O R D E R
(By Sri D.Shankar Rao, Member)
1. The facts in brief, giving rise to the complaint are that the wife of complainant Smt. Neeradi Rukmabai was a Group member in JPA/KCC insurance policy for sum insured Rs.1,00,000/- by virtue of her membership in opposite party No.1 Society. Unfortunately Smt.Neeradi Rukmabai was molested and killed on 26-11-2011 while she was proceeding from Bommandevpally Village to visit her parents house at Kallur Village. She died accidentally. The police Bodhan has registered the case in FIR No.429 of 2011 U/s 302, 379 & 201 IPC against accused. The complainant being nominee has submitted his claim under the policy to opposite parties with all relevant documents. But the opposite party No.2 has repudiated the claim on 6-6-2012 stating that the murder is not accidental. The repudiation of claim is erroneous and baseless. Therefore the opposite parties 1 & 2 are liable to pay the policy amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with 24% interest per annum with damages of Rs.50,000/-.
2. The opposite party No.1 society remained exparte throughout the proceedings.
3. The opposite party No.2 filed its counter and very briefly stated that they issued a Group KCC (Kisan Credit Card) scheme and JPA (Janata Personal Accident) scheme policy bearing No.050700/47/11/61/00000187 valid from 01-05-2011 to 30-04-2012 with KCC policy bearing No.050700/47/11/61/00000186 also valid from 01-05-2011 to 30-04-2012 covering Group personal accident insurance to KCC holders of opposite party No.1 Society for total sum insured Rs.1,00,000/- only (KCC Rs.50,000 + Rs.50,000 JPA) to each member. In this case the Group member of policy holder Smt.Neeradi Rukmabai a soulles woman and she involved in sexual desire with the accused Sethelli Vittal of Mirzapur Village on 26-11-2011 in the outskirts of Lad Mawand Village of Bodhan Mandal and arosed dispute for more payment than settled Rs.200/-. In this regard hot discussion took place between them and accused got wild and tied her saree around her neck till her last breath. The police Bodhan registered a Criminal case in FIR No.429 of 2011 on 11-12-2011 U/ss 302 and 201 IPC and filed charge sheet against accused. It is a planned murder. Therefore the murder is not accidental under the policy. The Apex court in Rita Devi V/s New India Insurance Company Ltd., 2000 ACJ 801, held that the difference between the murder which is an accident and the murder which is not an accident depends upon the proximity of the cause of such murder. The complainant had suppressed the real fact that the deceased policy holder indulged in sexual intercourse with the accused for money inspite of having married husband alive and she was murdered on her deliberate & willful acts of demanded more money than agreed Rs.200/-. Therefore the murder of deceased policy holder is not an accidental. The claim is not payable under the policy. The repudiation of claim on 06-06-2012 is valid, correct, and based on facts. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. During enquiry, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit as PW1 and got marked Exhibits A1 to A5 documents and closed his evidence. The opposite party No.2 filed the evidence affidavit of their Assistant T.Rajendra Sharma as RW1 and got marked Exhibits B1 to B10 documents and closed its evidence.
5. Heard Arguments.
6. The points for consideration are:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency Service on the part of opposite parties 1 & 2 in repudiation of claim under the policy ?
2) To what relief?
7. POINT No.1 & 2 : There is no dispute that the opposite party No.2 has issued Group personal accident insurance policy bearing Nos.050700/47/11/61/00000186 & 050700/47/11/6100000187 covering both KCC & JPA schemes to the KCC holders of opposite party No.1 society both valid from 01-05-2011 to 30-04-2012 for sum insured Rs.50,000/- under KCC scheme and Rs.50,000/- under JPA scheme, and the total sum insured comes to Rs.1,00,000/- to each member. The deceased policy holder Smt.Neeradi Rukmabai was one of the Group member of the said policy through opposite party No.1 society for both KCC & JPA schemes also not in dispute. The deceased policy holder Smt.Neeradi Rukmabai was murdered on 26-11-2011 during subsisting of the said Group insurance policy also not in dispute.
The disputed fact in issue is that the murder of deceased policy holder Smt.Neeradi Rukmabai is not an accidental under the policy.
In order to prove the case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit as PW1 and he relied upon Exhibits A1 to A5 documents.
The opposite party No.1 society remained exparte throughout the proceedings. The opposite party No.2 filed the evidence affidavit of their Asistant T.Rajendra Sharma as RW1 and they relied upon Exhibits B1 to B10 documents in order to prove their contention.
It is the case of opposite party No.2, that the murder of policy holder Smt.Neeradi Rukmabai is not an accidental under the policy and they repudiated the claim of the complainant on 06-06-2012. Therefore the onus is shifted against opposite party No.2 to prove the same.
We have heard the arguments counsel for the parties and verified the entire case record as well as perused the exhibits on both sides.
Ex.A1 (B3) is the FIR No.429 of 2011 dated 11-12-2011 U/s 302 & 201 IPC issued by Bodhan Police Ex.A2 (B4) is the charged sheet dated 18-05-2012 filed by Bodhan police. Ex.A3 (B5) is the Inquest Report dated 11-12-2011 issued by Bodhan police. Ex.A4 is the claim repudiation letter dated 06-06-2012 issued by opposite party No.2. Ex.A5 is the claim rejection information letter dated 26-03-2013 issued by opposite party No.1. Ex.B1 is the claim intimation letter dated 02-01-2012 issued by opposite party No.1. Ex.B2 is the claim Form submitted by complainant through opposite party No.1 society. Ex.B6 is the post mortem examination report dated 11-12-2011. Ex.B7 is the confession statement of accused on 16-11-2011. Ex.B8 is the dependents certificate dated 02-02-2012 issued by Tahsildar, Birkur. Ex.B9 is the death certificate dated 30-12-2011 issued by Panchayath Secretary Bommandevpally Village. Ex.B10 is the KCC Pass Book issued by opposite party No.1 Society.
The counsel for opposite party No.2 has vehemently argued that the murder of policy holder Smt.Neeradi Rukmabai 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 its judgement findings wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has 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 Smt.Neeradi Rukmabai was murdered since she was involving with Sexual intercourse with the accused and arose dispute in payment of money. The murder of deceased 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 that 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. However the death of policy holder Smt.Neeradi Rukmabai cannot be treated as natural death or suicidal death but it remains that she was murdered. 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 Smt.Neeradi Rukmabai is an accidental.
The complainant has not filed any record how he is 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 opposite party No.1 society is also made party to the proceedings of the case but its acts are showing as a facilitator of the said insurance policy. Therefore we are of the considered view that there is no case of complainant against opposite party No.1 Society except against the opposite party No.2, insurance company.
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 complainant being husband of the deceased policy holder Smt.Neeradi Rukmabai is entitled the claim of sum insured Rs.1,00,000/- with 9% accrued interest and costs of Rs.1,000/- under the policy (KCC & JPA Schemes) and the opposite party No.2 alone is liable to pay the same.
8. IN THE RESULT, the complaint is allowed in part as under:-
- The opposite party No.2 is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- with 9% interest from the date of repudiation i.e. 06-06-2012 (Under the policy of KCC & JPA Schemes) till realization to the complainant.
2. The opposite party No.2 further directed to pay Rs.1,000/ to the complainant towards costs of the complaint.
- The complaint is dismissed against opposite party No.1 without costs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Member in Open Forum on this the 20th day of November 2014.
