2. The Branch Manager,

    Life Insurance Corporation of India,

    17/170, Lawyerpet, Srirampuram,

    Gurazala, Guntur District.                            … Opposite parties 

                This Complaint coming before us for final hearing on       12-07-11 in the presence of Sri K.Siva Prasad, advocate for complainant and of Sri B.S.Rajasekhar, advocate for opposite parties, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following: -

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

                The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking Rs.5,75,000/- being the accidental death benefit together with interest at 18% p.a. besides compensation for mental agony and costs.

2.      The averments of complaint in brief are as follows:

                One Gottam Ramakoti Reddy took insurance policies bearing No.671076032 for Rs.25, 000/- with accidental benefit, policy bearing No.672534919 for Rs.50, 000/- without accidental benefit and another policy bearing No.614140229 for Rs.5, 00,000/- with accidental benefit.  The complainant is none other than the wife cum nominee of the said Ramakoti Reddy.  The said Ramakoti Reddy was murdered on 09-06-06 on Gurazala- Macherla Highway, Gurazala, Guntur District. The complainant submitted all relevant documents claiming assured amounts.  The 1^st opposite party did not pay accidental benefit.  On 22-12-08 the 1^st opposite party repudiated the claim as death of the policyholder does not come under the purview of accidental benefit provisions.  Inspite of registered notice dt.20-03-09 the opposite parties did not settle the claim.  The 1^st opposite party gave reply with false averments.  The attitude of opposite parties in repudiating the claim for flimsy reasons amounted to deficiency of service.  The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.      The 2^nd opposite party adopted the version of 1^st opposite party and the contention of opposite parties in brief is hereunder:

                The insured had initially taken two policies for Rs.25, 000/- and Rs.50, 000/- respectively.  Due to fear and threat to his life the insured obtained policy for Rs.5, 00,000/- with accidental benefit.  In SC 468/98 the insured Ramakoti Reddy is one of the accused on the file of IV Additional Sessions Court, Guntur.  The counter case SC 384/98 was also pending on the file of IV Additional Sessions Court.  The attitude of the insured in taking policy for Rs.5, 00,000/- showed his knowledge and fear that he will be killed sooner or later.  The  insured anticipated his death.  As rival group murdered the insured, the repudiation was justified.  SCs 384/98 and 468/98 ended in acquittal due to compromise between the affected parties.  The insured shifted his family to Miryalaguda anticipating danger to his life from his rivals.  The insured Ramakoti Reddy on 09-06-06 came to Mittagudipadu to attend a meeting and while returning he was murdered by rivals.  The insured undoubtedly had rivalry with his opponents in politics, due to which he was murdered.  Intentional killing of insured was established in police records.  The murder of the insured Ramakoti Reddy cannot be construed as accidental murder as per the decision rendered in Prithvi Raj Bhandari Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India.  The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.             Ex.A1 to A11 on behalf of complainant and Ex.B1 to B3 on behalf of opposite parties were marked.

5.      Now the points for consideration in this complaint are:

1. Whether the murder of the insured Ramakoti Reddy comes under the purview of accident?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation?
4. To what relief?

6.      POINT No.1

                The decision relied on by the opposite parties reported in Prithvi Raj Bhandari Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others, 2006 CTJ 983 (CP) was considered in the subsequent decision reported in Maya Devi Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 2008 CTJ 1075 of NCDRC held:

                “However learned counsel appearing on behalf of the LIC relied upon the decision rendered by the two-Member Bench of this Commission in the case of Prithvi Raj Bhandari Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others, 2006 CTJ 983 (CP) = III (2006) CPJ 213, wherein reliance was placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Rita Devi Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. 2000 ACJ 801 = (2000) 5 SCC 113.

                Firstly, it is to be stated that in the case of Rita Devi (supra), the Apex Court considered and interpreted a phrase providing “death due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle”. Thereafter the Court referred to various decisions and arrived at a conclusion that they have no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the deceased, Dashrath Singh, was employed to drive an auto rickshaw for ferrying passengers on hire.  On the fateful day the auto rickshaw was parked at auto rickshaw stand and unknown passengers engaged the said auto rickshaw for their journey and during that journey, it was alleged that the passengers caused murder of Dashrath Singh.  The Apex Court held that death in such case was due to accident. The court further observed that the difference between ‘murder which is not an accident’ and ‘murder which is an accident’ depends on the proximity of the cause of such murder.  If the cause of murder or act of murder was originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of any felonious act then such murder is an accidental murder arising out of the use of motor vehicle and held that the insurance company was liable to reimburse the claimant.

                The court referred to the decision in the case of Nisbet Vs. Rayne and Burn – (1910) 1KB 689, where a cashier, while traveling in a railway to a colliery with a large sum of money for the payment of his employer’s workmen, was robbed and murdered. The Court of Appeal held that murder was an accident from the standpoint of the person who suffered from it and that it arose ‘out of an employment which involved more than the ordinary risk and consequently the widow was entitled to compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act.’

                Despite the above said two judgments, in the case of  Prithvi Raj Bhandari (supra), the Commission observed that ‘the important point which required notice was whether murder was an accident would depend upon proximity of cause of such murder’ and held on facts that the complainant has suppressed the fact that various complaints against the deceased were filed under various Sections of the IPC and concluded that there was no doubt that this was a murder by design and intent rather than a case of accident murder.

                In our view, the said reasoning cannot be justified by any standard.  LIC policy excludes death due to limited causes mentioned in Exclusion Clauses under para 10(b) and therefore, it is totally irrelevant to find out the background of the deceased.  Further, even in case where there is a criminal background of the assured, it would be difficult to hold that his murder was not accidental unless he has taken up the quarrel and that the immediate cause of injury was deliberate and willful act of the insured himself.”       

7.             Now this Forum has to see whether the murder of the insured Ramakoti Reddy can be deemed as accidental death or willful act of the insured himself.  Ex.A6 is the certified copy of judgment in SC 531/06 on the file of X Addl. District and Sessions Judge,Guntur (FTC) at Narasaraopet.  Ex.A6 revealed that SC 531/06 had arisen from PRC No.40/06 relating to crime No.44/06 of Gurazala PS.  Ex.B1 is certified copy of FIR in crime No.44/06 relating to Gurazala PS.  One Boya Narayana Reddy resident of Mittagudipadu village set the criminal law into motion on 09-06-06 giving report to the police regarding the death of Gottam Ramakoti Reddy i.e., the insured.   The insured was murdered by his opponents on 09-06-06 as seen from Ex.B1.  The relevant portion in Ex.B1 is extracted below for better appreciation:

8.             The above recitals in Ex.B1 revealed that there were political factions between the insured Gottam Ramakoti Reddy (TDP) and Gottam Gurava Reddy (Congress party).  The recitals in Ex.B1 further revealed that there were cases and counter cases also. 

9.             The learned Sessions Judge in SC 531/06 observed that SCs 384/98 and 468/98 on the file of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur ended in acquittal due to compromise.  The same was                                                       corroborated by recitals in Ex.B1. The learned Sessions Judge in SC 531/06 further observed that the enmity was dormant and could not expose apparently but the congress party people were planning to take revenge against the insured herein and another deceased since a long time and in anticipating danger from rival group, the insured migrated to Miryalaguda and was residing there temporarily.  Ex.A6 and Ex.B1 clearly revealed that the death of the insured took place due to political rivalry. 

10.           The learned counsel for complainant relied on the decision reported in United India Insurance Company Ltd. and another Vs. G.Rajya Laskhmi and another, II (2011) CPJ 280 wherein the APSCDRC observed

                “In the instant case the deceased neither had a long criminal record nor did the opposite party filed any material to evidence that there were any criminal cases filed against the deceased/insured to prove that it was a murder by design and intent rather than a case of accidental murder.  The facts in the instant case can be construed that 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.”

11.           The recitals in Ex.B1 revealed that the murder of the insured was a designed one due to political factions but not an accidental murder.  The facts in the above case are distinguishable from the facts in the present case. The recitals in Ex.A6 and B1, in our considered opinion are sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that murder of the insured was designed one due to his earlier involvement in criminal case.  We therefore opine that it was a murder by design.                     

12.           The decision relied on by the complainant reported in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Donepudi Venkaiah and others, 2006 ACJ 2234 is not applicable to the facts of the case as the decision was rendered under sections 173 and 149(2) of Motor Vehicles Act regarding defenses available to insurance company.

13.            In view of the aforementioned discussion, we answerer this point against the complainant.

14.    POINTS 2 & 3

                In view of the above findings, these points are also answered against the complainant.

15.    POINT No.4

                In view of the findings on points 1 to 3, in the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Junior Steno, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 19^th day of July, 2011.

          MEMBER                                                                PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties:

                                                                                          PRESIDENT