Smt.Y.P. Vijaya Rao Vs. the Brnach Manager, Andhra Bank (652) and Others - Court Judgment

ORAL ORDER: (Sri K. Satyanand, Hon'ble Member .)

This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful complainant as the legal heir, whose insurance claim on the foot of Abhaya Gold Insurance Policy taken by her late husband was repudiated.

The facts of the case are briefly as follows:

The husband of the complainant was a doctor. On 14-2-2000 the deceased attended to the Primary Health Centre, Ardageri and was returning back to Kodumur on motor cycle. On the way, the deceased was attacked by some miscreants and killed. They committed theft of the wrist watch, portable radio and other valuables belonging to the deceased. After investigation, the complainant herself was suspected to have conspired to kill the deceased and a charge sheet was lodged. However, the criminal case against the complainant and others ended in acquittal. According to her , the police filed a false case at the instance of her enemies. The complainant informed opposite party No.1 orally about the death of her husband immediately after the death of her husband, however, there was no response and she could give written intimation to opposite party only on 2-9-2000 ( that means nearly 7 months after the death). Opposite party No.1 addressed a letter on the same day to opposite party No.2 marking a copy to the complainant. The complainant sent the claim form along with F.I.R. and post mortem report to opposite party No.2 claiming the insured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and requested opposite party No.3 to settle the claim at the earliest. Opposite party No.3 failed to respond nor did settle the claim. The complainant claimed to have sent several letters but with no avail ultimately she got issued a notice on 7-9-2004. Opposite party No.3 did not give any reply to the legal notice, thus she contended that they were guilty of negligence. Hence she preferred the complaint claiming Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 2-9-2000 till the date of payment as also costs in a sum of Rs.10,000/- besides Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony.

The first opposite party is the facilitator bank. The bank filed its written version denying all the allegations made by the complainant. They even questioned her claim that she was the only legal heir of late Padmanabha Rao. They also insisted that she ought to have filed succession certificate as it was not her case that there was any nomination in her favour. On the top of that, they also questioned her claim taking inspiration under Section 25 of Hindu Succession Act which debars murderers for inheritance. Strangely opposite party no.1 pleaded that when the complainant herself stated that opposite party No.1 wrote a letter to opposite party no.2 on the same day when she claimed to have sent intimation to opposite party No.1, it did not lie in her mouth to say that there was any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1.

Opposite parties 2 and 3 who are functionaries of United India Insurance Company at two levels also filed separate counters. In his counter, opposite party No.2 denied having received any letter dated 2-9-2000 from opposite party No.1 and pleaded that opposite party No.2 had nothing to do with this matter.

Opposite party No.3 pleaded ignorance of the allegations in para 4 of the complaint. It is contended that as per the criminal case records, there were differences between the deceased and the complainant prior to the murder and the deceased suspected her fidelity and the complainant herself got her husband admitted twice in the mental hospital at Hyderabad and ultimately he was murdered. The police registered a case against the complainant and she was arraigned as accused No.1 though the said case ended in acquittal as all the witnesses turned hostile, she cannot claim the estate of the very deceased. They also pleaded that they were not given any intimation of the murder and had such a notice been given, they could have had an opportunity to examine all the aspects of the murder including the part played by her. The murder of the deceased was not, according to them, covered under the policy as it was not an accidental death. It was contended that it was Abhaya Gold Insurance Policy to cover the accident and in the present case, it cannot be called an accident. They also disputed the assertion of giving notice to opposite party no.1 on 2-9-2000 and the opposite party no.1 in turn giving it intimation. As there was no such intimation, the complainant failed to intimate the fact of death of the assured within the stipulated time of 90 days. Ultimately it was alleged that the opposite parties were not liable to pay any amount to her. The notice dated 7-9-2004 was belated and was of no avail for her, as a murderer she was not entitled for any relief in this complaint. Ultimately it was contended that there was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.3.

In support of her case, the complainant filed her own affidavit as also documentary evidence marked as Exs.A1 to A2 and the opposite parties also filed their affidavits and they marked Exs.B1 and B2. Ex.A1 is a legal notice dated 7-9-2004 and Ex.A2 is the original Abhaya Gold Savings pass book.

On a consideration of the evidence adduced on either side, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the failure of the complainant to put the insurance company on notice within the stipulated time was fatal to her claim. Likewise it also held that she was not a nominee and ought to have filed a succession certificate in order to validly claim as the sole heir. For these two infirmities, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant filed the present appeal alleging that the District Forum erred in appreciating the facts and law properly. The District Forum erred in considering the fact that the deceased husband of the appellant was killed by some unknown miscreants. She also stated that the District Forum failed to appreciate that it was a false police case. The District Forum ought to have seen that she could not give intimation in time because of mourning so could give intimation only on 2-9-2000. The District Forum had not taken into account her giving the legal notice on 7-9-2004.

Inspite of several adjournments, there was no representation for the appellant. Heard counsel for R1. R2 was also called absent. Though a further opportunity to file written arguments was given to the appellant and R2, written arguments were not filed.

The points that arise for consideration are 1)Whether the complainant is entitled to claim the insurance amount on the foot of the insurance policy on the life of her husband?

2) Whether there are any infirmities in the order of the District Forum?

1) The opposite party No.3 was the office of the United India Insurance Company that appears to be responsible for processing the insurance claim but opposite party no.3 disowned having received any intimation of death within the period of 90 days or even at any time later except by way of legal notice long after the event in 2004. Likewise opposite party no.2 also denied having ever received any intimation on 2-9-2000 as claimed either by the complainant or opposite party No.1. For its part, opposite party No.1 made a cryptic averment in order to take profit from the averment of the complainant to the effect that if the complainant had herself maintained that she sent a notice on 2-9-2000 to opposite party No.1 and opposite party no.1 had in turn sent intimation to opposite party No.2, there could be no occasion for alleging deficiency of service against it. In saying so opposite party no.1 has taken care not to confirm having received intimation but at the same time it tried to take argumentative benefit from the averment of the complainant. So it has to be rejected as equivocal statement as regards having received from the complainant any intimation as alleged on 2-9-2000. Thus the case of the complainant that she had sent intimation at all on 2-9-2000 itself is highly tenuous. Apart from that even if that were taken as true by that date itself, it was already 7 months that her husband died. Therefore, opposite party No.3 is perfectly entitled to take this fact as belated intimation and so as one of the prime grounds for repudiation. Apart from that the complainant failed to disclose if there were no other heirs. It was not her case that she was the nominee, she did not disclose if the deceased was having any other heirs, she did not produce the succession certificate to rule out any other heirs claiming for this very insurance benefit. In such a case, her claim cannot be entertained as rightly contended by the insurance company. On the top of this, it was the specific case of the insurance company that the death of the insured cannot be reckoned as death due to accident. In this case there is clear evidence to show that he was killed if not by this complainant but by some miscreants. Obviously the respondents theory indicates that he was killed after premeditated plan and therefore, his death answers the description of murder more than anything.

‘Though in a different context while dealing the case under the

M.V. Act, the Supreme Court in Smt.Rita Devi v. New India

Assurance Company Ltd., reported in II (2000) CLT 192 had an occasion to consider whether ‘murder could be an ‘accident in any given case. It was held that “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 opinion, 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 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.

It could by no stretch of imagination be stated to characterize his death due to accident for which alone the policy enures. Looking at the problem from all these angles, it is crystal clear that the claim of the complainant can hardly be upheld. We do not see any infirmities in the order of the District Forum.

Accordingly the appeal is dismissed but without costs in the circumstances of the case.