Kerala High Court
The United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs Sarala on 19 March, 2026
2026:KER:24547
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 10100 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, MALANKARA BUILDING VJT
HALL ROAD, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM
REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER IN REGIONAL OFFICE,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 695 034.
BY ADV SMT.P.A.REZIYA
RESPONDENTS:
1 SARALA,
KANNANKADAVATH HOUSE, NADAKKAVU P.O., THOPPAYIL,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KOZHIKODE TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT
SAROVAR, NORTH BEACH ROAD, WEST HILL P.O.,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - KOZHIKODE TALUK,
PIN - 673 006.
2 ATHIRA K.,
KANNANKADAVATH HOUSE, NADAKKAVU P.O., THOPPAYIL,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KOZHIKODE TALUK,
NOW RESIDING AT SAROVAR, NORTH BEACH ROAD,
WEST HILL P.O.,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - KOZHIKODE TALUK,
PIN - 673 006.
3 ARATHI K.,
KANNANKADAVATH HOUSE, NADAKKAVU P.O., THOPPAYIL,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KOZHIKODE TALUK,
NOW RESIDING AT SAROVAR, NORTH BEACH ROAD,
WEST HILL P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - KOZHIKODE TALUK.,
PIN - 673 006.
2026:KER:24547
WP(C) NO. 10100 OF 2026
2
4 VELLAYIL KAMBURAM FISHERMEN'S DEVELOPMENT,
WELFARE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY F (K) 14,
NADAKKAVU P.O., PIN - KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 011.
5 MATSYAFED REGIONAL OFFICE
NEAR VELLAYIL POLICE STATION, WEST HILL P.O.,
PIN -KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 005.
6 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER,
3RD FLOOR, MAHESWARI BUILDING, MG ROAD,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680 001.
SMT.K.S.SANTHI, SC,
SHRI.T.P.PRADEEP, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 19.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:24547
WP(C) NO. 10100 OF 2026
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was the 4th respondent in O.P.No.70/2024 on the files of the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Kozhikode. The original petition was submitted by the respondents 1 to 3 herein, being aggrieved by the repudiation of the claim made by them, seeking compensation for the death of the husband of the 1st respondent/father of the respondents 2 and 3. The claim was raised in connection with the death of Sri.Premraj, the husband of the 1st respondent and father of the respondents 2 and 3, in an accident that occurred on 12.11.2019, when he was hit by a train while he was crossing the rail track in front of the West Hill Railway Station. Even though a claim was raised before the petitioner, based on the Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy issued by the petitioner and the 6th respondent, it was repudiated by the petitioner and the 6th respondent on the ground that, the deceased was a person having mental illness and he had committed suicide.
2026:KER:24547 WP(C) NO. 10100 OF 2026 4
2. According to the petitioner, as per the terms and conditions in the policy, death by suicide is not covered under the policy, and hence they are not liable to pay compensation. The said repudiation was challenged before the Permanent Lok Adalat For Public Utility Services and Ext.P1 is the original petition submitted by the respondents 1 to 3. The petitioner appeared and filed a Ext.P2 written statement reiterating the stand taken while repudiating the policy. The Permanent Lok Adalat For Public Utility Services proceeded to determine the original petition and the evidence adduced by the parties consist of Exts.A1 to A10 on the side of the applicants and Exts.B1 to B5 on the side of the respondents.
3. After evaluating the evidence, the Permanent Lok Adalat For Public Utility Services came to a finding that, the petitioner failed to establish that, the death was due to suicide and hence allowed the original petition, directing the petitioner and the 2026:KER:24547 WP(C) NO. 10100 OF 2026 5 6th respondent to pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances challenging Ext.P10 order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat For Public Utility Services .
4. I have heard Smt.P.A. Reziya, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri.T.P. Pradeep, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 and Smt.K.S. Santhi, learned Standing Counsel for the 6th respondent.
5. The main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, the final report submitted by the Police, which contains the statement of close relatives of the deceased would indicate that the deceased was suffering from mental illness, had undergone treatment for the same, and the death occurred due to suicide. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, despite such specific conclusion in the final report and the inquest report submitted by the Police as evidenced by Exts.P4 and P5, the same 2026:KER:24547 WP(C) NO. 10100 OF 2026 6 was not considered by the Permanent Lok Adalat For Public Utility Services and an award is passed. Besides, it was also highlighted that, the First Information Statement, based on which the crime was registered by the Police was given by none other than the brother of the deceased himself and from the said document also, it is evident that it is a case of suicide.
6. However, after carefully going through the observations made by the Permanent Lok Adalat For Public Utility Services, I find that, it does not warrant any interference. This is particularly because, the Permanent Lok Adalat For Public Utility Services came to a definite conclusion after evaluating the evidence that, the petitioner failed to establish the case of suicide by adducing any positive evidence. On carefully going through the observations made in Ext.P10, I find that the view adopted by the Permanent Lok Adalat For Public Utility Services is a probable one and cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This 2026:KER:24547 WP(C) NO. 10100 OF 2026 7 is because, as far as the contention raised by the petitioner is concerned, it is to the effect that, since the death occurred by suicide, it is something not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy. Since it is the case of the petitioner that it is a suicidal death, and they were seeking exoneration from the terms and conditions of the policy, the burden to establish the same was heavily upon them. Going through the evidence produced before the Permanent Lok Adalat For Public Utility Services, it can be seen that, the petitioner failed to examine any of the witnesses, who claimed to have given statements before the Police, which ultimately resulted in Ext.P4 final report and Ext.P5 inquest report. On carefully going through the final report and inquest report, it can be seen that, there is no conclusion by the Police after investigation that, the death is because of suicide. Of course, it is true that mental illness of the deceased and the treatment availed by him for the same was referred to, but the conclusion in Ext.P4 is to the 2026:KER:24547 WP(C) NO. 10100 OF 2026 8 effect that somehow the deceased was hit by the train. There is no definite conclusion in Ext.P4 that, it is a suicidal death. As observed above, since it was the case of the petitioner that the death was by suicide and therefore, the petitioner is not liable to pay the compensation as per the terms of the policy, it was obligatory for the petitioner to establish that it was a suicidal death, by adducing positive and convincing evidence. In this case, apart from the police reports, which do not contain a conclusive finding as to the suicide, no other evidence was adduced by the petitioner, either oral or documentary. Thus, the burden upon the petitioner was not discharged and hence no interference in the order passed by the Adalat is necessary.
Therefore, I do not find any justifiable reason entertain this writ petition and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE SCS/DG 2026:KER:24547 WP(C) NO. 10100 OF 2026 9 APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 10100 OF 2026 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AS O.P. NO. 70/2024 DATED 07/08/2024 Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OP (PIL) NO.70/02024 Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 12/11/2019 IN CRIME NO. 901/2019 OF NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION WHICH WAS MARKED BEFORE THE PERMANENT LOK Adalat AS EXT A1 Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 901/2019 OF NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INQUEST REPORT IN CRIME NO. 901/2019 OF NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 02-03-2019 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE FIFTH RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF LETTER SENT BY R 5 TO R 1 INFORMING REPUTATION OF LAIM BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIFTH RESPONDENT REGARDING REPUDIATION OF CLAIM Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/10/2025 OF THE PERMANENT LOK Adalat