BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; DHARWAD.
DATE: 22nd January 2016
PRESENT:
1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha : President
2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi : Member
Complaint No.: 279/2015
Complainant/s: Smt.Deepa w/o.Ramdas Kudalkar,
Age: about 40 years, Occ: Household work, R/o. No.4, Bhavani Apartment, Near 7th Day Advent School, Bhavani Nagar, Keshwapur, Hubballi 580023.
(By Sri.M.A.Shivalli, Adv.)
v/s
Respondent/s: The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, City Branch-I, P.O.Box no.25, Lamington Road, Hubballi 580020.
(By Sri.M.G.Gadgoli, Adv.)
O R D E R
By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.
1. The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to pay balance amount of Rs.2.75 lakhs towards the double accident death benefit under the policies along with interest @12% PA from 28.04.2015 till realization to pay cost of the proceedings and to grant such other reliefs.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
2. The case of the complainant is that, complainant is the wife of the deceased assured Ramdas Kudelkar. The deceased husband died on 08.03.2015 due to injuries sustained in the attempt to murder him at his jewelry shop on 07.03.2015. The deceased had insured his life with the respondent under policy 922324784, 920864992 & 638247090. For the said policies the complainant has been nominated. All the 3 policies are covered with double accident benefits. Hence the complainant being a nominee submitted claim to the respondent. In turn the respondent credited an amount of Rs.396152/- to the bank account of the complainant towards the benefits under the policy but not paid the double accident death benefits. Through reply letter dt.26.06.2015 the respondent declined to pay double accident death benefits stating the death of the insured is due to murder. Non payment of the benefits amounts to deficiency in service. Hence complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.
3. In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondent appeared and filed the written version in detail denying and disputing the complaint averments. Further the respondents denied the present complaint is a consumer complaint, deficiency in service & prays for dismissal of the complaint. While the respondent admits the policy, complainant is a nominee to the said policies but asserted the denial of the double accident death benefits contending that the death is not accidental one, is a murder which comes within the exclusion clause of the double accident death benefits claim by explaining the difference between murder and accidental murder- Murder which is not an accident and murder which is an accident depends on the proximity of the cause of the murder. If the dominant intention of the act of felony is to kill any particular person then such killing is not an accidental murder but it is a murder simplicitor. In support of this contention the respondent relied on apex courts judgment and explained the circumstances of the event of the murder in the present complaint by revealing in detail. Further contended that the respondents have settled the claim for which the complainant is entitled while reject the benefits under double accident death claim based on the sound grounds and hence the present complaint is a false, frivolous and vexatious filed with ulterior motive to have unlawful benefits and prays for dismissal of the complaint contending that there is no deficiency in service.
4. On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:
- Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
- Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
- To what relief the complainant is entitled ?
Both have admits sworn to evidence affidavit, relied on documents. Apart from argument both have relied on citations. Heard. Perused the records.
Finding on points is as under.
- Negative
- Negative
- As per order
R E A S O N S
P O I N T S 1 & 2
5. On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact, the deceased husband of the complainant had insured with the respondent and obtained 3 policies with double accident death benefits. Further it is also not in dispute that the husband of the complainant died due to murder.
6. Now the question to be determined is, whether the complainant is entitled for double accident death benefits, if so, non payment of the same amounts to a deficiency in service then for what relief the complainant is entitled.
7. Since the facts have been revealed in detail which requires no repetition.
8. As discussed there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant has received all the benefits under the policy except double accident death benefits.
9. By perusal of the police records it is evident that the insured deceased husband died due to murder. The Ex.R11 copy of the chargesheet reveals the police have chargesheeted against the accused Santosh Achari for an offence punishable u/s.302 of IPC i.e. for murder. The recital of the accusation reads - “¦üAiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ CtÚ£ÁzÀ gÁªÀÄzÁ¸À PÀÄqÁ¼ÀPÀgÀ FvÀ¤UÉ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVzÀÝ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß DgÉÆæ ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀ DZÁj ªÀÄgÀ½ PÉÆqÀzÉà EzÀÝ PÁgÀt zÀÄ:SÁ¥Àvï ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ gÁªÀÄzÁ¸À FvÀ£ÀÄ DgÉÆæ ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀ DZÁjUÉ ¥ÀzÉà ¥ÀzÉà ºÀt ªÀÄgÀ½ PÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ PÉýzÀÝPÉÌ CµÀÖPÉÌ gÁªÀÄzÁ¸À£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¹mÁÖVzÀÝ DgÉÆæ ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀ DZÁj ¢.07.03.2015gÀAzÀÄ 12.30 UÀAmÉUÉ ¨sÀªÁ¤£ÀUÀgÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀ ®Qëöäà dĪɮj JA§ zÀÄSÁ¥Àvï ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ gÁªÀÄzÁ¸À£À dĪɮj CAUÀrUÉ ºÉÆÃV gÁªÀÄzÁ¸À£À£ÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ vÀ£ÉÆßA¢UÉ vÀA¢zÀÝ PÉƬÄvÀÛ¢AzÀ zÀÄSÁ¥Àvï ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ gÁªÀÄzÁ¸À£À vÀ¯ÉUÉ §®ªÁV ºÉÆrzÀÝzÀÝ®èzÉà 2 PÉÊUÀ½UÀÆ ¥ÉlÄÖ ªÀiÁr gÁªÀÄzÁ¸À£À §®UÉÊ ºÉ¨ÉâgÀ¼ÀÄ PÀmÁÖV ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀAvÉ ªÀiÁrzÀ C¥ÀgÁzsÀ. zÀÄSÁ¥Àvï ¥Àr¹zÀÄÝ EzÉà PÁgÀt¢AzÀ ªÀÄÈvÀ£ÀÄ ¢.8/3/15 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 2-35 UÀAmÉUÉ ¨Á¯Áf D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è G¥ÀZÁgÀzÀ°èzÁÝUÀ ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖzÀÄÝ, DgÉÆæ ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀ DZÁj ªÀÄÈvÀ gÁªÀÄzÁ¸À¤UÉ wêÀÈ WÁAiÀÄUÉƽ¹ PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁrzÀ C¥ÀgÁzsÀ””
10. By taking attention of this Forum to the accusation the LC for complainant submits his argument contending that it is not a designed murder and is accidental one and prays for allow of the complaint by relying on the citations. 2006 (2) CPR 8 NC –Prithviraj Bhandari vs. LIC of India; 2009 (1) CPR 292 Punjab SCDRC Chandigad–Oriental insurance co. & ors vs. Sukhdev kaur & ors.; 2014 (1) CPR 359 NC-LIC of India vs. Smt.Shankravva; 2012 (1) CPR 93 APSCDRC, Hyderabad; 2006 (2) CPR 226 TNSCDRD, Chennai; AIR 2007 (DOC) 38 NC. While the respondent denying the contention of the complainant argued, the instance of murder in the present complaint is not accidental one and is a designed well preplanned murder. Hence the complainant is not entitled for the benefits by relying on the same decisions relied by the complainant 2006 (2) CPR 8 NC –Prithviraj Bhandari vs. LIC of India;
11. So, by keen reading of the acquisition & taking into note of the relevancy in Bhandari case it is evident that in the present complaint the death of the insured is due to pre planned designed murder and is not accidental. The rest of the decisions referred by the LC for complainant are of different circumstances compared to the circumstances of the present complaint. So also by keen analysis of the accusation against the accused is a clear case of there was hunchback in the act of murder and is a designed one and not accidental. Under those circumstances denial of the claim under double accident death benefits by the respondent is not amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant failed to establish the deficiency in service with appulsive and cogent evidence against the respondent. Hence complainant is not entitled for any benefits.
12. In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 and 2 in negative.
13. Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following
O R D E R
Complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 22nd day of January 2016)
(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi) (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)
Member President
Dist.Consumer Forum Dist.Consumer Forum
MSR
