Haryana

Jind

EA/12/2015

Subhash - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Life Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh S.S. . Pahal

25 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.
                            Complaint No. 45 of 2015
                            Date of institution:-9.4.2015
                            Date of decision:-
Subhash son of Sh. Gopi Ram resident of village Jeet Garh, Tehsil and District Jind.
                                       ..Complainant.
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation of India through its Branch Manager, Jind. 

                                          …Opposite party.
Complaint under section 12 of
                Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before:     Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.  

Present:-    Sh. N.K. Gautam, Adv. for  complainant. 
        Sh. R.S. Sindhwani, Adv.for opposite party.  
Order:-
         Brief facts of the complaint are that  husband of complainant namely Ram Singh had purchased a life insurance policy for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- vide policy No.172194131 dated 28.5.2000 from opposite party. The husband of complainant deposited the installments till June, 2013 and thereafter complainant’s husband was murdered on 7.7.2013. The complainant is nominee of the above said policy in question. After the murder of her husband she applied for death claim and submitted all the necessary documents i.e. original 
            Birmati Vs. LIC
                …2…
policy, PMR and death certificate to the opposite party. The opposite party had paid only a sum of Rs.1,51,000/- and has not paid the accidental benefits and other benefits under the terms and conditions of the policy. The opposite party has refused to pay the accidental benefit to the complainant. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is alleged. It is prayed  that the complaint be accepted and opposite party be directed to pay the accidental benefits under the insurance policy, a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony as well as to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.   
3.    Upon notice, the opposite party has appeared and filed the written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable in this Forum; the complainant has got no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint and the complaint is false, frivolous  and vexatious. On merits, it is contended that deceased Ram Singh s/o Sarup Singh was murdered and FIR No.119 dated 7.7.2013 under Sections 148/149/307/302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered with P.S. Pillu Khera  on the statement of his son Raj Kumar. The cause of death of Ram Singh was murder and not of accident as such the accidental benefits are not covered and payable under the policy issued by the opposite party. The opposite party has already  made a payment of Rs.1,54,616/- dated 15.10.2013 to the complainant.  All the other allegations have been denied by the opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with cost of Rs.25,000/- is prayed for.
            Birmati Vs. LIC
                …3…
4.    In evidence, the complainant has  produced her own affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of policy Ex. C-2, letter dated 17.1.2014 Ex. C-3 and copy of order dated 16.7.2014 Ex. C-4 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, the opposite party has produced the affidavit of Sh. Balihar Singh Manager Ex. OP-1, copy of policy Ex. OP-2, copies of status report of policy Ex. OP-3 and Ex. OP-5, copy of form No.3801 Ex. OP-4,  copy of letter dated 17.1.2014 Ex. OP-6, copy of application Ex. OP-7, copy of final report form Ex. OP-8, copy of letter dated 25.10.2013 Ex. OP-9, copy of claim payment voucher Ex. OP-10, copy of letter dated 15.10.2013 Ex. OP-11, copy of final information report Ex. OP-12 and copy of post mortem report Ex. OP-13 and closed the evidence. 
5.    We have perused the file minutely and carefully. It is an admitted fact that the husband of the complainant had purchased life insurance policy as mentioned above. The main  question involved in this complaint  whether the  complainant is entitled the accident benefit of the policy or not.
6.    We have heard both the parties and gone through the record carefully placed on the file. As per the final report (Ex. OP-8) under Section 173 Cr.P.C. the case titled State Vs Raja Ram etc. vide FIR No.119 dated 7.7.2013 under Section 148/149/302/307 read with section 25 of Arms Act husband of the complainant has been murdered by the accused  person i.e. Raja Ram etc. and Hon’ble  District & Sessions Judge, Jind has held that the prosecution has not been able to prove his charge under Sections 148/302/307 read with 25 of Arms 
            Birmati Vs. LIC
                …4…
Act against the accused. The counsel for the complainant argued that in view of the  above said judgment rendered by Hon’ble Sessions Judge, murder of the deceased is not proved meaning thereby death of the deceased is not a  natural death and he further argued as per the post-mortem report Ex. OP-13 deceased died due to bullets injury it is a accidental death so the complainant is entitled the accidental death of the policy. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has tendered Appeal No.380 of 2001 decided on 20.12.2001 titled as Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Lalitaben Pravinchandra Gohil decided by  Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad  and another Appeal No.FA15 of 2011 date of decision 29.9.2011 titled as Mala Deb (Choudhary) Vs. LIC of India and another decided by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tripura.  
7.    On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite party argued that the opposite party has paid a sum of Rs.1,54,616/- to the complainant on 15.10.2013 nothing is due against the opposite party and complainant has received the full and final payment as per received voucher  dated 15.10.2013 without protest as Ex. OP-4. He relied upon the judgments rendered by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi titled as Haryana State Co-operative  Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. Vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. 2013(3) CPC page 356 and Shree Balaji Woolen Mills (M/s) Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2013 (3) CPC page 437. The counsel for the opposite party further argued that the accidental benefit is not 
            Birmati Vs. LIC
                …5…
covered and payable under the policy because Ram Singh deceased was murdered and case was registered under Section 148/149/307/302 IPC and 25 of Arms Act against the accused. He further argued that as per the copy of challan submitted by the police in the court as Ex. OP-8 and FIR Ex. OP-12 intention of the accused was very much clear to murder the insured so murder does not cover under the definition of accident and complainant is not entitled the accidental benefit as claimed by her in this complaint.  On this point counsel for respondent relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble National Commission case title Prithvi Raj Bhandari vs. Life Insurance Corporation decided on 26 May 2006 and Hon’ble National Commission  has mentioned in  per para 6 and 7 of the above said judgment as under:- 
“The Hon’ble Supreme Court had occasion to go in the similar set of circumstances, in the case of Smt. Rita Devi Vs. New India Assurnce Co. Ltd. IV (2000) SLT 179 II (2000) CLT 192 (SC)II(2000) ACC 291(SC) so case No.289 para 9 of this judgment is relevant for our purpose, which is as follows:-
“In our opinion, if the document intention of the act of felony is the 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.”
    For our purpose, the important point to note is whether murder is an ‘accident’ would depend on the proximity of cause of such murder? 
            Birmati Vs. LIC
                …6…
Two points need to be noted in this regard. Firstly, there is no doubt that three criminal cases were filed against the decease/insured in 1996 and 1997 under I.P.C. Sections 427/336 as well as under Arms Act, 365,323 and 34, I.P.C. Sections 27/54/59 as also 397 case under section regarding theft of Cello Car. There is no disputing the fact that the deceased was acquitted in all these cases, but series of criminal cases filed against him as well as his killing by shooting him in the ear as also in the ribs, leaves us in no doubt that this was a murder by design and intent rather than a case of accident murder. Even though, the murderer could not be traced in this case but the two points made above ,i.e., the long criminal record as also the places where wounds have been made by bullet, unless something points out to the contrary, in our view, it would be case of intentional killing, i.e., murder of deceased, and shall not fall within the term’accident’ by any stretch of argument in the fact and circumstances in this case.
In the aforementioned circumstances, we are unable to satisfy ourselves that this was anything else, other than intentional killing/murder simplicitor and hence does not fall within the ward ’accident’. The State Commission quite correct in not allowing the ‘double accident benefit’ as the deceased does not satisfy the condition of the policy to be entitled for deriving the benefits under the ‘double murder’ befit scheme.
Appeal has no merit, hence dismissed”.  
8.    We have gone through the judgment dated 16.7.2014 state Vs. Raja Ram etc. as passed by Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Jind  
            Birmati Vs. LIC
                …7…
Ex. C-4 it is clear that prosecution has failed to prove its charge under Sections 148/302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC and 25 of Arms Act. But it is clear from the judgment that court has not given the finding that deceased Ram Singh has not been murdered. Hence, above mentioned judgment is not helpful to the complainant. 
8.    We have also gone through the pleading of the complainant we observe that as per contention of the complainant mentioned in the complaint that complainant does not prove nor alleged under what circumstances Ram Singh deceased died which may constitute the accidental death. The authorities (Supra) tendered by the Ld. Counsel for  complainant are not disputed but not identical in the facts and circumstances in the present case whereas the authorities (Supra) tendered by the opposite parties are fully applicable in the present case. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove his case so  the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed. Parties will bear their own expenses. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.
Announced on: 5.5.2016
                                  President,
    Member     Member                    District Consumer Disputes                                         Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

Birmati Vs. LIC
                
                    
Present:-    Sh. N.K. Gautam, Adv. for  complainant. 
        Sh. R.S. Sindhwani, Adv.for opposite party.  
                Arguments heard.  To come up on  5.5.2016 for orders.
                                        President,
        Member             Member                               DCDRF/Jind
                                        3.5.2016

Present:-    Sh. N.K. Gautam, Adv. for  complainant. 
        Sh. R.S. Sindhwani, Adv.for opposite party.  
        Order announced. Vide our separate order of the even date, the complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 
                                                                                                    President,
        Member             Member                               DCDRF/Jind
                                        5.5.2016