| Complaint Case No. CC/09/112 |
| | | | 1. Smt Bendadi Mani W/o Late Satyanarayana,Occu: Household ,R/o H.NO.5-3-240,Pakabanda bazar ,khammam | | Smt Bendadi Mani W/o Late Satyanarayana,Occu: Household ,R/o H.NO.5-3-240,Pakabanda bazar ,khammam | | Khammam | | Andhra Pradesh | | 2. Bendadi Pooja, d/o.late Satyanarayana, occu:Student. | | r/o.H.No.5-3-240, Pakabanda bazar, Khammam | | Khammam | | Andhra Pradesh | | 3. Bendadi Indu, D/o.late Satyanarayana, occu: Stuudent | | H.No.5-3-240, Pakabanda bazar, Khammam. | | Khammam | | Andhra Pradesh |
| ...........Complainant(s) | | Versus | | 1. The Branch Manager ,Life Insurance ,Corporation of india ,Khammam | | The Branch Manager ,Life Insurance ,Corporation of india ,Khammam | | Khammam | | Andhra Pradesh |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| ORDER | | BEFORE THE DISTIRCT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 10th day of February, 2011. CORAM: 1. Sri Vijay Kumar, B.Com, L.L.B., President 2. Sri R. Kiran Kumar, B.Sc., L.L.B., Member C.C.No.112/2009 Between: 1. Smt. Bendadi Mani, W/o Late Satyanarayana, Age:36 years, Occu:Household 2. Bendadi Pooja D/o Late Satyanarayan, Age:13 years, Occu: Student. 3. Bendadi Indu, D/o Late Satyanarayana, Age:8years, Occu: Student All are R/o H.No.5-3-240, Pakabanda Bazar, Khammam. …. Complainants. And The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Khammam. …Opposite party. This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.V. Rama Rao, Advocate for the complainant; and of Sri Sarath Chandra, Advocate for opposite party; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration this forum passed the following: ORDER (Per Sri R. Kiran Kumar, Member) This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the husband of the complainant No.1 by name Bendadi Satyanarayana obtained Jeevana Mitra Life Insurance Policy from the opposite party corporation on his life for Rs.1,00,000/- and nominated the complainant No.1 as the nominee. The husband of the complainant No.1 was murdered on 26-04-2007 leaving the complainants as his legal heirs. The complainant No.1 preferred a claim before the opposite party under the policy bearing No.681755054 and submitted the original policy. On that the opposite party paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with bonus to the complainant No.1 and refused to pay the accident benefit claim. The complainant No.1 requested the opposite party to treat the death of her husband as an accident as per law of contract as her husband died due to murder. And also submitted that as per the conditions of the policy, the opposite party has to pay triple of the policy amount in case of accidental death but the opposite party refused to pay the sum, which shows the deficiency of service. The opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant through a letter vide ref. Mktg/Claims/2a/09-10, dt.28-07-2009, on that the complainants approached the forum for redressal. 2. On behalf of the complainants, the following documents were filed and the same were marked as Exhibits A1 to A7. Ex.A1:- Photo copy of F.I.R.No.71/07, dated 28-04-2007. Ex.A2:- Photo copy of Inquest report dated 28-04-2007. Ex.A3:- Photo copy of charge sheet, dt.27-10-2007. Ex.A4:- Photo copy of death certificate, issued by Tahsildar, Khammam (Urban). Ex.A5:- Letter addressed by the opposite party to the complainant No.1, Dt.28-07-2009. Ex.A6:- Photo copy of LIC Policy. Ex.A7:- Computer Statement given by opposite party Corporation, dt.26-10-2009. 3. On receipt of the notice, the opposite party corporation appeared through their counsel and filed counter. In the counter, the opposite party submitted that as per the intimation given by the complainant No.1 and on receipt of claim requirements the opposite party corporation had settled the claim for Basic Sum Assured in favour of Complainant No.1 which is admitted by the complainant No.1. And also submitted that as per F.I.R. No.71/2007 and Investigation Report, “Owing to the previous disputes between the deceased life assured and Sri Ravichandra, owner of Gayatri Granites, Khammam, the deceased/life assured was murdered”. As per the Charge Sheet dt.21-11-2007, Khammam I Town Police Station, submitted by the C.I. of Police, Khammam Town, “that the deceased /life assured had previous enemity with his erstwhile employer Mr. Ravichandra of Gayatri Granites”. For that the opposite party corporation relied on the judgment in Ritadevi Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., IV (2000) SLT 179=II (2000) CLT 192(SC)=11 (2000) ACC 291 (SC)=2000, wherein the honorable Supreme Court observed that “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”. And also submitted that the incident of murder of the deceased is not a stray incident but is a part of the chain of incidents which originated with the contracting of the deceased/life assured with A2 to A4 to eliminate his erstwhile employer Mr. Ravichandra, owner of Gayatri Granites. And as per the Accident Benefit Clause No.10.2(b), conditions & privileges of the policy bond “The Corporation shall not be liable to pay the additional sum assured, if the disability or death of the life assured shall result from the assured committing any breach of law”. And also submitted that as per the averments made in para No.2 of the complaint, that “Incident has to be treated as an accident as per law of contract, the opposite party is liable to pay the accident benefit also as per the contract”, is untenable, since the murder of the deceased/life assured can not be treated as an Accident. Therefore prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs. 4. To support their contention, the opposite party Corporation filed number of documents, which are already filed and marked as exhibits on behalf of complainant. 5. On behalf of the complainants, the counsel for the complainants filed written arguments. Counsel for opposite party filed a memo treating their written version as their written arguments. 6. Upon perusing the material papers on record, now the point that arose for consideration is, Whether the death of the insured was a cause of accidental death or otherwise, Consequently the complainants are entitled for the Accident Benefit under the policy? Point : - In this case, the husband of the complainant No.1, during his life time taken a Life Insurance policy vide No.681755054 from the opposite party corporation and in which he shown the complainant No.1 as nominee . On 26-04-2007, the husband of the complainant No.1 was murdered. On that the complainant No.1 preferred a claim before the opposite party corporation along with all the relevant documents. On that the opposite party corporation paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with bonus and refused to pay the accidental benefit amount. On 28-07-2009, the opposite party corporation sent repudiation letter to the complainant, which is marked as Ex.A5. On receipt of the repudiation letter, the complainant approached the Forum. It is an undisputed fact that the husband of the complainant No.1 was murdered on 26-04-2007 as per Ex.A3. In Ex.A3, submitted by the C.I. of Police, Khammam Town, “ During the course of investigation it has been established that the deceased B.Satyanarayana, previously worked as a Manager at Accused A1, later some differences arose between himself and A1 regarding the lease on quarry sites. In this regard, the deceased B.Satyanaryana filed a complaint before I Addl. JFCM, Khammam u/s 200 Cr.P.C against A1 and others. Later on, the crime No.221/2006, 220/2006 AND Crime No.18/2007 were registered between deceased and A1, i.e. Ravichandra. Later on, the deceased engaged A2 to A4 to do away the life of A1. Subsequently, A2 to A4 entered into contract with A1 to do away the life of the deceased. Ultimately, the accused A1, with the help of A2 to A4 strangulated the deceased, tied the body with the binding wire and thrown into the N.S. Deep Canal. Therefore, the accused A1 to A6 have committed an offense punishable u/s 120(B), 365, 302, 379, 201 r/w 34 IPC”. The opposite party corporation in their counter, relied on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Ritadevi Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd., where in the Apex Court observed that “The question, therefore, is can a murder be an accident in any given case? 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 an accident and ‘murder’, which an accident, depends on the proximity of the cause of such 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.” And also we observed that, there are criminal cases pending between the deceased/insured and A1 regarding to lease on quarry sites. The incident of murder of the deceased is not a stray one and it is a part of the chain of incidents and the ‘Murder’ as it is under stood, “in the common parlance is a felonious act where death is caused with incident and the perpetrators of that act normally have a motive against the victim of such killing” as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. From the above reasons, we agree with the objections taken by the opposite party corporation “since the murder of the deceased/life assured can not be treated as an accident and the complainant failed to satisfy the conditions of the policy to be entitled for deriving the benefits as triple of the policy amount”. 7. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. Dictated to steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this 10th day of February, 2011. PRESIDENT MEMBER DISTRIC CONSUEMRS FORUM, KHAMMAM APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined for complainant: None Witnesses examined for opposite parties: None Exhibits marked for Complainant: Ex.A1:- Photo copy of F.I.R.No.71/07, dated 28-04-2007. Ex.A2:- Photo copy of Inquest report dated 28-04-2007. Ex.A3:- Photo copy of charge sheet, dt.27-10-2007. Ex.A4:- Photo copy of death certificate, issued by Tahsildar, Khammam (Urban). Ex.A5:- Letter addressed by the opposite party to the complainant No.1, Dt.28-07-2009. Ex.A6:- Photo copy of LIC Policy. Ex.A7:- Computer Statement given by opposite party Corporation, dt.26-10-2009. Exhibits marked for opposite parties:- Nil - PRESIDENT MEMBER DISTRIC CONSUEMRS FORUM, KHAMMAM | |
