State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Lic Of India, Hanamkonda vs Smt.Jittaboina Bharathamma, Waranal ... on 4 April, 2013
A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD FA 854of 2012 against CC355/2012 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Warangal. Between : The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Divisional Office, Balasamudram, Hanamkonda 506 001. Appellant/Opposite Party And Smt.Jittaboina Bharathamma, W/o. late Jittaboina Suraiah, Aged:38 years, Saireddypalle Village, Kothaguda Mandal, Warangal District. Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Srinivas Karra Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Anil Prasad Tiwari. 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 party as against the orders dated30.08.2012 in CC 355/2011 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Warangal. 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 complainants husband, by name, Suraiah obtained (02) LIC Policies bearing No.680376731 for Rs.20,000/- with accident benefit of Rs.20,000/- commenced from 28-03-1990 by paying premium @ Rs.1013.70 ps and Policy bearing No.681795864 for Rs.1,40,000/- commenced from 28-03-1999 with accidental benefit Rider of Rs.1,40,000/- by paying premium @ Rs.9,141/- showing complainant as his nominee for both the above policies. Unfortunately the life assured was killed on 12-04-2008 under suspicious circumstances near Gram Panchayat Office in Sadireddypalle Village, Kothaguda Mandal. The death was reported to Police, they lodged FIR, conducted Panchanama and body was sent for postmortem. As per PME report dated 18-04-2008 the death of the life assured was due to cut of trachea and blood vessels of neck. After the death of her husband, as nominee, the complainant submitted all the required forms to Narsampet branch of opposite party for settlement of the claim, but the opposite party has paid the sum assured and bonus under the above said policies, but repudiated the claim under accident benefit stating that the death of the life assured is a Deliberate Murder which amounts to deficiency in service and thus she filed this complaint praying to direct the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.1,60,000/- towards Accidental Rider sum assured for both the policies and damages of Rs.25,000/- with interest @18% p.a. from 12-04-2008 till realization from the date of death of life assured and costs.
3. OP 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 :
The opposite party admitted the issuance of two policies in favour of the deceased husband of the complainant and repudiation of the claim in so far as it relates to the accidental benefit and contended that the accidental benefit is not payable in the cases of intentional self injury, attempted suicide, insanity or immorality and that the deceased was murdered by his opponents and as such it cannot be treated as an accidental. After repudiation of the claim, the complainant had preferred an Appeal before the Zonal Claims Review Committee at Hyderabad of OP which upheld the decision of standing committee at Divisional Office. Aggrieved by the said decision the complainant preferred a complaint before the Insurance Ombudsmen and there also repudiation was upheld and that there is no deficiency in service on their part and thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. Both sides filed evidence affidavits reiterating their respective pleadings and Ex. A-1 to A-7 were marked on behalf of the complainant and Ex. B -1 to B -7 were marked for the OP.
5. Having heard both sides and considering the evidence on record, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.One lakh Sixty thousand only) towards Accident Death Benefits amount for the above said two policies to the complainant with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e, 17-08-2011 till the date of realization and also to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rs.One thousand only) towards costs.
6. Feeling aggrieved with the said order the opposite party filed this appeal on several grounds and mainly contended that the District Forum failed to see that deliberate murder of the complainants husband cannot be treated as an accident and that the decision of the Honble High court of A P. is not applicable to this case and that the Judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Rita Devi Vs New India Assurance Co. ltd reported in 2000 (5) SC 113 is applicable and that the interpretation of clause Accident in the M.V. Act cannot be made applicable to Life Insurance policies and that they repudiated the accidental benefit as per rules and that there is no deficiency in service on their part and thus prayed to allow the appeal setting aside the impugned order.
7. Heard the counsel for the appellant and respondents counsel field written arguments 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 two Insurance policies in question with accidental benefit for Rs. 20,000/- commenced from 28.093.1990 and Rs. 1,40,000/- commenced from 28.03.1990 from the OP and that he was killed on 12.4.2008 and that police concerned registered Cr. No. 14/2008 of P.S. Kothaguda and that SC 520/2008 on the file of VIth Addl. Sessions Judge, Warangal at Mahabubabad ended in acquittal of the accused vide Judgment dt. 14.5.2009 and that OP paid basic sum assured but refused to pay the accidental benefit on the ground that it was an intentional murder.
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. . When the criminal case ended in acquittal. the criminal case record in ex. B5 t6 B7 filed by the OP is not helpful to it to say that it was intentional murder. 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. Ombudsman decision is not binding on the Consumer Fora. The District Forum discussed the matter on hand in proper manner and arrived at correct conclusion.. There is no believable evidence that the murder was intentional so also Judgment of concerned Criminal court holding that the accused killed the deceased on account of political rivalry. 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.