Life Insurance Corporation of India vs RAJINDER SINGH

THIS appeal has been filed by Life Insurance Corporation against the impugned order dated 2.6.1998 of District Forum, Sirsa, whereby the complaint has been allowed by directing the opposite party-LIC to make payment of Rs. 30,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of death of Amarjeet Kaur, i.e. 22.4.1991 after furnishing necessary documents by the complainant, if required by the opposite party. The opposite party has also been directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension etc.

THE facts which led to the filing of the complaint are that Amarjeet Kaur wife of Rajinder Singh complainant obtained an insurance policy in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- on 28.10.1990 and while taking the policy she nominated her husband Rajinder Singh as beneficiary under the said policy. Smt. Amarjeet Kaur died on 22.4.1991 at 8.00 p.m. Complainant Rajinder Singh, being nominee of the policy, had submitted the claim with the LIC-opposite party and the opposite party after investigating the matter had repudiated the claim on 18.11.1991 and asked the complainant to receive the premium paid in respect of the insurance policy. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant had approached the District Forum for claiming the following reliefs : (i) For direction to the opposite party for payment of Rs. 30,000/- with interest from the date of issuance of policy till the date of payment. (ii) For compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- on account of harassment etc. caused to the complainant by the irresponsible act of the opposite party.

In the written reply filed by the LIC, it has been alleged that Smt. Amarjeet Kaur died in mysterious circumstances as she is reported to have died when she fell in the canal in the evening due to slipping of scooter. It has further been alleged that no F.I.R. was lodged with the police nor any post-mortem was got done and in the absence of FIR or PMR the death of the deceased was not beyond doubts. It has also been that the insurance of the deceased insured late Smt. Amarjeet Kaur was accepted by the Life Insurance Corporation subject to Clause 4(B) of the insurance policy which reads as under : "Notwithstanding anything within mentioned to the contrary, it is hereby declared and agreed that in the event of death of life assured occurring as a result of intentional self-injury, suicide or attempted suicide, insanity, accident other than an accident in a public place or murder at anytime or after the date on which risk under this policy has commenced but before the expiry of three years from the date of the policy, the Corporation''s liability shall be limited to the sum equal to the total amount of premium (Exclusive of extra amount, if any) paid under the policy without interest."

The Life Insurance Corporation has challenged the impugned order on the ground that death of late Smt. Amarjeet Kaur had occurred at a place other than the public place and Smt. Amarjeet Kaur had died under mysterious circumstances. The Counsel has also argued that under the provisions of Clause 4(B) of the insurance policy, the nominee of the deceased-insured is not entitled to the amount of insurance but only to refund of the premium paid by the insured less the extra premium in terms and conditions of the policy. The claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated by the Corporation. It has also been argued that the District Forum committed illegality in allowing the complaint and issuing direction to the LIC to pay the insured amount alongwith interest.

NOTICE of the appeal was issued and in pursuance of which the respondent has put in appearance through his Counsel. The Counsel for the respondent has contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. The Commission has considered the submissions of the Counsel of both sides and has perused the impugned order. The Commission is of the considered view that death of the insured-Amarjeet Kaur had not occurred at a private place but at a public place, i.e. on the bank of the canal and bank of canal is not a private place, which is open to use for the public. The deceased was a pillion rider and the scooter had slipped and fell in the canal alongwith the pillion rider. This occurence was witnessed by Joginder Singh Lambardar, who had appeared as P.W.3. The complainant has also submitted affidavits of Chand Singh, Ram Singh and Shamsher Singh in which they have deposed that the death of the insured was accidental and occurred at a public place. The appellant-Corporation had failed to prove that the death of the insured was not an accidental and at a private place. In view of the above discussions, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. However, interest awarded @ 18% to the complainant is on the higher side and we reduce it from 18% to 12%. With this modification, the appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.