National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Prithvi Raj Bhandari vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India ... on 26 May, 2006
Equivalent citations: 3(2006)CPJ213(NC)
JUDGMENT
B.K. Taimni, Presiding Member
1. Appellant was the complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India (L.I.C.).
2. Very briefly the facts of the case are that the complainant's/appellant's son Deepak Bhandari had obtained life insurance policy from the respondent on 15.1.1995 for Rs. 3,00,000 along with 'Double Accident Benefit'. As per the complainant/appellant, the insured was murdered in March, 1997. An F.I.R. was lodged. The matter was reported to the respondent. The claim was repudiated on the ground that he had concealed material facts about the source of income as also several criminal cases were pending against him. Dissatisfied with this repudiation, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record, directed the respondent to pay the insured amount of Rs. 3,00,000. However, the State Commission did not allow the complainant to the extent that the appellant would not be entitled to 'double accident' benefit. Dissatisfied with not being granted the 'double accident' benefit under the insurance policy, this appeal has been filed before us.
3. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length and perused the material on record. In this case what we have to satisfy ourselves whether this was a case of accidental death or otherwise?
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant relies upon the judgment of this Commission in the case of Smt. Manda Savarna v. The Branch Manager, L.I.C. of India and Anr., R.P. No. 536 of 1996 decided on 14.7.1998, wherein this Commission had held the death to be on account of accident and thus, it allowed the benefits. We have very carefully gone through this. In our view, the facts of the case are entirely different. In the cited judgment the death of the insured resulted from his being dragged out of the house by a group of Naxalites and the injuries inflicted upon him leading to his death. This Commission had dealt with the question of 'riot' and its interpretation and in those circumstances, awarded the insured amount but in the present case the facts are entirely different. As per F.I.R., the deceased had been killed somewhere else and his body was brought and dumped in the village with bullet wound near his ear on the head as also wounds of bullet on his ribs.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant also drawn our attention to the fact that the cause of his death was grounds for non-payment of accident benefit are not covered by the exceptions given in the policy. To this extent, the appellant is correct but he enabling clause reads as under:
Death of the life assured to pay an additional sum equal to the death benefit under this policy-if the life assured shall sustain any bodily injury resulting solely and directly from the accident caused by outward, violent and visible means and such injury shall within 120 days of its occurrence solely, directly and independently of all other causes result in the death of the life assured.
(Emphasis supplied)
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to go In the similar set of circumstances, in the case of Smt. Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., IV (2000) SLT 179 : II (2000) CLT 192 (SC) : II (2000) ACC 291 (SC) : 2000 SOL Case No. 289. Para 9 of this judgment is relevant for our purpose, which is as follows:
The question, therefore, is can a murder be an accident in any given case? There is no doubt that 'murder' as it is understood, in the common parlance is a felonious act where death is caused with intent and the perpetrators of that act normally have a motive against the victim for such killing. But there are also instances where murder can be by accident on a given set of facts. The difference between a 'murder' which is not an accident and 'murder' which is an accident, depends on the proximity of the cause of such murder. In our opinion, if the dominant intention of the act of felony is the kill any particular person then such killing is not an accidental murder but is a murder simplicitor, 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.
(Emphasis supplied)
7. For our purpose, the important point to note is whether murder is an 'accident' would depend on the proximity of cause of such murder? Two points need to be noted in this regard. Firstly, there is no doubt that three criminal cases were filed against the decease/ insured in 1996 and 1997 under I.P.C. Sections, 427/336, as well as under Arms Act, 365, 323 and 34, I.P.C. Sections 27/54/59 as also 397 case under section regarding theft of Ceillo Car. There is no disputing the fact that the deceased was acquitted in all these cases, but series of criminal cases filed against him as well as his killing by shooting him in the ear as also in the ribs, leaves us in no doubt that this was a murder by design and intent rather than a case of accident murder. Even though, the murderer could not be traced in this case but the two points made above, i.e., the long criminal record as also the places where wounds have been made by bullet, unless something points out to the contrary, in our view, it would be case of an intentional killing, i.e., murder of the deceased, and shall not fall within the term 'accident' by any stretch of argument in the facts and circumstances in this case.
8. In the aforementioned circumstances, we are unable to satisfy ourselves that this was anything else, other than intentional killing/ murder simplicitor and hence does not fall within the word 'accident'. The State Commission was quite correct in not allowing the 'double accident benefit' as the deceased does not satisfy the conditions of the policy to be entitled for deriving the benefits under the 'double accident' benefit scheme.
Appeal has no merit, hence dismissed.