Heard learned counsel for both the sides.

2.      Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.   The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant’s husband has purchased a “Jeevan Suravi” policy from the OPs for sum assured of Rs.1,05,000/- commencing from 3.6.2005 covering the accident benefit. It is alleged inter alia that on 11.2.2006 during currency of the policy the life assured while driving the vehicle met accident with one truck and died. Thereafter, the claim was made. Complainant submitted  that OPs have already paid the money on 28.11.2007 amounting to Rs.1,09,935/- through cheque of Axis Bank, Bhadrak covering the basic amount with vested bonus. Complainant approached the OPs on several occasions for settlement of claim of accidental benefit but OPs delayed the matter. Since it was not available, she filed the complaint.

4.      OPs filed written version stating that they have repudiated the claim on the ground that the death of life assured was due to rash and negligent driving. Since there is violation of the policy condition, they have repudiated the claim. So, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

5.      After hearingboth the parties, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that  for the contributing negligence, there is no material available except the fact that both the vehicles met accident and one of the vehicle was driven by the deceased life assured. Since there is no any breach of law by the deceased life assured complainant is entitled to the benefit available. Therefore, she submitted to allow the appeal and also the complaint. She cited the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in Chandrakanta Tiwari vrs. New India Assurance Company Ltd and another in Civil Appeal No. 2527 of 2020 disposed of on 8.6.2020 and L.I.C. of India vrs. RatanKaur  2008 NCJ 309 (NC).

7.      Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that they have already paid the sum assured but denied he additional benefit for the reason that the claim of the complainant is excluded by the clause 10(b)(1)(iv) of the policy in question. They denied the additional benefit for the reason that the policy does not cover to pay the additional benefit. So, he supports the impugned order.

8.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned order including the DFR.

9.      It is admitted fact that the deceased life assured has purchased “Jeevan Suravi” policy and during currency of the policy while the deceased policy holder was driving the vehicle  bearing Registration No. OR-01H-4500, the vehicle met accident with another truck bearing Registration No.AP-16-TU-7898 but the deceased life assured succumbed to injuries. It is also not in dispute that police case was started and police has registered a case u/s 279/337/338/304(A) IPC and submitted final form. It is also not in dispute that the complainant being nominee of the deceased assured has received the sum assured of Rs.1,09,935/- towards sum assured. The only question arises in this case whether the complainant is entitled to receive the additional benefit accrued under the policy in question.

10.    Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that clause 10(b) is clear to show that if there is a policy with additional benefit, the additional benefit equivalent to sum assured will be payable by the insured or his nomine in the event of sustain of any bodily injury or death resulting solely and directly from the accident caused by outward, violent and visible means.

11.    On the other hand, learned counsel for the  respondents referred to clause 10(b)(i)(iv). We have gone through both the provisions. It is true that clause 10(b) of the policy allowed the additional accidental benefit in the case of death or the disability due to accident but there is exclusion clause already mentioned just below that the Corporation is not liable to pay the additional sum referred to in clause (a) or (b) if the death of the life assured shall result from the life assured committed any breach of law. In theinstant case, there is already police registered the case u/s 279/337/338/304(A) IPC but submitted the final form due to death of the concerned life assured. The contributing negligence against the life assured cannotbe denied. Therefore, there is breach of law and we are of the view that under such exclusion clause the complainant is not entitled to any additional accidental benefit.

12.    In view of aforesaiddiscussion, we are of the view that the learned District Forum has rightly passed the impugnedorder to which we are not inclined to interfere with it. The decisions cited by the learnedcounsel for theappellant are not applicable to this case in view of facts and circumstances of this case.

13.    Hence, the appeal stands dismissed. No cost.

         DFR be sent back forthwith.

        Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.