Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       The complainants  have filed the instant complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that Tajinder Singh son of Sh.Darshan Singh had purchased four Life Insurance Policies i.e. Double Accident Benefit  Claims-Disability Benefit Policies, the detail of which as follows:-

Further alleges that unfortunately Life Assured  Tajinder Singh son of Sh.Darshan Singh has died on 14.07.2020 as he was murdered by some unidentified persons when he was sitting in his shop situated at Street No.1, New Town, Moga. FIR in this regard has been registered and the matter is still pending. The complainant No.1 is widow, complainant No.2 is minor son and complainant No.3 is mother of deceased Tajinder Singh son of Sh.Darshan Singh and hence, being the beneficiary, the complainants are consumers as defined under the Act and hence, this complainant is being filed by all the complainants being as beneficiary of Life Assured Tajinder Singh son of Sh.Darshan Singh and there is no other legal heir of deceased Tajinder Singh son of Sh.Darshan Singh except the complainant and the complainants are entitled to get the benefit of the policies aforesaid after the death of Tajinder Singh son of Sh.Darshan Singh being as natural legal heirs of deceased Tajinder Singh son of Sh.Darshan Singh. Complainant No.2 is minor son of Tejinder Singh and the complaint on behalf of minor complaint No.2 is filed by his mother Ripendeep Kaur complainant No.1 who has no adverse interest against the minor son.    That after the death of Tajinder Singh son of Sh.Darshan Singh, the complainants lodged the claim with Opposite Parties, but the Opposite Parties released the single benefit of the policies, but retained the balance benefit against the policies as theses policies were Double Accident Benefit  Claims-Disability Benefit Policies, and the life assured had paid the premiums against each of the polices to get the double accident benefits.  The complainants made so many requests to the Opposite Parties to release the remaining double accident benefit under the policies aforesaid, but the Opposite Parties repudiated the claim of the complainants vide letter dated 30.04.2021 stating that “on the basis of data collected through social media and closure report of police, LA died due to murder which was pre-planned by Gangster Sukhpreet Singh who is better known as Sukha Gill Lamme. The circumstances under which DLA was murdered based upon evidences available which proves that DLA was murdered in pre-planned ways to create terror in the area. The different between a murder which is not an accident and murder which is an accident depends on the proximity of the cause of such murder,  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 implicitor, while if the cause of murder or act of murder was originally no intended and the same was caused in furtherance of any other felonious act then such murder is an accident murder. Copy of repudiation letter is annexed herewith. This fact is totally wrong and incorrect. Whereas, as per circular vide Ref:CO/CRM/607/23 dated 15^th October, 2007 circulated to All Zonal Managers, M.D.C.Z.T.C Audit & Inspection on the subject: Re: Payment of Double Accident Benefit Claims- Disability Benefit Claim, it has been specifically mentioned in para No.6 of the circular as below:- “If a policyholder is murdered and there is nothing in the police investigation report and the charge sheet framed by the police to lead to suspicion of the murder being self provoked and the claimant is having a and in it, our offices should not withhold/ repudiate the claim/ Accident Benefit Claims and hence the grounds for the repudiation of the genuine claim of the complainants without application of mind is absolute wrong and illegal. The complainants made so many requests and representations to the Opposite Parties to make their genuine claim, but the Opposite Parties repudiated the claim of the complainants without any reasonable cause.  In this way, said conduct of the Opposite Parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service and as such, the Complainant is left with no other alternative but to file the present complaint.  Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

1. The The Opposite Parties may be directed to make the remaining benefit of Rs.26,60,000/- i.e. double accident benefits of the policies alongwith interest @ 12% per annum as well as its accrued benefits/ bonus against the said policies from the date of death of life assured till its realization.
2. The amount of Rs.2,00,000/- be allowed to be paid by the opposite parties on account of compensation due to mental tension and harassment caused by the complainant.
3. The cost of complaint amounting to Rs.20,000/- may please be allowed.
4. And any other relief to which this Hon’ble Consumer Commission, Moga may deem fit be granted in the interest of justice and equity.       

2.       Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version  on the ground inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and that the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous.  It is submitted that deceased Tajinder Singh took four policies as detailed above by the complainants in their complaint and it is also admitted that in all the four policies, the wife of life assured namely Ripendeep Kaur was nominee and said Life Assured  has been reportedly murdered on 14.07.2020. On lodging the claim, the investigations were carried out and on the basis of the data collected through social media and closure report of police, it has been revealed that deceased Life Assured died due to murder which was pre-planned by gangster Sukhpreet Singh who is better known as Sukha Gill Lamme. On the basis of the available evidence and the circumstances under which the Deceased Life Assured was murdered proves that the Deceased Life Assured was murdered in order to create terror in the area. Thus the death of the Life Assured was not due to any accident, but the result of a pre-planned conspiracy. Thus on the basis of cogent and convincing evidence and after due application of mind and as per the instructions from the central office of the Opposite Parties vide Circular no.CO/CRM/607/23 dated 15.10.2007 the competent authority decided to release the basic sum assured under all the policies which has been paid to the complainant No.1 and refused to release the accident benefits which have been denied and as such, nothing more is payable.  Hence, the double accident claim under the policies was repudiated vide letter dated 17.03.2021.   Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.   On merits, Opposite Parties took up almost the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections.  Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

3.       In order to  prove  their  case, the complainants have tendered into evidence the affidavit Ex.C1  alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C24 and closed the  evidence.

4.       On the other hand,  to rebut the evidence of the complainant,  Opposite Parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Ramesh Kumar, Manager Ex.OP1-2/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1-2/B to Ex.OP1-2/G and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and  gone through the documents placed  on record.

6.       During the course of arguments, ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as Opposite Parties have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in the written statements respectively. We have perused the rival contentions of  the parties and also gone through the record on file. The main contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant is that after the death of Tajinder Singh son of Sh.Darshan Singh, the complainants lodged the claim with Opposite Parties, but the Opposite Parties released the single benefit of the policies, but retained the balance benefit against the policies as theses policies were Double Accident Benefit  Claims-Disability Benefit Policies, and the life assured had paid the premiums against each of the polices to get the double accident benefits.  The complainants made so many requests to the Opposite Parties to release the remaining double accident benefit under the policies aforesaid, but the Opposite Parties repudiated the claim of the complainants vide letter dated 30.04.2021. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainants on the ground that  the deceased Tajinder Singh took four policies as detailed above by the complainants in their complaint and it is also admitted that in all the four policies, the wife of life assured namely Ripendeep Kaur was nominee and said Life Assured  has been reportedly murdered on 14.07.2020. On lodging the claim, the investigations were carried out and on the basis of the data collected through social media and closure report of police, it has been revealed that deceased Life Assured died due to murder which was pre-planned by gangster Sukhpreet Singh who is better known as Sukha Gill Lamme. On the basis of the available evidence and the circumstances under which the Deceased Life Assured was murdered proves that the Deceased Life Assured was murdered in order to create terror in the area. Thus the death of the Life Assured was not due to any accident, but the result of a pre-planned conspiracy. Thus on the basis of cogent and convincing evidence and after due application of mind and as per the instructions from the central office of the Opposite Parties vide Circular no.CO/CRM/607/23 dated 15.10.2007 the competent authority decided to release the basic sum assured under all the policies which has been paid to the complainant No.1 and refused to release the accident benefits which have been denied and as such, nothing more is payable.

7.       It is not disputed that the deceased Tajinder Singh took four policies as detailed above by the complainants in their complaint and it is also admitted that in all the four policies, the wife of life assured namely Ripendeep Kaur was nominee and said Life Assured  has been murdered  on 14.07.2020 by some unidentified person, copies of the policies are placed on record as Ex.C2 Ex.C5, copy of the death certificate is placed on record as Ex.C7. The documents produced by the parties on record i.e. copy of FIR as well as other data collected by the Opposite Parties to scrutinize the matter in question for the double accident benefit under the policies in question, which revealed that Deceased Life Assured Tajinder Singh died due to murder and not due to any accident.  In the FIR No. 0122 dated 14.07.2022  lodged under section 154 Cr.P.C,  copy of which is placed on record as Ex.C9, it is clearly mentioned that Tajinder Singh Pinka (Deceased Life Assured) was murdered on 14.07.2020 at about 7.00 PM by some unknown ( person who was having the age of 22/24 years who was having covered his face with black colour cloth who came on a motor cycle Make Pulsur, black colour  and the news in the different leading newspaper was also published regarding the murder of Tajinder Singh Pinka (Deceased Life Assured), copies of the newspaper cuttings are Ex.C16 to Ex.C23. In this regard, the Opposite Parties have specifically contended that Deceased Life Assured died due to murder which was  pre-planned by gangster Sukhpreet Singh alias Sukha Gill Lamme and not due to any accident as alleged by the complainants. Not only this, as per the report of Deputy Superinendent of Police, City Moga, Ex.OP1 & 2/D produced by the Opposite Parties on record, the investigation officer has clearly mentioned in his report that during the investigation dated 16.07.2020, one person namely Sukha Gill Lamme has took the responsibility of this murder and said that he alongwith  his associates Harvinder Singh made this murder of owner of  Showroom Super Shine Jeans, Moga and these facts have nowhere denied by the complainants by filing any cogent and convincing evidence.  In this regard, Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case Prithvi Raj Bhandari v/s Life Insurance Corporation Of India Ltd. & Others, In First Appeal No. 204 of 1999, decided On  26 May 2006 has clearly defined the murder and the accident which is as under:-

“The difference between a 'murder' which is not an accident and '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 the 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.”

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had occasion to go in the similar set of circumstances, in the case of Smt. Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., IV (2000) SLT 179=11 (2000) CLT 192 (SC)=II (2000) ACC 291 (SC)=2000 SOL Case No. 289. Para 9 of this judgment is relevant for our purpose, which is as follows:

"The question, therefore, is can a murder 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 '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 the 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."

8.       Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we hold that since the Deceased Life Assured died due to murder and it is not a case of accidental death, which does not cover under the policy terms, and hence, the complainants are not entitled to the double accident benefit under the policies in question and as such, the complainants have failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

9.       In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we found no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and hence, the instant complaint stands dismissed.  Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.

Announced in Open Commission.