State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt.Ramsula vs Reliance Gen. Insu. Co. on 8 November, 2019
Daily Order M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 751 OF 2010 (Arising out of order dated 09.02.2010 passed in C. C. No.54/2009 by District Forum, Balaghat) SMT. RAMSULA W/O SHRI RAMESH, R/O VILLAGE-MURJHAD, TEHSIL-KHAIRLANGI, DISTRICT-BALAGHAT (M.P.). .... APPELLANT. Versus 1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. CORPORATE HOUSE, THIRD FLOOR, NEAR JHABUA TOWER, R.N.T. MARG, INDORE (M.P.) 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PANCHAYAT AND SAMAJIK NYAY DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OFFICE, DISTRICT-BALAGHAT (M.P.) .... RESPONDENTS. BEFORE : HON'BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK : PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES : Ms. Mona Paliwal, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri C. S. Lamba, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. None for the respondent no.2. O R D E R (Passed On 08.11.2019)
The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr. (Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:
This appeal by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 09.02.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Balaghat (for short the 'Forum') in C. C. No. 54/2009, whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant has been dismissed.
2. Briefly put, the facts of the case are that the complainant's late husband Shri Ramesh S/O Shri Ratanlal (hereinafter referred as 'deceased-insured') was insured under the Vivekanand Samooh Bima Yojna, floated by the opposite party no.1, for sum assured Rs.50,000/-. The complainant's family is registered at serial number 5430 in the list of below poverty line. The deceased-insured unfortunately died on 15.04.2007 as a result of the head injury, which happened when he was attacked. The FIR was lodged and the post-mortem was performed. The claim form along with relevant documents was submitted with the opposite parties, but they did -2- not pay the claim amount. The aggrieved complainant, therefore filed a complaint before the Forum, alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties for not giving the sum assured to the complainant, with regard to the claim of her deceased husband.
3. The opposite party no.1 insurance company resisted the complaint on the ground that in the 'Group Personal Accidental Schedule' under the Vivekanand Samooh Bima Yojna, the insurance claim is payable only when the death happens due to an accident. However, in the instant matter, deceased-insured died due to head injury, resulting from murder. Due to the aforesaid, his insurance claim is not payable.
4. Heard learned counsel for parties. Perused the record.
5. The short question involved in the matter is whether the respondent no.1 insurance company has rightly disallowed the insurance claim of the deceased-insured. It is contended by the respondent no.1-insurance company that the aforesaid insurance policy is a 'personal accident policy' under the Vivekanand Samooh Bima Yojna. Under the aforesaid scheme of insurance, the claims arising out of death happened in an accident, are payable.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that murder is also an accident, to which learned counsel for respondent no.1-insurance company objected and while placing reliance on the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rita Devi (Smt) And Others Vs New India Assurance Company Limited And Another (2000) 5 SCC 113 made a submission that where death is caused with intent, then such killing is not an accidental murder, but if the cause of murder or act of murder was not originally intended and the same was caused by any other felonious act then such murder is an accidental murder. Learned counsel stressed that the prime object of the accused in the instant matter was to murder the complainant's late husband. Therefore, the murder here cannot be referred to as an accident. The counsel for the respondent-insurance company specifically referred -3- to paragraph 10 of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rita Devi (supra), the contents of which for ready reference are reproduced herein under:
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 a "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 to kill any particular person then such killing is not an accidental 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.
7. From perusal of the Crime Details Form (Annexure 'C-7') it is revealed that the 'object of the crime' in case of her late husband's death is 'murder'. In the claim form (Annexure 'C-5') it is mentioned that the deceased-insured died due to head injury caused by a sharp weapon. Proceedings were also instituted against the accused under Section 302 of The Indian Penal Code.
8. We have gone through the directive issued by the State Government, regarding payment of claim in an accident under the Vivekanand Samooh Bima Yojna, (which is available on record). Various events, are enlisted under which the accidental claim is permitted to be payable, but claims arising out of murder, find no place in the list.
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, when investigation under the crime details which are available on record, specifically define that the deceased-insured had died as a consequence of murder, we are of a considered view that the complainant/appellant does not deserve the claim amount.
10. In this view of the matter, we observe that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. Therefore, this appeal, being devoid of merits is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK) (S. S. BANSAL) PRESIDING MEMBER MEMBER