KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL 

     COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

          FIRST APPEAL:618/2003

                              JUDGMENT DATED:01..03..2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                :  PRESIDENT

M/s National Insurance Company Ltd.              : APPELLANT

(By Adv: Sri.K.Sreekumaran Nair)

                   Vs.

1.Sisupalan,

  Pollayil Puthuval Veedu,

  Canal Ward, Alappuzha Municipality,

  Alappuzha District.

2.Lalitha,                                                              : RESPONDENTS

  W/o Sisupalan,  -do-  -do-

3.Kerala State Co-operative Federation

  For fisheries Development Ltd.,

  (Malsya Fed), District Office, Alappuzha.

  (Repd. by its Zilla Officer).

(R1 and R2 By Adv:Sri.M.Radhakrishnan Nair)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

The appellant is the 2^nd opposite party/National Insurance Company in OP:362/01 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha.  The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 12% from the date of complaint and also to pay Rs.500/- as cost.

2. The case of the complainants who are the LRs of the deceased/insured is that the insured was murdered on 11/1//2001 and hence entitled for the policy claim.  The Janatha Insurance Policy taken through the 1^st opposite party/Malsya fed was repudiated on the ground that the incident occurred when the insured person was committing breach of law with criminal intent which is an exception as per the policy.

3. The opposite parties/appellants have contended that the insured was murdered by one Anu following enemity on account of the act of the deceased in molesting sister of the accused in public road.  Hence the death of the insured was not an accident.  The company is not liable to pay the amount.

4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, RW1, Exts.P1 to P7 and Exts.B1 to B3.

  5. The Forum has allowed the complaint on the ground that there is no evidence to establish the fact that incident involved ie murdered is on account of committing any criminal act by the insured as envisaged under the policy.  On a perusal of the evidence adduced we find that the only evidence to substantiate the case set up by the appellants/opposite parties is Ext.B1 copy of FIR/FIS wherein the first informant has stated that he came to know that the incident is the result of the action of the deceased that took place about 5 to 6 years back in which the sister of the accused was molested by the insured in the public road.  We find that the above evidence is not sufficient to establish the alleged act on the part of the deceased.  The first informant was not examined.  Further as per Ext.B1 the first informant was not a witness to the alleged earlier incident.  Exception clause No:5 of Ext.B2 policy provides that the incident if arising or resulting from the insured person committing any breach of law with criminal intent is not covered by the policy. 

6. We find that no reliable evidence has been adduced to establish the fact that it was on account of the deceased committing breach of law that he was murdered.

7. In the circumstances we find no reason to interfere in the order of the Forum.  Hence the appeal is dismissed.

  The office is directed to forward the LCR to the Forum urgently.

VL.                     JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT