State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Chinthareddy Vijayamma, Nalgona ... vs Chinthareddy Vijayamma , Nalgonda ... on 4 April, 2013
A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD FA 262/2012 against CC 97/2011 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Nalgonda. Between : 1) The Life Insurance Corporation of India, Miryalguda Branch, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District. Represented by its Branch Manager. 2) The Life Insurance Corporation of India, represented by its Senior Divisional Manager, Jeevan Sagar, Behind: NTR Stadium, Near: Indira Park, Hyderabad-80 Appellants/opposite parties And Chinthareddy Vijayamma W/o Late Ramanuja Reddy, Aged: 45 years, Occ: Household, R/o Darmapuram Village of Nidmanoor Mandal, Nalgonda District.. Respondent/complainant Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. N. Mohan Krishna Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. V. Gourisankara Rao Coram ; Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao Honble Member
And Sri T. Ashok Kumar .. Honble Member Thursday, the Fourth Day of April Two Thousand Thirteen Oral Order : ( As per Sri T. Ashok Kumar , Honble Member ) ****
1. This is an appeal preferred by the opposite parties as against the orders dated 17.02.2012 in CC 97/2011 on the file of the District Consumer Forum at Nalgonda. For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as under :
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the husband of the Complainant by name Chinthareddy Ramanuja Reddy, who was the Sarpanch of Dharmapuram Village of Nidmanoor Mandal, obtained Insurance policy bearing No.603746898 for an assured sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with double accidental benefit. Her husband was murdered on 10.08.2009 and the police Nalgonda (Rural) registered a case in Cr.No.139/2009. When she made a claim, the Ops paid Rs. Two lakhs but repudiated the claim under Double Accident Benefit on the ground that the life assured was killed by others due to rivalry and not murder by accident and hence it cannot be treated as an accident and that the said allegation is incorrect and that repudiation of the claim amounts to deficiency in service and hence she filed the complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards accidental benefit of the policy and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and costs.
3. OPs filed counter opposing the claim of the complainant and denying the allegations made in the complaint and the brief facts of the counter are as under :
While admitting the issuance of the policy in question and payment of assured sum of Rs. Two lakhs under the said policy, pleaded that the murder cannot be treated as an accident when it is intentional one and that on account of political rivalry the life assured was murdered and therefore the complainant is not entitled for accidental benefit under the policy and that they paid only assured sum repudiating the accidental benefit and that there is no deficiency in service on their part and thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. Both sides filed evidence affidavit reiterating their respective pleadings and Ex. A-1 to A-3 were marked on behalf of the complainant and Ex. B -1 were marked for the OP.
5. Having heard both sides and considering the evidence on record, the District Forum allowed the complaint and the Opposite Parties were jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) towards accidental benefit of the policy, Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards deficiency of services with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint till realization and costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the Complainant within one month.
6. Feeling aggrieved with the said order the OPs filed this appeal on several grounds and mainly contended that the District Forum failed to see that the murder of the policy holder is intentional by political rivalry and that it did not occur all of a sudden and hence it cannot be treated as an accident and that in a case reported in 2000 (5) SCC 1130 reported in Apex Court in Rita Devi Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd, the Honble Apex Court opined that the murder cannot be treated as an Accident and thus prayed to allow the Appeal setting aside the impugned order.
7. Heard both sides with reference to their respective contentions in detail.
8. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is sustainable ?
9. There is no dispute that the complainant had taken the insurance policy in question for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs with accidental benefit and that on 10.08.2009 and that police concerned registered Cr. No. 139/2009 in connection with the murder of the deceased life assured and that charge sheet was also laid in the concerned court against the alleged murderers and that OP paid basic sum assured but refused to pay the accidental benefit on the ground that it was an intentional murder and not accidental one. There is no evidence on record as to what happened to the said criminal case. The complainants contend that there is no dependable evidence from the side of the Ops to prove that it was planned murder and that the deceased did not anticipate his murder at the hands of the said accused. Whereas the Ops contended that in Rita Devi Vs New India Assurance Co. ltd reported in 200 (5) SCC 1130 it was clearly held that murder cannot be treated as accident and that since the policy holder was murdered due to political rivalry it was intentional and it cannot be treated as an accidental one. In support of his case, the learned counsel for Ops cited a decision in RP No. 865-866 of 2011 dated 13.7.2011 of Honble National Commission wherein finding of this Commission that murder therein could not be considered as an accidental murder but it was a murder simplicitor was upheld. Since there was dependable evidence that the murder had been committed on account of faction fight between the two groups of the village one of which was supported by husband of the Revision Petitioner there in it was so held but there is no clinching evidence or circumstances in this case to come to a conclusion that there was faction between the deceased life assured and the accused of the murder case and therefore the said decision is not helpful for the OP, so also, the said Rita Devis case. . In order to decide whether it is murder simplicitor or accidental proximity of cause of such murder is necessary. in the case on hand, there is no evidence that the deceased life assured was aggressor and that he picked up quarrel with his assailants and that immediate cause of injury or murder was his deliberate and willful acts. In United India insurance Co. ltd. , Miryalaguda Vs. Ummadi Shakuntala ( 2004) (5) ALD 692 discussing the said Ritadevi case, the Honble High court of A P held that the murder is an accidental death. There is no convincing evidence in the present matter to hold that in a planned manner the deceased life assured was killed The District Forum discussed the matter on hand in proper manner and arrived at correct conclusion. The learned counsel for the appellant OP field a memo dt.
3.4.2013 stating that in the judgment in FA 672/2011 cited by the learned counsel for complainant. in the last para of page 3 it is held that as per Rita devi Judgment ( 2005 SCC 113 ) held that murder is an unexpected event ..Janata personal Accident policy and that the above para is not present in Rita devi Judgment at all and that it is from UIIA Vs. Ummadi Shakuntala in ALT -2004-05-525 and that the presiding officer committed a mistake in FA 672/2011 and that ruling of Rita devi still rules the day. Even though, the said contention of the OP is accepted as true it is of no consequence in his favour in this case for the reasons described supra. As already discussed supra, in this case, there is no believable evidence that the murder was intentional.. so also Judgmentx of concerned Criminal court holding that the accused killed the deceased on account of political rivalry. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum.
9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs in the appeal.
MEMBER MEMBER DATED 04.04.2013.