O R D E R

(By Sri D.Shankar Rao, Member)

1. The brief-facts of the complaint are that the complainants 1 & 2 are sons and opposite party No.4 is wife of late Thummala Saya Reddy who was murdered on 23-09-2009.  The deceased Saya Reddy was an agriculturist and having Kisan Credit Card (KCC) membership vide No.1268 through his loan account bearing No.633 in the Society of opposite party No.1.  There was an accidental insurance policy for the KCC holders under both the schemes of KCC and Janata Personal accident (JPA) for sum insured Rs.50,000/= each scheme to each member from the opposite parties 2 &3.  The opposite party No.4 being wife shown her as nominee for the policy.

          The police Nandipet registered a criminal case bearing No.120/2009 U/s 302 IPC for murder of policy holder Thummala Saya Reddy and in which the wife of policy holder who is opposite party No.4 herein was shown as one of the accused.

          As per terms and conditions of the policy, the nominee is entitled to receive sum insured, but the nominee was shown as one of the accused for the death of policy holder.  Hence the son of policy holder who is complainant No.1 herein, made death claim on 10-11-2009, but the same was repudiated by opposite party No.3 vide its letter bearing No.050700/KCC/2010 dated 10-9-2010 stating that nothing is payable under the policy as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as the nominee was involved in the murder of policy holder.  The ground for rejection of claim is incorrect and false the involvement of nominee not yet proved in the court of law.  The opposite parties 2 & 3 have denied the claim without any basis and record.  The act of opposite parties 2 & 3 in denying the claim for no reason amounts to negligence & deficiency in service.  Therefore the opposite parties 2 & 3 are liable to pay total sum insured Rs.1,00,000/- for both KCC & JPA schemes under the policy with interest, compensation and costs.

2.       The opposite party No.1 & 3 have remained set-exparte throughout the proceedings.

3.       The opposite party No.2 filed its counter.  Briefly stated that the opposite party No.2 has issued Group Janata Personal accident policy bearing No.050700/47/09/61/00000033 valid from 17-04-2009 to 16-04-2010 in favour of NDCC Bank covering the Societies in Nizamabad district including deceased person under Kisan Credit Card / Janata Personal accident scheme.  The sum insured is Rs.50,000/- each of Group members in the policy against death or permanent disability resulting from accident as per terms & conditions of the policy.

          In this case the police Nandipet registered a Criminal case in Crime No.120 of 2009 U/s 302, 109 R/W 201 IPC on 27-09-2009 against wife of policy holder who is opposite party No.4 herein and two others.  The opposite party No.4 have a motive against her husband policy holder for such killing since her husband was suffering with AIDS.  Hence it is a planned murder.  Such killing is not an accidental murder but it is a murder simplicitor as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgemnet in a case of Smt. Rita Devi and others V/s New India Insurance Company Ltd., 2000 (3) Supreme 698.  Therefore the murder of policy holder is not an accident and the same is not covered under the policy. 

          A person who commits murder or abets the commission of murder shall be disqualified from inheriting the property of the person murdered in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act 1956.  Hence the opposite party No.4 is disqualified from claiming under the policy.  The names of complainants 1 & 2 are not named as nominees in the policy.  Therefore none are entitled to claim under the policy and repudiated their claim on 10-9-2010.

          The opposite party No.3 company Divisional Office at Secunderabad is nothing to do with the present claim in question.  There is no branch office of United India Insurance Company at Yellammagutta Nizamabad.  But the opposite party No.2 company Divisional office at Nizamabad is the Nodal office under KCC (Kisan Credit Card) scheme alone authorized to do business of issuing KCC policies in Nizamabad district.  Hence the opposite party No.2 is the contesting party to the proceedings of the case.  All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.  Therefore the complaint is fit to be dismissed with costs.

4.       The opposite party No.4 filed counter and briefly stated that she is the wife of deceased policy holder Thummala Saya Reddy who died on 23-09-2009.  The complainants 1 & 2 are children of opposite party No.4 and the deceased policy holder.  During life time, the deceased Saya Reddy was a member of KCC (Kisan Credit Card) scheme through PACCS (Primay Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society) Donkeshwar i.e. opposite party No.1by virtue of his agricultural loan account.  There is Group Janata personal accident insurance policy from opposite parties 2 & 3 for the members of opposite party No.1 society under KCC (Kisan Credit Card) & JPA (Janata Personal Accident) scheme for sum insured Rs.50,000/- to each scheme to each member and the total sum insured comes to Rs.1,00,000/- to each member.  The deceased Thummala Saya Reddy is one of the member in the Group Janata personal accident insurance policy and opposite party No.4 is the nominee.

          The opposite parties 2 & 3 have repudiated the claim on 10-09-2010 under the policy on a ground that the opposite party No.4 who is wife & nominee involved in murder of policy holder, hence no one is nothing entitled the claim under the policy as per Hindu Succession Act 1956.

          The Nandipet Police have registered the murder case of deceased policy holder Thummala Saya Reddy in Crime No.120/2009 U/s 302 IPC and shown the opposite party No.4 as one of the accused.  The police falsely implicated the opposite party No.4 in her husband murder case.  However the case was tried in S.C.No.238 of 2010 by the Hon’ble III Addl. Sessions Judge at Nizamabad and acquitted the opposite party No.4.

          Further stated that the complainants 1 & 2 and opposite party No.4 are living as joint family and there is no dispute regarding to receive the claim under the policy either by her or by complainants 1 & 2 or to distribute the claim amount equally.

          The murder of policy holder not denied.  The stand taken in rejection of claim is incorrect and false.

          Therefore the opposite party No.4 and complainants 1 & 2 are entitled the claim under the policy and the opposite parties 2 & 3 are liable to pay the same with interest.

5.       During enquiry, the complainant No.2 filed his evidence affidavit as PW1 on his be-half and on be-half of complainant No.1 and got marked exhibits A1 to A4 documents and closed their evidence.

          The opposite party No.2 filed the evidence affidavit of their Deputy Manager Nanchari Narsaiah as RW1 and got marked Exhibits B1 to B10 documents and closed their evidence.

          The opposite party No.4 also filed her evidence affidavit as RW2 and got marked exhibit B11 document and closed her evidence.

6.       Heard Arguments.

7.       The points for consideration are:-

          1)  Whether there is any deficiency Service on the part of opposite parties 1 to          3 in repudiation of the claim under the policy ?

          2)  To what relief?

8.       POINT No.1 & 2 : There is no dispute that the deceased Thummala Saya Reddy was one of the member in Group Janata personal accident policy bearing No.050700/47/09/61/00000033 valid from 17-04-2009 to 16-04-2010 in Ex.B10 issued by opposite party No.2.  It is also not in dispute that the policy holder, Thummala Saya Reddy was murdered on 23-09-2009.  The complainants 1 & 2 are the sons and opposite party No.4 is the wife of deceased policy holder Thummala Saya Reddy also not disputed. 

          The facts in dispute are that the murder of policy holder is not an accidental death and the wife who is opposite party No.4 herein is not entitled to claim under the policy as she involved in the murder of her husband policy holder.  The names of complainants 1 & 2 are not named as nominees in the policy.  Therefore none are entitled to claim under the policy. 

          In order to prove the case the complainants have filed the evidence affidavit of complainant No.2 as PW1 and they relied upon Exhibits A1 to A4 documents.

          The opposite party No.2 also filed the evidence affidavit of their deputy Manager as RW1 and they relied upon exhibits B1 to B10 documents to prove their contention. 

          The opposite party No.4 also filed her evidence affidavit as RW2 and she relied upon Ex.B11 document to prove her version.

          The opposite parties 1 & 3 are not contesting the case and they have remained set-exparte throughout the proceedings.

          The complainants 1 & 2 and the opposite party No.4 have not sought any their relief against the society of opposite party No.1 except made it as proforma party to the case proceedings.

          It is pleaded by complainants 1 & 2 and opposite party No.4 that the opposite parties 2 & 3 have denied their claim under the policy without basis and record hence they sought relief against opposite parties 2 & 3 for the payment of claim under the policy in their complaint.  In this context, the contention of opposite party No.2 is that the Divisional office of opposite party No.3 at Secunderabad is nothing to do with the subject matter of complainant 1 & 2 and opposite party No.4 in question.

          The Divisional office of opposite party No.2 at Niamabad is the Nodal office under KCC (Kisan Credit Card) scheme and its Divisional office alone authorized to do business of issuing Group Janata personal accident policies in Nizamabad district including the subject matter of the complaint policy in question.  Hence the opposite party No.2 is alone have cause of action for contesting the case.  Accordingly the opposite party No.2 filed its counter, adduced their evidence affidavit of RW1 and got marked exhibits B1 to B10 documents on their be-half in order to prove their contention that the repudiation of claim under the policy is valid and its based on record.  Therefore the burden to be discharged is shifted against opposite party No.2 for the subject matter of the claim under the policy in question in the complaint.

          We have heard arguments of counsel for the parties.  We have also verified the entire case record and perused the exhibits on both sides.

          The opposite party No.4 also claiming her share under the policy and filed her counter as well as claim petition in I.A.No.7 of 2014 during pendency of the case proceedings.  The complainants No.1 & 2 have not disputed the share of opposite party No.4 under the policy.  Hence the petition in I.A.No.7 of 2014 is closed on 11-03-2014 after filed the evidence affidavit of opposite party No.4 as RW2 and got marked Ex.B11 document on her be-half in main case.  It is the case of opposite party No.4 is that she being wife and nominee of the deceased policy holder she is entitled one of the share amount out of sum insured Rs.1,00,000/- under the policy along with the shares of complainants No.1 & 2 who being sons of opposite party No.4 and deceased policy holder.  Ex.B11 is the copy of judgement in S.C.No.238 of 2010 dated 31-07-2012 showing that the opposite party No.4 was acquitted from the murder case of her husband.  There is no record filed into the case that there is any appeal / Revision Filed over the judgement in S.C.No.238 of 2010. 

          Ex.A4 dated 01-01-2010 is family members certificate issued by Tahsildar Nandipet showing that the opposite party No.4 is wife and complainants No.1 & 2 are the sons of deceased policy holder Thummala Saya Reddy.  Ex.B11 & Ex.A4 are not rebutted by opposite party No.2 nor they filed any other evidence showing that there are other family members are having by the deceased policy holder Thummala Saya Reddy other than the family members mentioned in Ex.A4.  The opposite party No.2 would have placed any cogent evidence into the case with regarding to the dispute over the family members of the deceased policy holder Thummala Saya Reddy if it is the case of opposite party No.2 that no one is entitled under the policy as per Hindu Succession Act 1956.  In the absence of such evidence and in the light of Ex.B11 judgement in S.C.No.238 of 2010; we are not inclined to accept the version of the opposite party No.2 that no one is entitled under the policy as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956.  We are of considered opinion that complainants No.1 & 2 are being sons and opposite party No.4 is being wife of the deceased policy holder Thummala Saya Reddy are entitled to claim under the policy. 

          The opposite party No.2 has further pleaded that the murder of policy holder Thummala Saya Reddy is a planned murder and it cannot be treated as an accidental death in view of Hon’ble Apex court judgement in Rita Devi’s case 2000 (3) Supreme 698. 

          We have gone through the facts of Rita Devi’s case and findings of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgement wherein it is held that the murder of deceased Dasarath Singh was due to an accident arising out of the use of vehicle.  But in the instant case the deceased policy holder was murdered since he was suffering with AIDS.  The murder of decased Dasarat Singh in Rita Devi’s case is totally different with the murder of deceased policy holder in the present case.  Hence it cannot be said the Rita Devi’s case can be applicable in all murder cases other than using the vehicles under motor vehicles Act.  Therefore we are of the considered opinion that the facts in Rita Devi’s case are not applicable to the facts of present case. 

          Ex.B7 is the FIR, Ex.B8 is the charge sheet and Ex.B9 is the inquest report are showing that the policy holder, Thummala Saya Reddy was murdered since he was suffering with AIDS.  Ex.B11 is the judgement in S.C.No.238 of 2010 showing that the opposite party No.4 was acquitted from the murder case of deceased policy holder Thummala Saya Reddy.  However the death of policy holder Saya Reddy cannot be treated as natural death or suicidal death but it remains that he was murdered but may be caused by anybody.  The Hon’ble Chattisgarh State Commission in a judgement between Radhabai Sahu V/s Branch Manager (Narendra Sahu) & another reported in CPR 2010 January part I page No.152 held that all murders are accidental deaths as such murders are not natural or suicidal.  Hence in the light of judgement we are of the considered view that the murder of deceased policy holder Thummala Saya Reddy is an accidental. 

          The claim is otherwise payable in respective of delay, insurance company must settle the claim under the policy instead of rejecting on technical ground.  Hence we are not inclined to accept the version of opposite party No.2 that the delay in claim would be a fundamental breach of policy condition for repudiation.  Ex.B10 is the group Janata personal accident insurance policy bearing No.050700/47/09/61/ 00000033 valid from 17-04-2009 to 16-04-2010 issued by opposite party No.2 in favour of Nizamabad district Co-operative Central bank covering the Societies in Nizamabad district.  Ex.A2 is letter issued by opposite party No.1 society confirming that the deceased Thummala Saya Reddy was a member in the Group Janata personal accident policy in Ex.B10.  Hence we are of the considered opinion that the deceased Thummala Saya Reddy was one of the Group member in the Group Janata personal accident policy in Ex.B10. 

          It is mentioned in Ex.B10 policy that the total risk coverage of sum insured is Rs.1,00,000/- under KCP/JPA scheme but not Rs.50,000/- as stated by opposite party No.2 in the event of accidental death of policy holder.

          Hence we are in view that the total risk coverage of sum insured is Rs.1,00,000/- under the KCC/JPA scheme as per the policy in Ex.B10 in the event of accidental death of policy holder. 

          The complainants 1 & 2 and opposite party No.4 have not filed any record how they are entitled other reliefs other than the relief of claim under the policy. 

          The opposite party No.1 society is only a facilitator of the Group Janata personal accident insurance policy to their members from the opposite party No.2.  The complainants 1 & 2 and opposite party No.4 also have not sought any relief against opposite party No.1 society except made it as proforma party to the proceedings of the case as a facilitator of the said insurance policy.  Ex.B10 policy and Ex.A1 (B5) repudiation of the claim are issued only by opposite party No.2 but not by opposite party No.3 either individually or jointly on be-half-of insurance company.  There is no transaction with regarding to the policy with the opposite party No.3.  Therefore we are of the considered view that there is no case of complainants 1 & 2 and the case of opposite party No.4 against opposite parties 1 & 3 except against the contesting party of opposite party No.2.  

          In view of aforesaid discussions findings and in the light of Hon’ble Chattisgarh State Commission judgement between Radhabai Sahu V/s Branch Manager (Narendra Sahu) & another reported in CPR 2010 January part I page No.152, the complainants 1 & 2 being sons and opposite party No.4 being wife of the deceased policy holder Thummala Saya Reddy are entitled the claim of sum insured Rs.1,00,000/- with 9% accrued interest and costs of Rs.1,500/- equally under the policy in Ex.B10 and the opposite party No.2 alone is liable to pay the same.

9.       IN THE RESULT, the complaint is allowed in part as under:-

1. The opposite party No.2 is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- with 9% interest from the date of repudiation i.e. 10-09-2010 till realisation to the complainants 1 & 2 and opposite party No.4 equally under the policy in Ex.B10.
2. The opposite party No.2 is further directed to pay Rs.500/- each to the complainants 1 & 2 and opposite party No.4 towards costs of the proceedings.
3. The complaint and claim of opposite party No.4 is dismissed against opposite parties 1 & 3 without costs.

          Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Member in Open Forum on this the 12^th day of November 2014.