Son of the petitioner/complainant Ashish Kumar (since deceased) had taken a Group Janta Personal Accident Insurance Policy for a sum of Rs.5 lakh from National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kolkata (Respondent No.1 herein) through M/s.Golden Multi-services Club of GIFS, Dhanbad for the period from 23.9.2002 to 22.9.2017. Petitioner was the nominee under the policy. The insured was murdered during the validity of the policy at Jwahar - 2 - Ghati (Urwan) in the District of Koderma for which FIR No.388/2006 was registered in the Police Station, Chandwara (Koderma). Petitioner submitted claim with the insurance company which repudiated the same on the ground that the deceased was murdered and had not died due to accident. That under the policy, only accidental deaths were covered. Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the insurance company to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5 lakh with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. 29.10.2007, till realization. Rs.5,000/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs. Direction was issued to the insurance company to pay the amount within 45 days failing which the awarded amount was to carry interest @ 15% from the passing of the order till realization. Insurance company, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission. State Commission, relying upon the judgement of Supreme Court in Rita Devi vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. – (2000) I.N.S.C. 270, allowed the appeal and reversed the order of the District Forum by holding as under : “The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is clear distinction between - 3 - death by accident and death by intentional murder. The deceased had died due to his murder by the miscreants intentionally and such cases were not covered under terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, the nominee was not entitled for any relief but the leaned Forum misconstrued the intentional murder to be killing of the deceased accidentally and granted relief of the respondent No. 1 as nominee of the deceased insured Hence, his order was not Court reported in (2000) I.N.C. 270 Rita Devi vs New India Assurance Company Ltd. And has contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had made a clear distinction between an intention murder and a murder with different intentional and where ever there is a clear case of intentional killing it could not accidental death could not be granted to the nominee of the deceased. We have gone through the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court referred to above where in it has been held “ 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 a accident and a murder which is an accident, depends on the proximity of the cause of such - 4 - 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” Relying upon the above mentioned decision and after looking to the materials produced before the learned Forum as also before us and relied upon by them, we come to the conclusion that those materials had conclusively proved that the murder of the deceased was preplanned and clearly intentional and not an accident as held by the learned Forum. The F.I.R., charge sheet and the post mortem report relied upon by the learned Forum as evidence of accidental death of the deceased was on erroneous finding and grant of relief to the respondent no.1 on the basis of such evidence was an error of judgment. The order of the learned Forum, therefore, cannot be maintained and it is fit to be set aside.” Petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the State Commission has erred in relying upon the judgement of the - 5 - Supreme Court in Rita Devi’s case (supra). That the aforesaid case was a case under the Motor Vehicles Act and the law laid down in the said judgment would not be applicable to the present case. That a three-Member Bench of this Commission, after taking into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rita Devi’s case (supra) has held in Maya Devi vs. Life Insurance Corpn. Of India – III(2008)CPJ 120 (NC) that an injury caused by the willful or even criminal act of a third person, provided the insured in not a party or privy to it, is to be regarded as an accident for the purpose of the policy. Supreme Court, in a recent judgement, has approved the judgement of this Commission in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Taj Devi & Ors. by observing thus : “We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and carefully perused the record. We have also gone through the judgment of the National Commission in Maya Devi v. Life Insurance Corporation of India (2008) CPJ 120 (NC), which has been referred to and relied upon in the impugned order for the purpose of sustaining order passed by the State Commission. In our view, the reasons assigned by the State Commission for entertaining the claim made by respondent No.1 were legally correct and the National Commission rightly refused to interfere with the same.” - 6 - Since the law laid down by this Commission in Maya Devi’s case has already been approved by the Supreme Court, the State Commission has clearly erred in taking a view contrary to the same. For the reasons stated above, Revision petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside and the order of the District Forum is restored. The insurance company is directed to pay the amount awarded by the District Forum within 8 weeks from today failing which the insurance company would be liable to pay interest @ 9% on the awarded amount from the date of passing of the order by the District Forum till realization. Revision petition stands disposed of in above terms. | 
