CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.FA/14/225
Instituted on : 31.03.2014
1. Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.)
2. Divisional Office Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Divisional Office – Ahuja Market, Budhar Road,
Shahdol (M.P.)
Through : Manager (L & HPF),
Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd.
Divisional Office, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.). … Appellants
Vs.
Shri Biharilal Rajwade, S/o Shivprasad,
R/o : Village – Salgawa – Kala, P.S. & Tehsil Sonhat,
District Koriya (C.G.) ..…Respondent
PRESENT :
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON’BLE MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR,MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri A.C. Mishra, for appellants.
Shri Sanjay Tiwari, for respondent.
ORDER
DATED : 20/02/2015
PER :- HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.02.2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Koriya, Baikunthpur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.61/2013. By the impugned order, the complaint has been allowed and the appellants (OPs) have been directed to deposit within 45 days with the District Forum jointly or severally sum assured under insurance policy no.207069493 and other benefits payable under the policy and Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,500/- as cost of litigation through cheque. After deposit of the amount, the same will be paid to the respondent (complainant). If the said amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, interest @ 9% p.a. would be payable.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that : the wife of the respondent (complainant) namely Smt. Chandrawati during her life time purchased insurance policy no.207069493 for the sum assured Rs.62,500/- from the appellants (OPs) on 08.09.2011 in which the respondent (complainant) was made nominee. The wife of the respondent (complainant) died on 31.10.2011 due to drowning in well. Intimation regarding the incident was given to Police Station, Sonhant where merg no.37/2011 was registered. Inquest on dead body was prepared and dead body was sent to Government Hospital, Sonhant for post mortem examination and post mortem examination was also conducted. After death of the insured, the respondent (complainant) submitted claim form along with all relevant documents before the appellants (OPs), which was repudiated by the appellants (OPs) without any basis and the same was informed to the respondent (complainant) on 26.04.2013. The respondent (complainant) sent legal notice to the appellants (OPs) on 18.07.2013. The appellants (OPs) sent reply of the notice and informed that Smt. Chandrawati died to drowning in well and the well is not a "public place", therefore, the claim is repudiated. Thus the appellants (OPs) committed deficiency in service by repudiating the claim . Therefore, the respondent (complainant) filed consumer complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint.
3. The appellants (OPs) have filed written statement and pleaded that the wife of the respondent (complainant) died due to drowning in the well which is personal well which is adjacent to his badi. The death of the insured had not took place in public place but she died due to drowning in her own well and the case was early death claim which took place within 1 years from the date of purchase of the policy therefore, the claim was repudiated The appellants (OPs) have not committed any deficiency in service by repudiating the claim. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. After having considered the material placed before it by both the parties, the District Forum has allowed the complaint and directed the appellants (OPs) to pay compensation to the respondent (complainant) as mentioned in the para 1 of this judgment.
5. The respondent (complainant) filed documents. Document 1 is Status Report of Policy No.207069493, document 2 is First Premium Receipt, document 3 is Death Certificate of Smt. Chandrawati issued by Registrar Birth and Death, document 4 is letter dated 09.02.2012 sent by Superintendent of Police, District Koriya (C.G.) to the respondent (complainant), Merg Intimation, Inquest, application for post mortem examination, post mortem report, document 5 is letter dated 26.04.2013 sent by the Branch Manager, Branch Office, Manendragarh to the respondent (complainant), document 6 is registered notice dated 18.07.2013 sent by Shri Rajendra Prasad Sahu, Advocate to the appellants (OP), document 7 is envelope and letter dated 30.07.2013 sent by the appellants (OPs) to the Shri Rajendra Prasad Sahu, Advocate.
6. The appellants (OPs) have also filed documents. Document C-1 is Special Female Clause, document C-2 is letter dated 30.07.2013 sent by the appellants (OPs) to Shri Rajendra Prasad Sahu, Advocate, document C-3 is letter dated 09.02.2012 sent by the Superintendent of Police, District Koriya (C.G.) to the respondent (complainant), merg intimation, inquest, application for post mortem examination, post mortem report.
7. Shri A.C. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants (OPs) has argued that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, is contrary to law and is liable to be set aside. He further argued that the well in which wife of the respondent (complainant) fell down is situated in the badi of the respondent (complainant), which is a private property of the respondent (complainant), therefore, the Insurance Corporation, has rightly denied the claim of the respondent (complainant), hence the impugned order passed by the District Forum is liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal of the appellants (OPs). He placed reliance on judgment dated 22.01.2014 of Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.3559 of 2012 - Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Smt. Shankravva.
8. Shri Sanjay Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (complainant) has supported the impugned order.
9. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum.
10. It is not disputed that wife of the respondent (complainant) Smt. Chandrawati, during her life time purchased an insurance policy bearing No.207069493 for the sum assured Rs.62,500/- from the appellants (OPs) on 08.09.2011 and premium thereof was paid by her, and the respondent (complainant) was made nominee in the insurance policy. It is also not disputed that Smt. Chandrawati fell down in well and died due to drowning.
11. In the instant case, the respondent (complainant) filed merg intimation, inquest and post mortem report. In the merg intimation, it is mentioned that on 31.10.2011 at about 4.30 P.M. deceased Chandrawati had gone to well along with her son, who is aged about 1 ½ years for bathing and she was pulling water from well, then she fell down in the well. In the inquest also, the same thing is mentioned. In quest and merg intimation, it is mentioned that the well in which Smt. Chandrawati fell down, is situated in badi is 50 meter away from the house of the respondent (complainant).
12. Now we shall examine whether the well in which Chandrawati (deceased) fell down, is situated in a public place.
13. From bare perusal of the merg intimation and inquest, it appears that the badi of the respondent (complainant) is an open place and accessible for all the villagers. There is no evidence on record which shows that badi was surrounded with boundary wall or fencing. It appears that the badi of the respondent (complainant) is accessible for all persons of the village and anybody can move there freely without prior permission of the respondent (complainant).
14. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Abdul Rashid and others, 2015 ACJ 226, Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has observed thus :-
20. In order to answer this question, it would be proper to notice the meaning of words 'public place'. The words 'public place' have been defined in Section 2 (34) of the Motor Vehicles Act which reads as follows :
"(34) 'public place' means a road, street, way or other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the public have a right of access, and includes any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage."
In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v Lakshmi, 1997 ACJ 489 (Kerala), after quoting the observations of Barry, J. in R v. Kane, 1965 1 All ER 705, it was held as follows :-
"7. .... In substance, a place is a 'public place' though it is private property when it is shown that the public are in the habit of resorting to it and one is prevented therefrom so resorting to it.
In Stround's Judicial Dictionary, 5th Edn., p. 2094 'public place' has been defined as follows :
"A 'public place' is a place to which the public can and do have access; it does not matter whether they come at the invitation of the occupier or merely with his permission, or whether some payment of the performance of some formality is required before access can be had..."
In black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edn., p. 1230 'public place' has been defined as follows :
" 'Public place' : A place to which the general public has a right to resort; not necessarily a place devoted solely to the uses of the public, but a place which is in point of fact public rather than private, a place visited by many persons and usually accessible to the neighbouring public (e.g., a park or public beach). Also, a place in which the public has an interest as affecting the safety, health, morals, and welfare of the community. A place exposed to the public and where the public gather together or pass to an fro."
28. In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Uttara Devi, 2013 ACJ 1357(Chhattisgarh), the Divisional Bench of this court has held that workshop is a 'public place' as defined in section 2(34) of the Act, 1988. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads thus :
"(9) In the present case also the accident had occurred in a motor workshop where there is no restriction for the entry of any person or vehicle. In the evidence also it has come that the driver had entered in the area, i.e., workshop where the deceased was working under the instruction of his employer. Therefore, in the light of the above, we are of the opinion that the 'motor workshop' comes within the definition of 'public place' as defined in section 2(34) of the Act, 1988 and as such, the first argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that the accident had not occurred in a public place has no force."
15. As per Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar 3rd Edition 2005 "PUBLIC PLACE" means "any place to which the public have access, whether as of right or not, and includes auditorium, hospital buildings, railway waiting room, amusement centres, restaurants, public offices, Court buildings, educational institutions, libraries, public conveyances and the like which are visited by general public but does not include any open space."
16. As per Bakshi's The Law Lexicon the 'Public Place' means "a Private place to which access is allowed by the public is also comprehended within the definitional meaning of the words, "public place". The fact that the words "public place" refer even to a place which is not a part of thoroughfare also shows that private place also is comprehended by that definition."
"In order to constitute a public place it is not required that the place should be a public property, but if it is a private property it must necessarily be proved that not only the public could have access to it, but it is a place to which members of public in fact resort."
17. From bare perusal of above definition of words "Public Place", it is clear that badi where well is situated and in which Smt. Chandrawati fell down, is an open place and which is accessible for all the villagers, therefore, the badi of the respondent (complainant) comes within purview of "Public Place". Therefore we find that the incident took place in a public place and Smt. Chandrawati (deceased) died due to drowning in a well, which comes within purview of accidental death.
18. The facts of case i.e. Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Smt. Shankravva (Supra), cited by the learned counsel for the appellants (OPs), is quite distinguishable from the facts of the present case, therefore, the appellants (OPs) will not get any help from the above citation.
19. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned District Forum, is just and proper and does not suffer from any infirmity, irregularity or illegality, hence does not call for any interference by this Commission.
20. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellants (OPs) being devoid of any merits, deserves to be, and is hereby dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar) (D.K. Poddar)
President Member Member
/02/2015 /02/2015 /02/2015
