BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member President (FAC)
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Thursday the 20TH day of June, 2013
C.C.No.84/2012
Between:
E.Nagaratnamma, W/o Late E.Subbarayudu, Aged 55 years,
R/o D.No.7-45, D.Hussainapuram Village & Post - 518 348, Peapully Mandal, Kurnool District.
…Complainant
-Vs-
United India Insurance Company Limited,Represented by its Divisional Manager,
D.No.40/304, Mourya Inn Complex, Bhagyanagar, Kurnool - 518 004.
...Opposite ParTy
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.M.L.Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate for complainant and Sri.Kusupati Muralidhar, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Smt.S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member) C.C. No.84/2012
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying:-
- To direct the opposite party to pay the assured amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of death of the insured under his Personal Accidental Policy;
- To award compensation of Rs.20,000/- for causing mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the complainant at the deficient conduct of the opposite party;
And
- To costs of Rs.10,000/-;
And
- To pass such other reliefs as the Honourable Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is the wife of Late E.Subbarayudu. The deceased took individual Janata Personal Accidental Policy bearing No.051100/47//08/51/00002780 covering the risk of the deceased for Rs.50,000/-. It was valid from 19-03-2009 to 18-03-2012 and the complainant is the nominee under the policy. On 19-10-2010 the deceased was beaten to death by his son for which, a case in Crime No.67/2010 of Jaladurgam P.S. was registered. The death of the deceased was an accidental death. The complainant submitted all the relevant documents to opposite party claiming assured amount under the policy. The opposite party repudiated the claim by its letter dated 21-05-2012 on the ground that this is a case of murder simplicitor which does not come under the preview of the policy condition. But the murder of deceased is an accidental death only, it is not a murder as stated by the opposite party. There is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. It is stated that the complaint is bad for Non-Joinder of necessary and proper parties. The policy covered by the complaint admittedly is for Insurance of Livestock and incidentally as an additional benefit covers its owner. It covers an executants between the opposite party and the CEO Andhra Pradesh Livestock Development Agency (APLDA), Hyderabad. The said party is the policy holder and the deceased incidentally happens to be an add on beneficiary. The complainant husband was beaten to death by his son on 19-10-2010, due to some quarrel and the case was registered in Crime No.67/2010 of Jaladurgam Police Station. The death of deceased is a murder and not an accidental murder. The opposite party repudiated the claim after scrutiny of all the documents and terms of the policy and Memorandum of Understandings. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 is marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite party Ex.B1 is marked and sworn affidavit of opposite party is filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7. POINTS i and ii:- It is the case of the complainant that the husband of the complainant Late.E.subbarayudu obtained Individual Janata Personal Accidental Policy bearing No.051100/47/08/51/00002780 covering the risk of the deceased for Rs.50,000/- and it was valid from 19-03-2009 to 18-03-2012. The complainant is the nominee under the said policy. The deceased was beaten to death by his son, a case was registered in Crime No.67/2010 of Jaladurgam Police Station. The certified copies of F.I.R., (Ex.A2), Inquest Report (Ex.A3), Post Mortem Report (Ex.A4) and Charge Sheet (Ex.A5) are marked as Ex.A2 to Ex.A5. The complainant submitted all the relevant documents to opposite party for an assured of Rs.50,000/- but the opposite party repudiated the claim by its letter dated 21-05-2012 on the ground that the death of the insured occurred due to stone hitting on the head by his son. This is a case of murder simplicitor which does not come under the purview of policy condition. The repudiation letter is marked as Ex.A1. But the death of the deceased is an accidental death it is not a murder.
8. It is the case of the opposite party that the policy issued to the husband of the complainant is for the insurance of Livestock and incidentally as an accidental benefits covering its owner. The master policy holder is the Chief Executive Officer Andhra Pradesh Livestock Development Agency (APLDA) and the deceased incidentally happens to be an add on beneficiary. The complaint is bad for Non-Joinder of necessary party. The Memorandum of Understanding between Chief Executive Officer of APLDA and opposite party is marked as Ex.B1. It is further case of the opposite party that the husband of the complainant beaten to death by his son on 19-10-2010, due to some quarrel, and the case is registered in Crime No.67/2010 of Jaladurgam Police Station. The death of deceased is murder not an accidental murder.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant contended that the policy does not disclose that murder simplicitor is not an accidental death and that the risk of such person does not cover. The murder of the deceased is an accidental death only and so it is not murder simplicitor. To support his contention he relied on decisions reported in III (2008) CPJ Page 120 (NC), II (2010) CPJ Page 202 Kerala State Commission, 1995 (2) CPR Page 331 Gujarat State Commission and F.A.No.52/2011 A.P. State Commission. Each case is depends upon the its facts and circumstances. In the cited cases F.I.R., Inquest Report and Witnessed are Examine to prove that the murder is an accidental murder but in the present case on hand, the F.I.R., Inquest Report and Post Mortem Report and Charge Sheet discloses that the deceased death is not an accidental murder.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party argued that the deceased son was not satisfied with the partition of property by his father so he intentionally killed the deceased. It is not an accidental murder. To support his contention he relied on decisions reported in (1) (2006) CPJ III (NC) Prithvi rai Bhandris –Vs- Life Insurance Corporation of India and 2000 (2) S.C Rita Devi – Vs- New India Assurance Company Limited where in the Honourable Supreme Court held that the dominant intention of the act of felony is to kill any particular person then such killing is not an accidental murder but it is a murder simplicitor, while if the cause of murder was originally not intended and the same cause infurtherance of any other object, then such murder is an accidental murder. Whether murder is an accident would depend on the proximity of the cause of such murder. In the present case the deceased was beaten to death by his son. As the partition of the properties was not properly effected between the two sons of the deceased prior to eight years from the date of occurrence. As seen from Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 it is clear that the deceased was murdered by his son with an intention to take revenge from his father as he was not satisfied with the partition of property among the two sons of the deceased. The death of the deceased is not an accidental death and hence does not fall within the word “accident”. The Chief Executive Officer of (APLDA) is the master policy holder. The complainant did not choose to made a party in the complaint. Hence the complaint is bad for Non-Joinder of necessary and proper party in the above case. We pursued the material on record and submissions of both the counsels we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled for personal accidental assured amount of the deceased under the said policy. We found there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.
10. In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 20th day of June, 2013.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nill For the opposite party : Nill
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Repudiation Letter dated 21-05-2012 received by the complainant from opposite party.
Ex.A2 Photo copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.67/2010 dated 20-10-2010 of Jaladurgam P.S. Kurnool District.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of Inquest Report dated 20-10-2010.
Ex.A4 Photo copy of Post Mortem Certificate dated 29-10-2010.
Ex.A5 Photo copy of Charge Sheet dated 08-02-2011.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:-
Ex.B1 Photo copy of Memorandum of Understanding Agreement
dated 01-12-2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
