State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Fatima Begum on 18 November, 2008
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. FA/08/314 DATE OF FILING:11.8.2008 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 18.11.2008 APPELLANT National Insurance Co. Ltd. 8, India Exchange Place, Ruby House Kolkata 700 001 RESPONDENTS 1) Fatima Begum RNT Path, Laxmi Ghat Bara Khatal P.O.- Titagarh, Dist. North 24 Parganas 2) Golden Trust Financial Services 16, R.N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata 700 001 BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE MR. A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT MEMBER : Mr. S. COARI MEMBER : MRS. S. MAJUMDER FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. S.M. Maitra, Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENTS : Mr. B. Mondal, Advocate (Res.2) : O R D E R :
HONBLE JUSTICE MR. A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT This appeal was filed against the judgment dated 15.5.08 passed by District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Kolkata Unit-I in Case No. 199 of 2007 whereby the OPs 1 & 2 were directed to pay the insured claim amount of Rs.4 lacs to the petitioner and also to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- for litigation cost. The case in brief of the complainant is that the husband of the complainant took a Group Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy. On 07.02.2004 the complainant asked the brother and father of her husband to settle the partition of disputed family properties which made them furious and they attacked the husband of the complainant with iron rod.
Being insured the husband of the complainant was taken to Balaram Hospital for treatment where he died at night and FIR was lodged with Kharda Police Station for an offence u/s.341/324/506/34 IPC.
The petitioner intimated about the death of her husband to GTFS on 22.3.2004 and as per their advice submitted the Claim Form along with all documents on 04.9.04 for onward transmission to the insurer for settlement of her claim. As the claim was repudiated and treated as no claim intimation having not been given within thirty days from the date of accident/death, the complainant filed the present complaint for appropriate reliefs.
The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/Insurer contended that the husband of the complainant having been murdered, the same cannot be described as death due to accident and, therefore, under the subject policy of Group Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy, the heirs of the deceased are not entitled to any relief from the Insurer under the policy.
It is contended that the murder has occurred in course of a family feud between the deceased and his father and brother over a share of land and the fight was with deadly weapon and the death occurred when the deceased was hit by iron rod. It is argued that claim could have been made had the death been the result of an accident but in this case as in course of a fight over a family dispute death has occurred, the same cannot be described as an accident. In support of his contention the Ld. Advocate relied on the Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar (reprint 2007) the relevant portion whereof is as follows:
The word accident generally denotes an event that takes place without ones foresight or expectation; an event which proceeds from an unknown cause, or is an unusual effect of a known cause, and therefore not expected; chance, casualty, contingency. (Webster Dict.); an event happening without the concurrence of the will of the person by whose agency it was caused. It differs from mistake in that the latter always supposes the operation of the will of the agent in producing the event although that will is caused by an erroneous impression on the mind.
* * * * * The expression accident generally means some unexpected event happening without design, even though there my be negligence, and it is used in the popular and ordinary sense of the word, as denoting or unlooked for mishap on an untoward event which is not brought about by intention or design. All accidents which are caused by outward, violent and visible means would be covered whether or not caused by carelessness or negligence or whether or not expected and avoidable.
With regard to the only contention that the death being by way of murder, it is not an accident and not covered by the policy, law in this regard has been discussed in the case of Smt. Rita Devi and others-Vs-New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1930 holding as follows:-
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, 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.
In another judgment in the case of Rita Devi-Vs-National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2008)1 CPR 1996 the National Insurance Co. Ltd. considered the matter thoroughly. In the Halburys Laws of England, the meaning of the word accident is given and the relevant excerpt thereof is quoted hereinbelow:
Meaning of accident The event insured against may be indicated in the policy solely by reference to the phrase injury by accident or the equivalent phrase accidental injury, or it may be indicated as injury caused by or resulting from an accident. The word accident or its adjective accidental, is no doubt used with the intention of excluding the operation of natural causes such as old age, congenital or insidious disease or the natural/progression of some constitutional physical or mental defect; but the ambit of what is included by the word is not entirely clear. It has been said that what is postulated is the intervention of some cause which is brought into operation by chance so as to be fairly describable as fortuitous. The idea of something haphazard is not necessarily inherent in the word; it covers any unlooked for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed or any unexpected personal injury resulting from any unlooked for mishap or occurrence. The test of what is unexpected is whether the ordinary reasonable man would not have expected the occurrence, it being irrelevant that a person with expert knowledge, for example of medicine, would have regarded it as inevitable. The stand point is that of the victim, so that even willful murder may be accidental as far as the victim is concerned.
Relying on the aforesaid stating that from the standpoint of the victim even willful murder may be accidental as far as the victim is concerned, contrary view even if is possible in the given facts, the onus is on the insurer to prove the same. In the present facts the insurer having not proved in any way that the murder in the present case was not accidental even to the victim, the ground taken by the insurer in the present Appeal cannot be relied on.
Even on the question of interpretation of the said meaning of the word accident, even if it is held that there are two interpretations possible, the interpretation which favours the insured is to be accepted in case of an insurance claim as decided by the Apex Court in Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd.-Vs-Kokilaben Chandravadan & Ors. reported in (1987)2 SCC 654, Shashi Gupta-Vs-LIC of India reported in (1995)1 SCC 754 and B.V. Nagaraju-Vs-M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (1999)3 SCC 465.
Even on available facts in the present case it appears the murder has occurred in course of a feud and there is no material to show that even the murderers were acting with a prior intention to murder the victim.
In view of the above findings we agree with the directions given in the impugned judgment. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, trial Forums judgment is affirmed. There will be no order as to costs.
A copy of this judgment be sent to the Forum below expeditiously.
(S. Majumder) (S. Coari) (Justice A. Chakrabarti) MEMBER(L) MEMBER PRESIDENT