State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt Raj Dulari vs L I C on 22 January, 2016
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 First Appeal No. A/1999/1844 (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District State Commission) 1. Smt Raj Dulari A ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. L I C A ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Alok Kumar Bose PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Sanjay Kumar MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: ORDER RESERVED State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P., Lucknow. Appeal No.1844 of 1999 Smt. Ram Dulari aged about 65 years, W/o Late Sri Ram Swaroop Singh, R/o Pasaura, District: Jhansi. ....Appellant. Versus 1- Varishtha Mandal Prabandhak, Bhartiya Jeevan Bima Nigan, Kanpur Mandal, Kanpur. 2- Shakha Prabandhak, Bhartiya Jeevan Bima Nigam, Karlaya, 139, Station Road, Gupta Nursing Home Key pass, Mauranitpur, District: Jhansi. ...Respondents. Present:- 1- Hon'ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member. 2- Hon'ble Sri Sanjay Kumar, Member. Sri H.K. Srivastava for the appellant. Sri Arvind Tilhari for the respondent. Date 17.2.2016 JUDGMENT
Sri A.K. Bose, Member- Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24.2.1999, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Jhansi in complaint case No.8 of 1998, the appellant Smt. Ram Dulari W/o Late Sri Ram Swaroop Singh and mother of the deceased insured Sri Pratap Yaduvir Singh has preferred the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act 68 of 1986) on the ground that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in the eye of law. It was delivered without proper appreciation of law and/or application of mind on the basis of surmises and conjectures and therefore, it has been prayed that the same be set aside in the interest of justice otherwise she will suffer irreparable financial loss.
(2)From perusal of the records, it transpires that son of the respondent/complainant Sri Pratap Yaduvir Singh had a Life Insurance: Whole Life Limited Payment Plan without Profit Policy bearing no.230400115 under Term and Table 3-25 for a sum assured of Rs.3 lacs. The policy commenced from 28.7.1994, the yearly premium of which was Rs.4,676.00 only.
It has been alleged that the life assured Sri Pratap Yaduvir Singh was murdered on 22.5.1995. An FIR about this incident was lodged under case crime no.180 of 1995 at P.S. Duwabad, Jhansi and after investigation, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet against the accused under Section 307, 504 and 506 IPC which was subsequently converted under 307/302/504 IPC as is clear from perusal of page 2 of the certified copy of the charge-sheet available on record.
Initially, a claim was filed for payment of the amount under insurance by Sri Jagdeo Singh (brother of the deceased insured). Since the life insured had named Smt. Khillan Devi his wife as his nominee in the proposal, therefore, the claimant Jagdeo Singh was directed to submit Succession Certificate. It may be observed that subsequent investigation revealed that Smt. Khillan Devi had pre deceased the life assured. The Succession Certificate was submitted on 8.7.1997 in favour of Smt. Ram Dulari W/o Sri Ram Swaroop Yadav (Mother) and, therefore, the payment of amount under insurance was made to her on 14.8.1997. However, she was denied the "Accidental Benefits' as the documents revealed that the life assured suffered an unnatural death.
(3)Aggrieved by this remiss on the part of the Corporation, complaint case no.8 of 1998 was preferred before the Ld. DCDRF, Jhansi for payment of the amount due under 'Accidental Benefits'. The Forum below on the basis of facts, circumstances, evidence, terms and conditions of the policy held that the matter related to unnatural death and, therefore, dismissed the complaint on 24.2.1999. Hence, the instant appeal by the complainant.
The following two points for determination arise in the appeal.:-
Whether the death of life assured Sri Pratap Yaduvir Singh was a result of murder simpliciter ? and, Whether the appellant/complainant is entitled for 'Accidental Benefits' and also interest upon the sum assured on ground of delayed payment ?
We have heard both the parties and have gone through the evidence on record.
From perusal of the Policy Bond no.230400115, it transpires that Smt Khillan Devi was made nominee by the life assured. The claim was filed by Sri Jagdeo Singh, brother of the deceased. It was contended that Smt. Khillan Devi had pre-deceased the life assured. Under the circumstances, the Corporation directed Sri Jagdeo Singh to file 'Succession Certificate' as required under the law. The Succession Certificate was in favour of the complainant Smt. Ram Dulari (Mother) and the same was filed on 8.7.1997. Thereafter, the entire matter was (4) processed and payment of the amount under the policy i.e. Rs.2 lacs was paid to her and a 'discharge voucher' was accordingly executed. Thus, we find that there was no delay on the part of the Corporation in making the payment of the basic amount and, therefore, the appellant/complainant is not entitled for interest on ground of delayed payment. The Forum below was justified in rejecting the prayer for interest. The point for determination no.1, therefore, is decided in affirmative in favour of the respondent Corporation.
The next question that arises is whether the appellant/complainant is entitled for 'Accidental Benefits' or not ? The Corporation denied her the accidental benefit on the ground that the death of the life assured was a result of murder simpliciter; and was not due to any accident and, therefore, in view of Clause 10 of the Policy, no amount was payable as accidental benefit. From perusal of the records, it is clear that an FIR was lodged under case crime no.180 of 1995 at P.S. Duwabad, Jhansi relating to the incident (FIR no.125 of 1995) dated 22.5.1995 and the IO, after due investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 307/302/504 IPC. Thus, it is clear that the death of the life assured was due to murder. In was not a result of any accident. Clause 10.2B of the Policy Bond provides that:
"Death of the Life Assured: to pay an additional sum equal to the sum assured under the policy, if the life assured shall sustain any bodily injury resulting solely and directly from the accident caused by outward, violent and (5) visible means and such injury shall within 120 days of its occurrence solely, directly and independently of all other causes result in the death of the assured. However, such additional sum payable in respect of this policy, together with any such additional sum payable under other policies on the life of life assured shall not exceed Rs.5,00,000.00." The Forum below on the basis of the evidence on record held that the deceased was fired at due to enmity and, therefore, it was not a case of accidental death. As such, the claimant was not entitled for 'accidental benefits' under the terms and conditions of the policy. We have given due consideration on this aspect of the matter. It was held by the Hon'ble National Commisison in Prithvi Raj Bhandari vs. LIC of India, III (2006) CPJ 213 (NC), that if the dominant intention of the act of felony is to kill any particular person than such killing is not an accidental case but is a murder simplicitor. The Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to hold in Smt. Rita Devi vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., IV (2000) SLT 179 that:
"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 'murder' which is an accident, depends on the proximity of the cause of such murder in our pinion, if the dominant intention of the act of felony is the kill any particular person then such killing is not an accidental murder but is a (6) 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."
Thus, it is clear that the appellant/complainant was not entitled to get accidental benefit under the policy as the life assured was murdered. The point for determination no.2 is accordingly decided in negative. The judgment and order passed by the Forum below is based on facts, circumstances, terms and conditions of the policy and law on the subject. There is no irregularity or illegality in the same and, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in it. Consequently, the appeal being meritless is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.
(A.K. Bose) (Sanjay Kumar) Presiding Member Member Jafri PA-II Court No.3 [HON'BLE MR. Alok Kumar Bose] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Sanjay Kumar] MEMBER