BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No. 52 OF 2011 AGAINST C.C.NO. 128 OF 2009 DISTRICT FORUM KURNOOL
Between:
1. The Branch Manager
Oriental Insurance Co.,Ltd.,
Extension Counter, H.No.15-382-1
Near Ashokpillai, Tadipatri-411
2. The Divisional Manager
Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Kalpana Complex, 1st Floor, Kamalanagar
Anantapur-001
3. The Divisional Manager
Oriental Insurance Co.,Ltd.,
H.No.40-383, Bhupal Complex
Kurnool-002
Appellant/opposite parties
A N D
V.Seetha Lakshmi
W/o late V.Brahma Rudra Reddy
R/o Bandrlapalli Village,
Kolimigyndia Mandal, Kurnool Dist.
Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellants Sri G.Dinesh Kumar
Counsel for the Respondent Sri M.L.Srinivas Reddy
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND TWELVE
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
1. The respondent’s husband during his life time obtained Individual Nagrik Surksha Insurance Policy from the appellant insurance company for a sum of `4,00,000/- covering risk in case of accidental death and `1,00,000/- in case of hospitalization for the period from 29.08.2006 to 28.08.2010. The respondent’s husband was murdered on 27.12.2006 at his village and a case in crime number 123 of 2006 was registered by the Police, Kolimigunda against the assailants and subsequently field charge sheet against the accused. The respondent lodged claim with the first appellant who repudiated it on the ground that the proximity of the murder and dominant intention of murder and design to kill the deceased is not an accidental murder The respondent filed complaint stating that the murder of the deceased was an accident, and she is entitled to the sum assured under the insurance policy.
2. The appellant insurance company resisted the claim on the premise that the death of the deceased was a natural outcome of vengeance and pre plan to do away with the life of the deceased. As per the FIR, Inquest Report and charge sheet, 3 months prior to the occurrence some unknown persons hit the wall of the house of the second accused with a tractor at night and that the second accused piled stones in front of his house blocking the road and the deceased got the stones removed from the rastha and that accused no.1 and 2 were harboring enmity against the deceased for his supremacy in the affairs of the village and the accused were waiting for an opportunity to kill the deceased. The accused no.4 and 5 chased and succeeded in killing the deceased with bombs, daggers and knives. The incident is not a simple accidental death and it is ghastly murder. As such it is prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The respondent filed his affidavit and the documents Exs.A1 to A5 and on behalf of the appellant insurance company, its Divisional Manager of the opposite party no.3, filed his affidavit but no documents.
4. The District Forum allowed the appeal on the premise that the deceased was murdered and the murder is accidental.
5. The opposite partied have filed the appeal contending that the insured was murdered by his rivals and his death is not covered by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Any felonious act in furtherance of which death is caused is accidental murder and otherwise it is not an accident.
6. The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by misappreciation of facts or law?
7. The appellant insurance company repudiated the claim of the respondent on the premise that the proximity of murder, the dominant intention of murder, and the dominant intention and design to kill the deceased is not an accidental murder. Further, the repudiation letter goes to show that in view of enmity between the accused and deceased, the deceased was brutally murdered and the root cause of murder was symmetric animosity.
8. The son of the respondent lodged complaint with the police , Kodimigundla Police Station on 27.12.2006 stating that while his son was returning home, he was chased by Katasani Venkatrami Reddy and other accused and they had hurled bombs and stabbed his brother to death. The police filed charge sheet against the accused. An altercation as to blocking the road in front of the house of the one of the accused led to the death of the deceased at the hands of the accused. The criminal court record does not show any political rivalry between the accused and the deceased nor was there any enmity between them prior to the incident where the deceased made the road clear off the stones which were piled by one of the accused. The mediation between two sections of people in order to see that there is ingress and egress through the road does not lead to the inference that the accused entertained dominant intention to kill the deceased and the root cause of murder was symmetric animosity.
9. The deceased and his brother proceeded to their field on the fateful day and the deceased was returning home and when proceeded for certain distance, the deceased was attacked by the accused who chased him by hurling bombs and stabbed him to death. The incident does not by itself speak of the murder which is not an accident. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the following decisions;
1. Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs Prabhakar Maruti Garvali & Anr., reported in CDJ 2006 SC 971
2. The Manager & another Vs Ummadi Shakunthala & Other reported in CDJ 2005 APHC 625
3. Maya Devi Vs LIC of India reported in III (2008) CPJ 120 (NC)
4. Aravapalli Omkaram Vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd., reported in IV (2004) CPJ 305.
5. G.Padmavathi Vs Andhra Bank and Anr., reported in IV (2005) CPJ 543
6. National Insruance Co.,Vs Shiv Dutt Sharma reported in III (2003) CPJ 667
7. F.A.No.606 of 2009 Andhra Bank and others Vs B.Rajeswarai and others.
10. This Commission in F.A.No. 606 of 2009 in “Andhra Bank & Anr Vs B.Rajeswari & Anr.“ referred to several decisions of the National Commission and the Hon’ble Supreme Court to differentiate the murder which is an accident and the murder which is not an accident.
11. The attitude of the deceased and the circumstances wherein he was seen to have been attacked brutally by the accused as also the deceased attempting to set free himself from the clutches of the accused clearly point out that the death of the respondent’s son is not a murder simplicitor and it was not intended nor was caused in furtherance of any felonious act.
12. The respondent’s son was murdered and the incident is an accident not expected nor does intended on the part of the deceased. The deceased cannot be attributed with intention of violate the terms of insurance policy with criminal intent. He had not planned to commit murder the accused nor was he in the knowledge that he was going to be murdered. Therefore, his death cannot be termed as murder as simplicitor.
13. In Rita Devi And Others vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd. and Another (2000) 5 CC 113., The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
“murder is a felonious act where death is caused with intent and the perpetrators of tat act normally have a motive against the victim for such killing. The difference between a “murder” which is not an accident and a “murder” which is an accident depends on the proximity of the cause of such murder. If the dominant intention of the Act of felony is to kill any particular person then such killing is not an accident murder but is a murder simpliciter, while if 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.
14. In Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs Prabhakar Maruti Garvali & Another on the CDJ 2006 SC 971 with Supreme Court held that Lord Lindley opined:
“The word “accident” is not a techn ical legal term with a clearly defined meaning. Speaking generally, but with reference to legal liabilities, an accident means any unintended and unexpected occurrence which produces hurt or loss. But it is often used to denote any unintended and uxexpected loss or hurt apart from its cause; and if the cause is not known the loss or hurt itself would certainly be called an accident. The word “accident” is also often used to denote both the cause and the effect, no attempt being made to discriminate between them. The great majority of what are called accidents are occasioned by carelessness; but for legal purposes it is often important to distinguish careless from other unintended and unexpected events.”
The question recently has been considered by a Bench of this Court in Jyothi Ademma v.Plant Engineer, Nellore, [2006 (7) SCALE 28] wherein it was opined:
“The expression “accident” means an untoward mishap which is not expected or designed. “Injury” means physiological injry. In Fentorn v.Thorley & Ci,Ltd. (1903) AC 448, it was observed that the expression “accident” is used in the popular and ordinary sense of the word as denoting as unlooked for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed. The above view of Lod Macnaghten was qualified by the speech of Lord Haldane A.C.in Trim Joint District, School Board of Management v. Kelly (1914) A.C.676 as follows:
“I think that the context shows in using the word “designed” Lord Macnaghten was referring to designed by the suffered”
15. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court had referred to its earlier decision in “Aravapalli Omkaram Vs United Insurance Co.Ltd”. This Commission held that a policy holder was kidnapped or murdered as visible means, is death due to vision an accident covered into insurance policy.
16. Taking into consideration of the principle laid down in the aforementioned case and by applying it to the facts of the case on hand, we do not have any hesitation in holding the death of the respondent’s son as murder by accident and the respondent is entitled to the sum assured under the insurance policy issued by the appellant insurance company in F.A.720/08.
11. The facts of the aforementioned case and those of the case on hand are similar and the ratio laid in the decisions cited in the above said case is squarely applicable to the fats of the present case. We do not find any infirmity in the findings returned by the District Forum. This appeal does not warrant any interference with the order of the District Forum.
12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order passed by the District Forum. The costs of the proceedings quantified at `3,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.25.04.2012
KMK*
