PRONOUNCED ON: 27th March 2017 ORDER PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 29.06.2012, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 1167/2010, Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) vs. Smt. Penti Aruna & Ors., vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karim Nagar on 16.07.2010 in Consumer Complaint No. 90/2009, allowing the said complaint, was upheld. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the late Penti Surender was the policy holder for ten life insurance policies, issued by the opposite party (OP), Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred as “LIC”), which covered risk to the insured for a sum of Rs. 19,75,000/- and also to pay additional sum of Rs. 19,75,000/- towards accidental benefits. The said Penti Surender went missing on 05.01.2007 and later on, his dead body was recovered on 18.04.2007 as per the police record. The complainant no. 1, Penti Aruna is the widow of the deceased, complainants no. 2 and 3 Penti Sanath and Penti Richich are the children of the deceased, while complainants no. 4 and 5, Penti Laxminarayana and Penti Amruthamma are the parents of the deceased. The father Penti Laxminarayana filed a complaint with the police at Karim Nagar about the missing of his son alongwith his motorcycle, bearing no. AP15K 7374 from 05.01.2007, following which the police registered crime no. 06/2007. During investigation, the police found the dead body of late Penti Surender on 18.04.2007 and he was reportedly murdered by one K. Sridhar and S. Geetha at Sripuram Colony, Karim Nagar. The police filed a charge sheet against the accused and the case against them is pending trial with the Sessions Court. It is stated in the consumer complaint that the LIC had paid the sum insured under all the policies, but denied to pay the accidental benefit on the ground that the death took place due to murder and hence, the claim was not payable. The complainants filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OP LIC to pay the accidental benefit of Rs. 19,75,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of death till actual payment. 3. The complaint was resisted by the OP LIC by filing a reply before the District Forum, saying that ten different policies had been issued to the late Penti Surender, covering different sums in each case. However, the life assured had opted for accident benefit risk cover only in respect of six policies and the total risk cover for accident benefit worked out to be Rs. 8 lakhs and not Rs. 19.75 lakhs. The LIC stated that the body of the life assured was exhumed from the septic tank on 18.04.2007 in the presence of Executive Magistrate and police officials. It was found during investigation that the deceased had extra-marital relations with S. Geetha, which was not liked by the other accused K. Sridhar. The life assured used to visit the house of K. Sridhar many a time. The murder of the life assured was then planned and executed by K. Sridhar in collision with S. Geetha. Since this was a pre-planned, deliberate murder due to immoral behaviour on the part of the life assured, the claim was found not payable, even by the Zonal Claims Review Committee of the LIC. The LIC stated that the decision of the National Commission in the case Maya Devi vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, as reported in III (2008) CPJ 120 (NC) was not applicable in the present case, because there was provocation on the part of the life assured and the murder being pre-planned and deliberate, the immediate cause of death was the result of wilful act of the insured. There was, therefore, no negligence on the part of the LIC in repudiating the claim. 4. The District Forum, after considering the averments of the parties, allowed the consumer complaint partly and directed the OP LIC to pay an amount of Rs. 8 lakhs towards accidental benefit under six insurance policies alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 03.06.2009 till realisation. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the OP LIC challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission and the said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order, the OP LIC is before this Commission by way of the present Revision Petition. 5. During arguments before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner LIC stated that the policy holder Penti Surender had illicit relations with S. Geetha, as a result of which, he was intoxicated and gagged to death. The murder of the deceased was neither accidental nor sudden, stray or abrupt, rather the deceased had knowingly provoked the accused. The learned counsel has drawn attention to an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Rita Devi & Ors. vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., as reported in 2000 (5) SCC 113, decided on 27.04.2000, in which, it was stated as follows:- “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 a murder which is an accident, depends on the proximity of the cause of such murder. In our opinion, if the dominent 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.” 6. The learned counsel argued that since the case was a pre-planned, cold-blooded murder, it does not come under the category of accident and hence, the claim was not payable. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has drawn attention to an order passed by this Commission in Maya Devi vs. LIC of India (supra), in which the case Rita Devi & Ors. vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (supra) has been referred, saying that there was no conclusive proof that the life assured had illicit relations with the woman in question. It was not clear whether the life assured had gone on his own to meet the culprits, or he had been called by them to his place. In fact, the life assured just went missing on 05.01.2007 and later on, his dead body was recovered. The motorcycle and cell phone of the life assured were also recovered later on. The learned counsel argued that the orders passed by the consumer fora below were in accordance with law and should be upheld. 8. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. 9. The main point for consideration in the present case is whether the accidental benefit under the policies in question is payable to the heirs of the deceased policy holder or not. In this regard, it shall be worthwhile to quote the relevant clause of the policies issued by the LIC. Clause 10(b) of the policy reads as follows:- “10(b) Death of the life assured - To pay an additional sum equal to the Death Benefit under this policy, if the Life Assured shall sustain any bodily injury resulting solely and directly from the accident caused by outward, violent and visible means and such injury shall within 180 days of its occurrence solely, directly and independently of all other causes result in the death of the life assured. However, such additional sum payable in respect of all the policies taken under this plan and under Bima Kiran Plan (Table No. 111) on the same life to which this benefit will apply shall not exceed Rs. 5,00,000/-. The Corporation shall not be liable to pay the additional sum referred in (a) or (b) above, if the disability of the death of the life assured shall - i) be caused by intentional self-injury, attempted suicide, insanity or immortality or whilst the life assured is under the influence of intoxicating liquor,
drug or narcotic or....... …………………... iv) result from the life assured committing breach of law, or..........” …………………. 10. A perusal of the above conditions in the policy shows that it specifically provides that if the life assured sustains any bodily injury, resulting solely and directly from the accident caused by outward, violent and visible means, which result in the death of the life assured, heirs could be entitled to get accidental benefits. It is to be seen, therefore, whether in the case of murder, where bodily injury is caused by outward, violent and visible means resulting in the death, amounts to an accident or not. It is manifestly clear, however, that the exclusion clauses as mentioned above will not be applicable in the present case, as there is no evidence that the death was caused by intentional self-injury, attempted suicide etc. or any breach of law had been committed by the life assured. Further, it has been stated in the Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol.-25, page 311, para 575, 4th Edition (2003 reissue) as under:- “575. Injury caused by a wilful act. An injury caused by the wilful or even criminal act of a third person, provided the insured is not a party or privy to it, is to be regarded as accidental for the purpose of the policy, since from the insured’s point of view, it is not expected or designed. Injuries sustained by gamekeeper in a criminal attack upon him by poachers, by a chashier who was murdered by a robber, and by a master at an industrial school who was murdered by the boys, have been held to be accidental. However, if the immediate cause of the injury is the deliberate and wilful act of the insured himself, there would seem to be no accident, and no claim will lie under the policy, at any rate if the insured is not mentally disordered at the time of his act.” 11. The facts in the present case indicate that the life assured went missing on 05.01.2007 and that his dead body was recovered on 18.04.2007. The Circle Inspector of Police carried out investigation into the matter and prepared charge sheet, a copy of which has been placed on record. It has been stated in the said charge sheet as follows:- “The deceased had extra marital relations with A2/Sange Geeta, which was disliked by the A1/Sridhar. The deceased often used to visit A2 Geeta for having sex with her. The A1 Sridhar disliked the same and he used to warn the deceased not to come to A2. The deceased did not heed to the warnings of A1 and more often he used to visit the house of A2. The A1 and A2 conspired to kill the deceased for committing theft of his belongings and to withdraw amounts from his Bank accounts through his ATM cards. The A1 and A2 constructed a temporary bathroom basically without light and ventilation. On 5/1/07, by confining the deceased into the bathroom, subjected the LPG gas resulting in his death. Later, after committing theft of the belongings of the deceased, they concealed the body in the manhole of Septic Tank and fled away with the stolen booty by screening the evidence.” 12. It is stated in the charge sheet that the life assured had extra martial relations with Sange Geeta and he used to visit her often. It is also stated that the said Sange Geeta and her husband K. Sridhar conspired to kill him, with intention of committing theft of his belongings. They constructed a temporary bathroom without light and ventilation, in which the deceased was confined and subjected to LPG gas resulting in his death. The said charge sheet must have been submitted before a Court of competent criminal jurisdiction and the outcome of the case can be known only, after the decision of the trial Court. However, in the present case, it is to be determined, whether such an action on the part of the accused, resulting in murder, comes within the definition of accident or not. In the order made by this Commission in Maya Devi vs. LIC of India (supra), it has been brought out that, “even the wilful murder” of the life assured is an accident, so far as the victim is concerned. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in their judgment in Smt. Rita Devi & Ors. vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., (supra), have laid down that the difference between a murder, which is an accident and a murder, which is not an accident, depends on the proximity of the cause of such murder. In the present case, as brought out in the charge sheet, the felonious act was the commitment of theft of the belongings of the deceased and in the process, the life assured was killed. It is not clear, therefore, whether the accused had originally intended to kill the deceased, or the murder was caused in furtherance of the felonious act. Going by the ratio of the judgment in Smt. Rita Devi & Ors. vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (supra), it is stated that the murder under the circumstances comes under the category of accident, as it was in furtherance of a felonious act. Moreover, it is clear from the factual position of the case that the life insured went to the culprits on his own and his dead body was discovered after more than three months. There is no conclusive proof, therefore, that there was a pre-planned intention to kill the life assured. 13. In the light of the discussion above, it is held that the concurrent findings given by the consumer fora below are based on a correct appreciation of the factual and legal position of the case. However, there seems to be an apparent error in the compensation awarded by the District Forum, which has awarded Rs. 8 lakhs, whereas as per the provisions of clause 10(b) of the policy, the maximum amount including all policies cannot exceed Rs. 5 lakhs. Therefore, we order that the figure of Rs. 8 lakhs in the order of District Forum shall be replaced by Rs. 5 lakhs. The order of the District Forum stands modified accordingly and this order should be complied by the petitioner Insurance Company within six weeks of passing of this order. 14. The Revision Petition stands disposed of in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. |
