BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President And Sri. M.Krishna Reddy , M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member Monday the 26th day of July , 2010 C.C. No.128/09 Between: V.Seetha Lakshmi,W/o. Late V.Bramha Rudra Reddy,R/o. Bandrlapalli Village, Kolimigndla Mandal,Kurnool District. ..Complainant -Vs- 1. The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Ex-tension Counter, H.No.15-382-1, Near Ashokpillai, Tadipatri-515 411. 2. The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Kalpana Complex, Ist Floor, Kamalanagar, Anantapur.-515 001 3. The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., H.No.40-383, Bhupal Complex, Kurnool-518 002. …Opposite ParTIES This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. M. L. Sreenivasa Reddy , Advocate, for complainant , and opposite parties No.1 and 2 is called absent set ex-parte and Sri. V.V. Augustine, Advocate for opposite party No. 3 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following. ORDER (As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President) C.C. No.128/09 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the OP’s (i) to pay assured amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with all benefits and interest at 12% p.a from the date of death of the insured. (ii) to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the complainant at the deficient conduct of the Ops and (iii) costs of Rs.20,000/- and (iv) pass such other reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper and circumstances of the case. 2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:- The complainants husband V. Bramha Rudra Reddy took Nagrik Surakhsa Insurance Policy bearing No. 2007/50992 from OP.No.1 for the period from 29-08-2006 to 28-08-2010. The said policy covers the risk for Rs.4,00,000/- in case of personal accidental death. The complainant is the nominee under the said insurance policy . On 27-12-2006 the insured was murdered by the assailants . The death of the insured is an accidental death. The complainant informed the death of the insured and submitted claim form to the OP.No.1 . The OP.No.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the death of the insured was not accidental. The repudiation of the claim of the complainant is not tenable. There is deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. Hence the complaint. 3. OP.No.1 and 2 set ex-parte. OP.No.3 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is put to strict proof that on 27-12-2006, the insured was murdered in the out skirts of his village by some assailants and that the above death was an accidental death. It is very clear from the recitals of FIR , the inquest report and charge sheet that the assailants attacked the deceased , chased him while the deceased was returning home on his motor cycle and killed him with bombs, daggers and knives. The death of the insured is not simple accidental death. The Ops are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant as the policy covers only accidental death but not free planed ghastly murder . There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Ops in settling the claim of the complainant. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A5 are marked and sworn affidavit of complainant is filed. On behalf of Ops no documents are marked and sworn affidavit of OP.No.3 is filed. 5. Both parties filed written arguments. 6. The points that arise for consideration are (i) whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs? (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for? (iii) To what relief? 7. Point 1& 2:- It is the case of the complainant that her husband took the Nagrik Insurance policy from OP.No.1 and that the said policy covers the risk for Rs.4 ,00,000/- in case of personal accidental death. The complainant in her sworn affidavit clearly stated that her husband obtained the insurance policy from the 1st OP. Ex.A5 is the copy of the insurance policy . As seen from Ex.A1 it is very clear that the husband of the complainant took the insurance policy from OP.No.1 and that the policy period was from 29-08-2006 to 28-08-2010. It is also mentioned in Ex.A5 that the policy covers risk for Rs.4,00,000/- in case of death of the insured . It is not the case of the Ops that the husband of the complainant did not obtain the original of Ex.A5 policy. It is further case of the complainant that her husband was murdered by known culprits on 27-12-2006 while he was returning to his home on his motor cycle . To prove the same the complainant relied on Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. In Ex.A4 charge sheet it is clearly mentioned that on 27-12-2006 in the out skirts of Bandrlapalli Village near the Slab Polish Factory of Y. Venkatarami Reddy the culprits armed with bombs etc., attacked the insured and killed him .The recitals in Ex.A2 to A4 go to show that the complainants husband Bhramrudra Reddy was murdered by his rival group on 27-12-2006. 8. The OP.No.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the death of the assured Bramha Rudra Reddy was not accidental. Admittedly the original of Ex.A5 policy covers the risk for Rs.4,00,000/- in case of personal accidental death. In the charge sheet Ex.A4 it is clearly mentioned that the accused with a pre plan attacked Bramha Rudra Reddy and killed on 27-12-2006 . Merely because the accused killed the deceased with a pree plan it can not be said that the death of the deceased was not accidental. Admittedly the death of Bramha Rudra Reddy is not a natural death. It is also not the case of the Ops that the insured died by committing suicide .As per as the deceased is concerned his death is unaccepted in the hands of his rival group . The complainant did not except that her husband would be killed by the accused mentioned in the charge sheet. The repudiation of the claim of the complainant on the ground that the death of the assured is not accidental and it is a murder simplicitor it can not be accepted. The death of Bramha Rudra Reddy took place unexpectedly and it is a accidental death. Therefore the contentions of the Ops that they are not liable to pay the assured amount can not be accepted. Whether the accused murdered the insured with pre planed or not is not relevant in a decision reported in 1995 (2) C.P.R – Page 331 it was held that murdered could be said to be covered within meaning of accidental injury . Therefore we are of the opinion that claimant who is the nominee under the policy is entitled to the assured amount of Rs.4,00,000/- along with other benefits. The Ops repudiated the claim of the complainant without any valid reason. The failure on the part of the Ops to pay the benefits under the policy to the complainant amounts to deficiency of service. 9. Point No:4:- In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing Ops 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay assured amount of Rs.4,00,000/- benefits under the policy and costs of Rs.500/ to the complaint with interest at 9% from the date of repudiation of the claim i.,e 18-06-2008 till the date of payment. Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 26th day of July , 2010. Sd/- Sd/- MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses Examined For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties :Nil List of exhibits marked for the complainant:- Ex.A1 Photo copy of Repudiation letter issued by OPs to the Complainant. Ex.A2. Photo copy of FIR in CR.No 123/2006 of Kolimigundal P.S. Ex.A3. Photo copy of Inquest report of the deceased. Ex.A4. Photo copy of charge sheet in CR.No 123/2006 of Kolimigundla P.S. Ex.A5. Photo copy of Insurance policy No.50992/2007. List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: Nil Sd/- Sd/- MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT // Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of theA.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987// Copy to:- Complainant and Opposite parties Copy was made ready on : Copy was dispatched on: | 
