State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Kuldip Kaur, Widow Of Sh. Manohar Singh on 10 November, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 728 of 2006
Date of institution: 24.5.2006.
Date of decision : 10.11.2009.
Life Insurance Corporation of India, Sector 17, Chandigarh, through its Manager
(L and HPF) Sh. H.K.Chaudhary.
.....Appellants
Versus
Kuldip Kaur, widow of Sh. Manohar Singh R/o Mohalla Bhokhran Santokhpura,
Village and Post Office Srihargobindpur, District Gurdaspur.
.....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 13.4.2006
passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Gurdaspur.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Lt.Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member
Sh. Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:
For the appellants : Sh. Prahlad Bhagat Vasudev, Advocate Sh. Deepak Arora, Advocate.
For the respondent : Ms Renu Bala Sharma, Advocate.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
Manohar Singh husband of Kuldip Kaur respondent had taken Double Accident Benefit Insurance Policy from the appellants. He had died of electric shock on 20.5.2004. The respondent being the widow and nominee of said Manohar Singh, lodged the insurance claim. It was repudiated by the appellants vide letter dated 31.3.2005. Alleging deficiency in service on the part First Appeal No. 728 of 2006 2 of the appellants, the respondent filed the complaint against them in the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (in short "District Forum"), for insurance claim. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed. 2- The appellants filed written reply. It was admitted that Manohar Singh husband of Kuldip Kaur, respondent was insured with the appellants under the Double Accident Benefit Insurance Policy. However, it was denied if Manohar Singh had died due to electrocution when he was working in his filed. Rather, Manohar Singh had died by electrocution while he was trying to have illegal electric connection to his tubewell from the transformer of the Punjab State Electricity Board, by climbing up the transformer. It was further pleaded that the police was not informed about the death of Manohar Singh due to electrocution on 20.5.2004 because he had died while committing theft of electric energy. The police was informed only on 29.6.2004. The news about the death of Manohar Singh was published in the newspaper on 24.5.2004 and the matter was reported to the appellants on 27.5.2004. However, the medical certificate regarding the death of Manohar Singh was fabricated on 1.6.2005. It was also denied if the respondent was entitled to the Double Accident Benefit or if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. Hence, dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
3- The respondent filed her affidavit as Ex.C1. She also proved the documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9.
4- On the other hand, the appellants filed the affidavit of Sh. P.S.Bedi, Branch Manager, as Ex.R1, affidavit of Sh. Harwinder Singh as Ex.R3 and affidavit of Dharam Singh as Ex.R4. The appellants also proved the document Ex.R2.
5- After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents placed on the file by them, the learned District Forum First Appeal No. 728 of 2006 3 accepted the complaint vide impugned order dated 13.4.2006 and the appellants were directed to release the double accident benefits under the insurance policy with interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 20.5.2004.
6- Hence, the appeal. 7- The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the
appeal be accepted and the impugned order dated 13.4.2006 be set aside. 8- On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent was that there is no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
9- Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered. 10- Admittedly, Manohar Singh husband of Kuldip Kaur had taken Double Accident Benefit Insurance Policy from the appellants. This fact is not disputed by the appellants. Otherwise also, the insurance policy is proved as Ex.C2.
11- It is also pleaded by the respondent that said Manohar Singh had died by electrocution on 20.5.2004. This fact is not disputed by the appellants, but they have only pleaded that since Manohar Singh was trying to get illegal electric connection by climbing up the transformer, therefore, he had died by electrocution. Otherwise also, the respondent has proved a copy of D.D.R. No.10 dated 29.6.2004 registered in Police Station, Srihargobindpur, District Batala that Manohar Singh had died by electrocution. Copy of said D.D.R.is proved as Ex.C4 and Ex.C5. This incident was also published in the newspaper and copy of the newspaper is proved as Ex.C6.
12- Since Manohar Singh had died by electrocution, therefore, his death is clearly is proved by accident. In this context, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission reported as "Maya Devi v. Life First Appeal No. 728 of 2006 4 Insurance Corporation of India" 2008 CTJ 1075 (CP) (NCDRC) where the death by accident was defined as under:-
"Further, in England law on the subject is settled. In Halsbury's Laws of England Vol. 25 Pg.307 Para 569, 4th Edition (2003 reissue), as to the meaning of the word 'accident', it is stated as under :
"569. Meaning of 'accident'. The event insured against may be indicated in the policy solely by reference to the phrase 'injury by accident' or the equivalent phrase 'accidental injury', or it may be indicated as 'injury caused by or resulting from an accident'. The word 'accident', or its adjective 'accidental', is no doubt used with the intention of excluding the operation of natural causes such as old age, congenital or insidious disease or the natural progression of some constitutional physical or mental defect; but the ambit of what is included by the word is not entirely clear. It has been said that what is postulated is the intervention of some cause which is brought into operation by chance so as to be fairly describable as fortuitous. The idea of something haphazard is not necessarily inherent in the word; it covers any unlooked for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed, or any unexpected personal injury resulting from any unlooked for mishap or occurrence. The test of what is First Appeal No. 728 of 2006 5 unexpected is whether the ordinary reasonable man would not have expected the occurrence, it being relevant that a person with expert knowledge, for example of medicine, would have regarded it as inevitable. The stand point is that of the victim, so that even willful murder may be accidental as far as the victim is concerned."
13- The plea taken by the appellants that since Manohar Singh was trying to commit theft of energy when he died by electrocution, therefore, the nominee was not entitled to insurance claim under the double accident benefit, cannot be upheld for repudiation of the insurance claim. 14- Moreover, there is not even an iota of evidence if the electrocution took place, while Manohar Singh was committing theft of electric energy. As per contents of the D.D.R. No.10 dated 29.6.2004 Ex.C4, Manohar Singh was working on the tubewell and he was trying to put in operation the tubewell motor, when he had suffered the electric shock and died. 15- The affidavit of Harwinder Singh s/o of Jarnail Singh as Ex.R3 that Manohar Singh was climbing up the transformer for getting the electric connection for his tubewell, is unbelievable as the deponent has not deposed if he was present at the time of this incident. Therefore, the affidavit of Harwinder Singh cannot be made the basis for repudiation of the insurance claim. Similarly, the affidavit of Sh. Dharam Singh s/o Ajaib Singh Ex.R4 cannot be relied upon, as it is not deposed in the affidavit if Dharam Singh was present at the spot when Manohar Singh died by electrocution. Therefore, version of Harwinder Singh in affidavit Ex.R3 and version of Dharam Singh in affidavit Ex.R4 are without basis.
First Appeal No. 728 of 2006 616- In view of the discussion held above, it is held that the respondent is entitled to the insurance claim under the double accident benefit insurance policy. 17- The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the learned District Forum has awarded interest @ 9% P.A. which is excessive. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as "Dharampal & Others Vs U.P. State Road Transport Corporation", AIR 2008 S.C. 23.
18- This submission has been considered. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharampal's case (Supra) that the prevailing Bank rate of interest was 7.5% P.A. and the rate of interest should be awarded at that rate. Therefore, it is held that the rate of interest awarded by the learned District Forum is excessive. It is reduced to 7.5% P.A. 19- In view of discussions held above, this appeal is accepted only to the extent that the rate of interest is reduced from 9% P.A. to 7.5% P.A. 20- The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- in this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 24.5.2006.This amount of Rs.25,000/- along with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the Learned District Forum and to the appellants. This amount shall be adjusted against the principal amount admissible under this insurance policy.
21- The interest on the amount of Rs.25,000/- shall stop running with effect from the date, the appellants had deposited the same in this commission. Interest on this amount of Rs.25,000/-shall be what has accrued on this amount when it remained deposited by this Commission in the bank. 22- Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent immediately.
First Appeal No. 728 of 2006 723- The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Justice S.N.Aggarwal) President (Lt. Col. Darshan Singh-Retd.) Member (Piare Lal Garg) Member November 10,2009.
(Gurmeet Singh)