Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The Complainant in this Complaint has come up with her grievance that her husband namely Ramakrishna was running a provision store, while he was engaged in the business in his shop on 04.11.2005 there was failure of electricity as a result he had lighted a candle, then electricity supply was restored and he noticed sparks in the electric meter, then he attempted to remove the fuse in that process accidentally the lighted candle fell down and his shop caught fire due to petrol he had kept in his shop in a small can for use of his two wheeler he had. His bike also caught fire which was parked out side. He suffered burn injuries and he died out of burn injuries. The deceased had taken an insurance policy for Rs.1,00,000/- from the Opposite party. A Complaint in connection with fire incident was given to concerned police who after registering a crime visited the spot prepared mahazar and the dead body was also subjected post mortem examination and the death is held to have been due to burn injuries. When she made a claim with the Opposite party for the payment of insured amount which was valid on the date of the fire incident, the Opposite party refused to pay the insured amount with a contention that the deceased had engaged in illegal dealing of petrol in his shop, therefore the insurance amount cannot be paid and thereby repudiated the claim. Therefore, the Complainant has contended that the repudiation of the claim by the Opposite party is not proper and thus has prayed for an order directing the Opposite party to pay the insured amount.<br /> 2. The Opposite party has filed version to this claim admitting that the deceased had taken life insurance policy called Nagarika Suraksha Policy and it was valid from 07.10.2005 to 06.10.2006 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The Opposite party denying the cause for the incident as put forth by the Complainant has contended that the deceased had engaged in illegal dealing with the petrol in his shop, which caught fire, therefore such an act is not covered under the conditions of policy. Therefore, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and has prayed for dismissal of the Complaint. <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry, the Complainant and the Divisional Manager of the Opposite party have filed their affidavit evidence reiterating the Complainant allegations and contentions raised by them in their respective Complaint and version. The Complainant has produced copies of police records maintained by the concerned police in connection with crime registered in Crime No.55/05 of Srirangapatna Police Station. We have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the Opposite party proves that deceased Ramakrishna died due to a fire incident when he engaged in unauthorized selling of petrol?<br /> 2. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite party has caused deficiency in not paying the insurance amount?<br /> 3. What order?<br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the negative.<br /> Point no.2 : In the affirmative.<br /> Point no.3 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Points no. 1 & 2:- The fact that the deceased Ramakrishna had taken the insurance policy with the Opposite party for Rs.1,00,000/- and it was valid even as on 04.11.2005 the date of the incident is not in dispute. The claim of the Complainant that her husband died due to accidental fire which engulfed the shop resulting in burn injuries to the deceased has been denied by the Opposite party by interalia contending that the deceased had engaged an illegal wending of petrol in his shop and therefore that illegal act do not entitle the Complainant to claim the insured amount. The Opposite party in it’s version and the affidavit evidence though has contended that they had appointed one Linganna to investigate the matter who has on 11.09.2006 reported to them that he collected information in the village that the deceased was dealing in petrol in his shop illegally. But the Opposite party has neither examined that Linganna, either by filing his affidavit evidence, nor examined any of the villagers who alleged to had told in the enquiry about the deceased dealing in petrol illegally in his shop. Except what has been alleged in the version and the affidavit evidence in this regard, the Opposite party has not placed any piece of evidence or material before this Forum to substantiate the basis on which that Linganna collected information about the illegal dealings of deceased in petrol. On the contrary, the Complainant has produced copy of the FIR, statement of the witnesses of that village recorded by the police investigation officer, in the course of investigation with copy of the spot mohazar all prima-facie reveal that the deceased had kept some small quantity of petrol in his shop for personal use as he had possessed a motor bike. The affidavit evidence of the Complainant and the materials she has placed before this Forum are not controverted, nor rebutted by the Opposite party. The imaginary contention of the Opposite party that one Linganna who had been appointed for investigation of the cause of the incident reported to them itself is not sufficient to accept their contention. In the absence of such report being filed before this Forum, or examination of that Linganna or the witnesses who had given such statements, the contentions of Opposite party cannot be accepted. We therefore on perusal of the affidavit evidence of the Complainant and investigation papers prepared by the investigation officer with the cause of death mentioned in the post mortem report we have no hesitation to hold that the deceased Ramakrishna died due to an accidental fire which risk is covered in the terms of the insurance policy, therefore repudiation of the claim of the Complainant by the Opposite party is not justified and that amounts to deficiency in the service of the Opposite party. As the result, we answer point no.1 in the negative, 2 in the affirmative and pass the following order:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed.<br /> 2. The Opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- being the insured amount due to the deceased to the Complainant within 3 months from the date of this order, failing which the Opposite party shall pay interest at Rs.15% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of payment. <br /> 3. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.<br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />