State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. The Branch Manager, Lic Of India, ... vs Pusa Tharamani Wife Late Srinivasa Rao, ... on 12 February, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Telangana First Appeal No. FA/139/2014 (Arisen out of Order Dated 07/02/2014 in Case No. CC/50/2013 of District Warangal) 1. 1. The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Mahabubabad Branch Office, Jeevan Jyothi, Mahabubabad Post and Mandal, Warangal District 506 101 P 2. 2. The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Divisional Office, Balasamudram, Hanamkonda P and M, Warangal District 506 001 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Pusa Tharamani Wife Late Srinivasa Rao, Age 35 Years, Occ House Wife, R.o. H.No. 25.6.252 by 1, Arya Nagar, Beside Velangini Telugu Medium School, Kazipet, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District 506 003 P ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 12 Feb 2018 Final Order / Judgement STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA : At HYDERABAD FA 138 of 2014 AGAINST CC No. 49 of 2013, DISTRICT FORUM, WARANGAL Between: The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Mahabubabad Branch Office, Jeevan Jyothi, Mahabubabad Post and Mandal Warangal District - 506 101. The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Divisional office, Balasamudram, Hanamkonda ( P and M) Warangal District - 506 001. .. Appellants/opposite parties And Pusa Tharamani, W/o Late Srinivasa Rao Age : 35 years, Occ : House wife R/o. H.No. 25-6-252/1, Arya Nagar Beside Velangini Telugu Medium School, Kazipet, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District - 506 003 .. Respondent/complainant Counsel for the Appellants : Sri N. Mohan Krishna Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. K. Karunakar FA 139 of 2014 AGAINST CC No. 50 of 2013, DISTRICT FORUM, WARANGAL Between: The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Mahabubabad Branch Office, Jeevan Jyothi, Mahabubabad Post and Mandal Warangal District - 506 101. The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Divisional office, Balasamudram, Hanamkonda ( P and M) Warangal District - 506 001. .. Appellants/opposite parties And Pusa Tharamani, W/o Late Srinivasa Rao Age : 35 years, Occ : House wife R/o H.No. 25-6-252/1, Arya Nagar Beside Velangini Telugu Medium School, Kazipet, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District - 506 003 .. Respondent/complainant Counsel for the Appellants : Sri N. Mohan Krishna Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. K. Karunakar Coram : Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla ... President And Sri Patil Vithal Rao ... Member
Monday, the Twelfth Day of February Two Thousand Eighteen Oral order : ( per Hon' ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon'ble President ) ***
1) These are the appeals filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the opposite parties praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 07.02.3014 made in CC 49 of 2013 in FA 138 of 2014 and order dated 07.02.2014 in CC 50 of 2013 in FA 139 of 2014 on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM, Warangal. Since the parties on both sides and the advocates are one and the same and the contents of both the cases are similar, we are inclined to dispose of the same by common order.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3). The case of the complainant in CC 49 of 2013, in brief, is that her husband, Srinivasa Rao, who died on 01.03.2011 due to " shock and Hemorrhage" consequent to stab injury Abdomen", during his life time obtained LIC's Jeevan Saral with Profits ( with Accident Benefits) Policy bearing No. 688143652 for the assured sum of Rs.5,00,000/- commencing from 12.04.2010, for which, she is the nominee. After death of her husband, when she submitted the claim, after prolonging the matter on some pretext or the other, on 02.04.2012, the first opposite party has settled the matter for an amount of Rs.4,97,957/- towards the sum assured after deducting unpaid premium. The second opposite party repudiated the accident benefit vide letter dated 21.12.2012 on flimsy grounds which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay the accidental death benefit, i.e., equal to sum assured Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @ 9% pa from 21.12.2012 to 01.04.2013, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and costs of Rs.3,000/- towards costs.
4). The complainant in CC 50/2013 is the same as that of the complainant in CC 49/2013 and except the policy bearing No. 688142082 for the assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- commencing from 14.03.2009, all other contents are one and the same. Hence the complainant to direct the opposite party to pay the accidental death benefit amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 9% pa from 21.12.2012 to 01.04.2013, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and cots of Rs.3,000/- towards costs.
5) Opposite Parties 1 and 2 opposed the above complaints by way of written versions, while admitting the issuance of policy for an assured sums and the settlement of amounts mentioned in both the above cases, contended that since the deceased life assured died on 01.03.2011 due to murder and not accidental one, they repudiated the claim under accidental benefit on the ground that the cause of death of the life assured was not accidental murder, but, murder simplictior and the same was communicated vide regd. Letter dated 21.12.2012 to the complainant.
6) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove her case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A-13 and Ex.B1 to B7 were marked on behalf of the opposite parties in CC 49 of 2013 and Ex.A1 to A17 on behalf of the complainant and Ex.B1 on behalf of the opposite parties in CC 50 of 2013. Heard both sides.
7) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, held and directed the Opposite parties to pay Rs.5,00,000/- in CC 49 of 2013 and Rs.1,00,000/- in CC 50 of 2013 towards Accident Benefits with interest @ 7.5% pa from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e, 01.04.2013 with costs of Rs.2,000/- in each case.
8) Aggrieved by the said orders, the opposite parties preferred the above two appeals before this Commission.
9). Both sides have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof along with written arguments. Heard both sides.
10) The points that arise for consideration are, (i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? (ii) To what relief ? 11). Point No.1 :
There is no dispute that the deceased husband of the respondent/complainant obtained the policies in question, during his life time, in the above two cases and when the respondent/ complainant submitted claims, she was paid Rs.5,00,000/- in CC 49 of 2013 and Rs.1,00,000/- in CC 50 of 2013. There is no dispute that the policies in question are Accidental benefit polices. There is no dispute the deceased policy holder died due to on 01.03.2011 due to " shock and Hemorrhage" consequent to stab injury Abdomen". There is also no dispute that the they repudiated the claim under accidental benefit on the ground that the cause of death of the life assured was not accidental murder, but, murder simplicitor.
12). The District Forum observed that as per Ex. B-1 charge sheet under Cr.No.35 of 2011 of P.S.Kazipet lodged by the respondent/complainant, it is evident that one person came outside of Railway hospital and by conversing with her husband, all of sudden he sprinkled chilly power in the eyes of her husband, stabbed him indiscriminately with a knife and ran away, thereafter, one Laxminarayana shifted her husband to Gandhi Hospital in 108 ambulance, where he died and the District Forum directed the opposite parties to pay the accidental benefits under the policies in question, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. rendered in United India Insurance Co. Ltd Miryalaguda Vs. Ummadi Shakuntala 2004 (5) ALD 692 after referring the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rita Devi Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2000 (5) SC 113 on the ground that " Murder which is an unexpected event from the standpoint of victim, is an accident and held that murder of the deceased can be treated as an accident since the fact the deceased was suddenly attacked and killed and the repudiation of the accidental benefit is unjustified.
13). Counsel for the appellants/opposite partied argued that it is a murder simplicitor but not accidental murder hence as per the conditions of the policy if the death occurs due to murder, claim is not payable relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rita Devi Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd and in the present case, he perpetrators had sprinkled Chilli power on the face of the policy holder and indiscriminately stabbed him, itself, shows that their intention is to kill the policy holder, in such a case, it is a murder simplicitor and in such a case the policy amount is not payable as per the terms and conditions of the policy and the Rita Devi Judgment is still not overruled and he also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in RP No. 865/866-2011 which followed the Rita Devi judgment.
14). On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/complainant while relying on 10 judgments and mainly relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in Manager, United India Insurance company Ltd, Miryalaguda Vs. Ummadi Shakuntala, reported in 2005) AIR (AP) 336, wherein, Rita Devi Case was also discussed and in the said Judgment, the Hon'ble High Court discussed as follows :
" the Apex Court in Rita Devi's case relied on the view expressed in earlier judgment in Nisbet Vs. Rayne and Burn, wherein, a cashier while travelling in a railway to a colliery with a large sum of money for the payment of his employer's workmen, was robbed and murdered and in those set of facts, the Court of appeal held that the murder therein shall be treated as an accident. It was further held that the said accident did arise out of employment. The facts in Rita Devi's case further disclose that view expressed in Bisbet case was followed by the majority judgment by the house of Lords in the case of Board of management of Trim Joint District School Vs. Kelly. The general established principle is that the murder shall be treated as an accident provided that the same is not designed or intended by the person suffered accident and is an untoward and unexpected incident. Since the term ' accident' is not specifically defined under the insurance policy, the insured must sustain the injury solely and directly from accident caused by outwards, violent and visible means. Any unlooked for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed, or any unexpected personal injury resulting from any unlooked or mishap or occurrence.
In those circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court opined that murder is an unexpected event from the standpoint of victim, is an accident and the death, in that case the deceased was killed allegedly by a group of persons belonging to other faction, was an untoward incident and not expected, and not designed or intended and neither there was any commission nor omission on the part of the deceased, which lead to his death ".
15) . In Rita Devi case, the Hon'ble Apex Court further held:
" 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 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 '.
From the above Judgment, it is to be inferred that 'Accident' means unexpected untoward incident. In the case on hand, the husband of the complainant died when one person came outside of Railway hospital and by conversing with her husband, all of a sudden, he sprinkled chilly power in the eyes of her husband, stabbed him indiscriminately with a knife and ran away, thereafter, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital where he died. There is no evidence on record to show that there was rivalry between the deceased policy holder and the accused before his death and he lodged police complaint against him in that connection to show that there was an intention to kill the deceased policy holder . If there was any suspicion with regard to the accused, he would not have preferred to converse with him. It appears, he made conversation with the accused as usual but not with violent means and hence we cannot expect that there was any rivalry between them. The facts of this case and the facts in the above Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court are one and the same and we are of the opinion that the principle laid down in the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court is applicable in the case on hand and in the above circumstances, we are inclined to express ' murder is an accident' in the present case.
16). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides, this Commission is of the view that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the District Forum and there are no merits in the appeals and hence the appeals are liable to be dismissed.
17). Point No. 2 :
In the result, both the appeals, i.e., FA 138 of 2014 and FA 139 of 2014 are dismissed confirming the impugned order dated 07.02.3014 made in CC 49 of 2013 in FA 138 of 2014 and impugned order dated 07.02.2014 in CC 50 of 2013 in FA 139 of 2014 on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM, Warangal. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated : 12.02.2018.. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER