit bearing No. 470215647 dated 28.8.1995 and 229888329 dated 28.10.1980 for Rs. 1 lac each with additional accident benefit of Rs. 1 lac. The said policy holder Harbinder Singh appointed complainant No.1 as his nominee under the aforesaid insurance policy . During his life time, deceased Dr.Harbinder Singh was regularly paying the premium in respect of all the aforesaid policies. Husband of complainant No.1 namely Dr.Harbinder Singh, as a result of accident on 17.7.2010 was murdered by one Parveen Kumar son of Sham Lal r/o House No. 181, Gali No.4, Vijay Nagar, Batala Road, Amritsar. In the said murder case , Parveen Kumar was convicted by the court of Sh.Gurbir Singh,Sessions Judge, Amritsar on 18.7.2014. Deceased Harbinder Singh has left behind the complainants as his only legal heirs and except them there is no other legal heir of the deceased. On the death of her husband in the said accident, complainant No.1 being widow/nominee under the aforesaid policies , lodged claim with the opposite party for disbursement of the sum assured alongwith double benefit of accident in respect of two policies in question as detailed above. The complainant submitted all the relevant documents with the opposite party and also completed all necessary formalities as required by the opposite party. The opposite party has been delaying the genuine claim of the complainants on the ground that the case is pending before the court regarding the murder of the policy holder. However, the opposite party has accepted the claim of the complainants in respect of policies bearing No. 470449791 dated 28.3.99 and No. 130784473 dated 28.10.1992 but the opposite party vide its letter dated 15.12.2014 has illegally and unlawfully rejected the claim pertaining to remaining two policies covering double accident benefit bearing No. 470215647 and 22988329 for Rs. 1 lac each with additional accident benefit of Rs. 1 lac, in all Rs. 4 lacs on the ground that Harbinder Singh was murdered intentionally by his employee as is evident from the judgement dated 18.7.2014 passed by the court of Sh.Gurbir Singh,Sessions Judge,Amritsar. The fact remains that the murder of the policy holder is accidental death and the same is duly covered under double benefit claim and the opposite party has no right to reject the genuine claim of the complainant on the ground that the murder of Harbinder Singh is not an accident. This is a lame excuse put forward by the opposite party to reject the genuine claim of the complainants. The opposite party is bound to pay the genuine claim . Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared through counsel and filed written statement contesting the claim of the complainant taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that complainants are estopped to file the present complaint as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party ad defined in section 2(i)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ; That the complainant has not sued the opposite parties through the concerned Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, as required under Regulation 41 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Regulation 1959 made under section 49(2) of the LIC of India Act. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone ; That the complainants are stopped by their own act and conduct from filing the present complaint as they had not filed appeal to the Claims Disputes Redressal Committee against the rejection of double benefit claim in respect of two policies. Hence, the present complaint is not maintainable : That present complaint is not maintainable as Harbinder Singh, deceased life assured was admittedly murdered on 17.7.2010 by his employee Parveen Kumar and FIR No. 115 dated 17.7.2010 was registered under section 302/82 IPC P.S.Sultanwind Amritsar against the accused. Sh.Gurbir Singh,Ld.Sessions Judge,Amritsar had convicted the accused vide judgement dated 18.7.2014 . In the said judgement, the Hon’ble court has held that the accused was having clear intention to kill S.Harbinder Singh. Hence, the death of DLA cannot be termed as an accidental death, as per law. Thus the case of DLA is not covered under the Double Accident Benefit as per terms and conditions of the policy. So the Double Accident Benefit claim in respect of two policies bearing No. 470215647 and 22988329 for Rs. 1 lac each was rightly repudiated by the opposite party. On merits, facts narrated in the complaint have been specifically denied. It is contended that murder of Harbinder Singh,DLA was not covered under accidental death and the claim of the complainant for Double Accident Benefit regarding two policies in dispute for Rs. 1 lac each has rightly been repudiated. There is no merit in the complaint and a prayer for the dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In their bid to prove , counsel for the complainants Sh.Saurabh Sharma tendered into evidence affidavit of Smt.Harkirat Kaur, complainant as Ex.C-1, copies of Insurance policies Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-3, copies of policy schedule Ex.C-4 & Ex.C-5, copy of letter dated 15.12.2014 Ex.C-6 besides tendering copy of judgement dated 18.7.2014 Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.M.S.Bhatia,Adv. Counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Yogender Singh,Manager Ex.OP1, copy of letter dated 4.11.2011 Ex.OP2, copy of letter of Harkirat Kaur Ex.OP3, copy of letter dated 15.12.2014 Ex.OP4, copy of status report Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite party.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
6. Fact regarding murder of Harbinder Singh on 17.7.2010 by one of his employees namely Parveen Kumar, is not disputed. It is also not disputed that FIR No.115 dated 17.7.2010 was registered at P.S.Sultanwind u/s 302/182 IPC against Parveen Kumar. It is also not disputed that trial culminated into conviction of accused Parveen Kumar vide judgement dated 18.7.2014, copy whereof is Ex.C-7. It is also not disputed that Dr.Harbinder Singh had obtained two policies 470215647 and 229883329, copies whereof are Ex.C-4 and C-5 i.e. double benefit accident policies for Rs. 1 lac each for a total amount of Rs. 4 lacs in case of accidental death. The only question which has been in dispute inter-se parties , has been , as to whether the murder of Harbinder Singh on the fateful day fell within the ambit of term accidental death. No doubt the murder is an accident, but however, for getting the benefit under the Insurance Policies in dispute, it was incumbent upon the complainant to prove that murder of Dr.Harbinder Singh was an accidental death. However, from the perusal of the judgement dated 18.7.2014 , copy of whereof is Ex.C-7 goes on to prove that the accused had an intention to kill Dr.Harbinder Singh and in pursuance of his intention, accused caused to murder Dr. Harbinder Singh on the fateful day. Said murder does not fall within the ambit of accidental death. Reference in this regard can be made to Smt.Rita Devi Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd IV(2000) SLT 179 SC wherein it has been held that :-
“The question, therefore, is can a muder be an accident in any given case ? There is no doubt that murder, as it is understood, in the common parlance is a felonious act where death is caused with intent and the perpetrators of that act normally have a motive against the victim for such killing. But there are also instances where murder can be by accident on a given set of facts. The difference between a murder which is not an accident and a murder which is an accident, depends on the proximity of the cause of such murder. In our opinion, if the dominant intention of the Act of felony is to kill any particular person then such killing is not an accidental murder but is a murder simplicitor, while if the cause of murder or act of murder was originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of any other felonious act then such murder is an accidental murder.
7. In Smt. Pushpa Agrawal Petitioner Vs. Insurance Ombudsman U.P. And Uttranchal And Others Respondent 2012 AIR 2185 Allahabad High Court has applied the ratio of the judgement as laid down in Smt. Rita Devi & Others Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. ‘supra’ & it came to the conclusion that in an ordinary murder and accidental murder , there is a wafer thin difference. If the murder has been committed in pursuance of some motive/intention, the same is a murder simplicitor. But however, when the murder is committed without any motive or intention , the same falls within the ambit of accidental murder. Here in the case in hand, it becomes amply clear that accused Parveen Kumar in connivance with Love Kumar co-accused (now deceased) had a common intention and motive to kill Dr. Harbinder Singh and in pursuance of their intention, they caused his death on 17.7.2010. As such the murder of Dr.Harbinder Singh cannot be termed to be an accidental death rather it was a murder ‘simplicitor’ .
8. The contention of the counsel for the complainants, that the exclusion clause was not brought to the notice of the DLA at the time of issuance of Insurance policies in dispute and on that account, the opposite party cannot take the advantage of exclusion clause for declining the claim of the complainants, is not tenable because the complainants want to get the benefit of the Insurance cover and the cover note is also having the terms and conditions annexed thereto and , therefore, exclusion clause was also binding upon DLA and the rejection of the double benefit clause under the Insurance policies in dispute , has been legally applied by the opposite parties.
9. From the aforesaid discussion, it transpires that the complainants have failed to make out a case for grant of double benefit accidental policy under the Insurance Policies in dispute. The insurance amount payable in ordinary circumstances has already been granted to the complainants. There is no merit in the complaint and as such the same fails and is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 29.4.2016
/R/ ( S.S.Panesar )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
