Branch Manager, LIC of India vs ZAREENA SULAIMAN

THIS is a Revision Petition against the order dated 11th October, 1993 in A.P. No. 200 of 1993 on the file of the State Commission, Tamil Nadu at Madras.

THE respondent''s (complainant''s) husband was a Professor in the Medical College, Tirunelveli. He had taken a Double Accident Benefit Policy with the Revision Petitioner Opposite Party Life Insurance Corporation of India, the policy amount being Rs. 50,000/and in the case of death in an accident, the amount payable being doubled viz. Rs. 1 lakh. THE husband of the complainant met with a motor accident on 21st July, 1990 and he died as a consequence. THE widow had to seek relief from the District Forum, Turunelveli to recover the policy amount of Rs. 50,000/-. THEreafter she filed a second complaint maintaining that it was only after receiving the amount of Rs. 50,000/under the policy that she came to know that the policy was also a Double Accident Benefit Policy and that she was entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 1 lakh. She therefore, filed a second complaint for the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/alongwith interest thereon. The Revision Petitioner LIC resisted the claim of double accident benefit on the ground that after having filed one complaint and received the policy amount, the widow was not entitled to file another complaint for compensation in the light of the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC or for that amount under the Double Accident Benefit Policy. Secondly it was maintained that the deceased was under the influence of liquor when the accident took place and this vitiated the Double Accident Benefit Policy. Clause 10 of the policy reads as under: "The Corporation shall not be liable to pay additional sum equal to the sum assured if the death of the life assured shall be caused whilst the life assued is under the influence of intoxicating liquor...."

After hearing Counsel and going through the records, we consider that the Revision Petition has to be allowed. It is a well settled principle of law that one cannot agitate same cause of action before a Court of law or other ad indicating Forum after it has already been adjudicated upon earlier. This is the basis for the relevant provisions under the CPC which embody a sound principle of law to obviate multiplicity of litigation. Even though the Consumer Forums are not governed by all the provisions of the CPC yet the sound principles of the law and procedure embodied in that Code are followed by the Forums.

CONSEQUENTLY, second complaint filed on the same cause of action was not maintainable when the respondent-complainant had previously filed a complaint based on her rights under the policy of Insurance and had been awarded the amount under that Policy. The Revision Petitioner-Insurance Company had also bonafide grounds to reject the double accident benefit claim because, in their opinion, the contract of insurance was vitiated by the fact that the deceased was under the influence of liquor at the time of accident. Even if it is held that the death was not caused by liquor and intoxication was not a contributory factor in the death of the person concerned it cannot be said that in repudiating the double accident claim benefit the Revision Petitioner Insurance Company had committed a deficiency in service.

CONSEQUENTLY, there has been improper exercise of jurisdiction by the State Commission and the District Forum. The Revision Petition is allowed, the orders of the State Commission and the District Forum are set aside. There is no order as to costs. Revision petition allowed.