SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Thrissur in CCNo. 538/07 date 27-09-2010. The appellant is the opposite party who prefers to this appeal under the direction of the forum below that the opposite party directed to pay the Double Accident Benefit with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint till realization with cost of Rs. 750/- with in 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order of the forum below.
The respondent is the complainant in the above mentioned case.
1. This dispute araised from a repudiaion of the Double Insurance Benefit claim by the complainant by the opposite party. The complainants husband took an insurance policy from the opposite party for a sum assured of Rs. 2,00,000/- and added additional Double Accident Claim as per the clause 10(b) of the policy which commenced on 28-05-2002. The insured Vargheese was murdered on 9-06-2005 at 9.25 hours at Thanikudom is on 28-02-2022. The life assured Vargheese was murder on 9-06-05. The Policy issued by the opposite party and as per the conditions of the policy the complainant is entitled to get the sum assured of Rs. 2 lakhs plus an addition of sum equal assured in case of death. So the double assured for a death of insured person with 4 lakh with bonus. The complainants submitted necessary valued documents and original policy to the opposite party. But the opposite party reduce the claim and allowed the complaint only Rs. 2,23,672/- as per the terms of the policy clause 10 (b). The insured person was entitled as per the condition of the policy some equal to same assured. The opposite party is repudiated the claim and allowed only Rs. 2,23,672/-. The complainant filed an application before the Insurance Company. But the Insurance Company rejected the application with out any reason. Hence this complaint.
2. The opposite party/Insurance Company denied all allegations of the complainant through their written version; but the same time they admitted the policy. But they contended that this policy was commenced on 28-05-2005. It is true that the insured was murdered on 29-06-05. On the basis of the request of the opposite party to submit necessary forms for consideration the claim. The complainant was provided with police records and reports in crime no. 303/2005 of Viyyur Police Station and from the police reports, it was clearly revealed that the life assured was murdered in relation with the murder of another person named Reji which occurred 1 month prior to his murder. As a death claim, the complainant is eligible only to get a sum assured and bonus and a net amount of Rs. 2,23,672/- after deductions as per Rules and Conditions, under the policy; thus the respondent settled the claim of the complainant for Rs. 2,23,672/- on 28-07-2005 on execution of discharge given by the complainant in full and final satisfaction of all her claims under the policy. Claim of the complainant for Rs. 4 lakh is unsustainable. After executing the discharge of all her claims under the policy in full and final satisfaction and after receipt of the amount, the complainant is estopped from claiming any other benefits under the policy. It is revealed from the investigation that the life assured was murdered in relation to the murder of another person named Reji one month prior to his murder. Moreover the life assured was the President of Congress I, Vadakkathara Ward Committee and the above said murdered Reji was a CITU worker and both were rivals and belonged to rival political parties. From the Police Records, it can be seen that the dominant intention was to kill the life assured. Such killing is a premeditated murder and not an accidental murder but is a murder simplicitor. Since the Police reports, and the nature of the killing by stopping a vehicle, dragging out the victim by a number of persons indicate nothing but a murder by plan and design and does not come under stipulates that accidental death under clause 10(b) of the policy condition. Besides, the clause 10 stipulates that accidental death is to be proved to the satisfaction of the Corporation (Opposite party). On the other hand, the records revealed that it is a premeditated planned and designed murder. That is why the opposite party rejected the claim of Double Accident Benefit of the complainant. The opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
3. The forum below given opportunities to adduce evidence for both parties. The complainant is examined as PW1 and marked Ext. P1 to P5. For the opposite side, documents marked as Ext. R1 to R7. The forum below discussed the entire evidence adduced by both side and answered each points raised for consideration and reached in a conclusion that the insured died due to the murder committed by the accused by a mistake of fact. It is coming under the preview of death by accident. As per the condition of the policy, the forum below interpreted the policy conditions in such way and allowed the complaint and passed the above the impugned order.
4. The order was challenged by the appellant through this appeal before this commission. In this day this appeal came before the commission for final hearing; both the counsels for appellant and respondents are present and argued their own respective cases on the basis of the evidence and citations respectively. The counsel for the appellant vehemently argued on the grounds of the appeal memorandum that; as per the evidence Ext. P1 and Ext. P2 and
Ext. R5 and Ext. R7. It is a murder due to prior concert and a criminal intention. This documents clearly proved that the accused who committed the murder of the Life Insured person due to an enmity towards the insured person. There is a reason behind this alleged murder that one person who has murdered from the CITU Union by the Congress I group and the insured person is also having behind this pre-planned murder. The strong motive of the accused person is nothing but a murder of this insured person. On the basis of this evidence the complainant is not entitled to get death the Double Accident Benefit with bonus as per the policy conditions. The complainant is the widow of the murdered life insured person. The appellants counsel also submitted that the settled position of law in the respect of the point of the question is to â accidentâ and not a âmurderâ. This was not considered by the forum below. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant opposite party settled the entire insured amount eligible by the complainant and it was considered by her the submission and the forum below passed the impugned order without consideration of the provisions of law and evidence. Hence, this appellant prayed for allowing this appeal and to set-aside the impugned order passed by the forum below. From his part, he cited a decision â The Life Insurance Corporation of India and others (CPJ) part 3 2006 page No. 213 NC) In this decision it is taken a view by the Honorable National Commission that the intention of the murder of the life insured did not prove the murder byâaccidentâ and liable to get double accident benefits. Another decision is also cited and which decision discussed the question of law that the term accident and murder are not same and both are different. (â Smt. Reega K.V.â and others Vs. new Indian Insurance Company (AIR 2000 SC page No. 1930). This position is settled by the apex court of the country.
5. The counsel for the respondent/complainant argued that the PW1 is the widow of the insurer; Smt. Marry Vargheese who disposed in the cross examination that âthe death of the insured person (her husband) due to a mistake of factâ. According to her evidence, it is clearly stated that her husband was murdered by the accused due to a misunderstanding that he was a person who acted behind the murder of the CITU worker Reji. In the cross examination, PW1 disposed that âLanguageâshe again disposed that in her cross examination.
âLanguageâThe forum below relied this evidence of the complainant and discard the evidence of the opposite party in total. The evidence; Ext. P2 copy of the charge sheet, Ext. R4 the copy of express report (FIR). Ext. R6 copy of the postmortem certificate and Ext. R6 copy of inquest report and found that the murder of the insured person is an accidental death and then the complaint is entitle to get the full benefit of the policy. In the result, the forum below allowed the complaint and passed above the impugned order .
6. The counsel for the respondent/ complaint submitted that evidence adduce by both sides; that the testimony of the PW1 (complainant) is more reliable and material. On this basis, of this cardinal piece of evidence, the forum below passed the impugned order. It is accordance with strictly as per the provisions of the law and evidence and it is legally sustainable.
7. Heard in detail both parties and perused the entire evidence available in the case records; and it is seeing that there is no reason to disbelieve the oral testimony of the complainant (PW1). On other side, the Ext. P2, Ext. R1, R2,R3, R4,R5 ,R6 and R7 are the evidence collected by the police. In connection with the death of the insured person. The FIR is a document registered by the police as per the information which received by them. On this connection with the death of The FIR can be recorded even on the telephonic information. Other evidence available in the case diary of the police may be 161 statement of the witness and the statement of the accused person inconnection with the recovery of the weapon under sec. 27 of The Evidence Act, or if any other circumstantial evidence already collected by the police. On the basis of this investigation of the murder case of the insured person. The police investigation team prepared the Ext. R5 charge sheet. It is on the basis of mere available data in their case diary. All of this evidence are became an evidence as per the Evidence Act only if it will be proved through the criminal court. There is no where about was known or produced from the part of the appellant about the result of the Sessions trial of this murder case. It is not seeing that thereis no certified copy of the depositions of the witnesses seeing to be produced before the forum below at the time of trial of this case. In this, evidence the oral testimony of PW1 is more reliable and acceptable in this case. She disposed before the forum below in connection with this disputes. There is no suggestion from the part of the appellant/opposite party to the PW1 at the time of cross-examination. âLanguageâThere is no single attempt taken by the appellant opposite party to corroborate the versions of the PW1 by putting any depositions or documents. In other words, at least in this stage of the appeal hearing appellant/ opposite party can very easily produce the certified copy of the judgment of the sessions case. Another decision was cited, which discussed that the question of law that; whether the insurance claimant is entitled to get an Double Accident Benefits or not in a case of a murder which committed by an intentionally or not? In this case, it is clearly established that the murder was committed by the accused by a mistake of fact. In other words, it is the burden and duty of the appellant to produce supporting documents which help that the murder was committed by intentionally or not? In this present case, in the absence of the material evidence from the part of the appellant, I accepted the evidence of PW1 (complainant). Eventhough the appellant failed to produce supporting evidence. The murder of the insured person is occurred due to not intentional. It is an death by an accident. In this circumstance the complainant is entitle to get the Double Accident Benefit from the opposite party Insurance Company. There is no apparent error in the order passed by the forum below. This order passed by the forum below is strictly accordance with the provisions of law and evidence. This order is legally sustainable and I uphold the order.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the forum below. The points of the appeal answered and discussed one by one accordingly. Both parties are direct to suffer there own respective dhast.