ORDER NO.   4    DT. 04.01.2011

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. P.K.SAMANTA, PRESIDENT

Appellant through Mr. Sujit M. Moitra, Respondent No. 1 through Mr. T.K.Maity and Respondent No. 2 through Mr. Avik K Dutt, Ld. Advocates, are present.  Heard them at length.  Judgement is passed as under :-

The insurer has come up in appeal against the judgement and order dt. 16.6.10 passed by the South 24 Parganas District Consumer Forum in C.C.Case No. 113 of 2009 thereby allowing the claim case filed by the wife of the deceased victim against repudiation of the claim made by her on the accidental death of her husband on 19.3.04 due to a shot from firearms from outside.  Because of such death a First Information Report was lodged with the police and upon investigation a charge sheet has also been submitted by the police against the assailants.  In the said charge sheet the involvement of the deceased victim in any offence and/or his complicity with any matter for which it could be said that he was murdered by the assailants, has not been established by any material whatsoever.  Accordingly before the District Forum the sole issue was whether such death of the victim due to a shot from firearms from outside could be termed as murder and, therefore, a non-accidental death to justify the repudiation of the claim.  In the case in hand there is no material whatsoever to establish that the deceased victim was in any way responsible for his death in a shooting by the assailants.  His complicity with the assailants has also not been established by any stretch of evidence, nor the motive of the assailants, from whose firearms that gunshot came, to murder him, has been established.  In the absence of such elements the death of the victim cannot at all be said as non-accidental.  More particularly, the various citations referred to in the judgement by the concerned Forum below express the same view.  We, therefore, do not find any illegality in the impugned judgement and order passed by the District Forum.  The Appeal accordingly fails.  The same is, therefore, dismissed.