MANJARI DESHPANDE vs ISPAT EMPLOYEES CO-OP., CREDIT SOCIETY, BHILAI

APPEAL No. 1039/2003 arises from Complaint No. 288/2001 and APPEAL No.1040/2003 arises from Complaint No. 104/2000. Both these complaints have been disposed of by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called ''District Forum'' for short) by common order dated 8.1.2003. Since in both these appeals common questions are involved, they are being disposed of by this common order.

THE complainant/appellant in both the complaints averred that her husband Late Madhusudan Pandey was an employee of Bhilai Steel Plant. It was further averred that Madhusudan Pandey met with rail accident and died on 16.8.1999 while crossing the railway track. It was further averred by the complainant that the respondent had issued Group Janta Personal Accident Policy in favour of the deceased, which stipulated that the assured sum under the said policy would be payable, in case of accidental death of insured. Hence, according to the complainant/appellant she was entitled to receive the amount payable under the policy. The complaint was resisted on behalf of the respondent/insurer. According to the Madhusudan Pandey committed suicide. It was averred that the risk as above was excluded under the terms of the policy, as per its exclusion clause. Hence the complainant was not entitled to any benefit under the policy.

The District Forum in the impugned order upheld the defence as above of the respondent/insurer and dismissed the complaints. It was held that as the deceased committed suicide, the complainant/appellant was not entitled to the assured amount under the policy.

LEARNED Counsel for the parties were heard and record was perused. It is not in dispute that Group Janta Personal Accident Policy was issued to the deceased by the respondent/insurer in his capacity as an employee of Bhilai Steel Plant and member of Steel Workers Union, Bhilai. It also appears that the deceased Madhusudan Pandey met with an unfortunate end as he was run over by train. According to the complainant it was an accidental death. According to complainant while searching his dog the deceased was crossing the track and met with an accident as he was overrun by train. On the other hand the stand of the respondent/insurer is that the deceased intentionally jumped before the on-rushing train and thus committed suicide.

THE question that, therefore, arises for consideration is as to whether the deceased met with an accidental death or had committed suicide? It may be noticed that the driver of the train Tarachand has been examined by the respondent in the District Forum. The said train driver Tarachand categorically stated that on 16.8.1999 when he was driving train No. 8033 Ahmedabad-Howrah Express and crossed Bhilai Nagar Railway Station, a person came before the running train and jumped resulting in his tragic end. He had informed about the incident to the Station Master, Bhalai Nagar and he had also given the statement to Ramesh Kumar Patel, as per Exhibit D-1 the Investigating Officer Ramesh Mumar Patel had also made an inquiry and had concluded that it was a case of suicide. Thus the Investigating Officer has also supported the version of Tarachand. There are certain paper cuttings which indicate that the deceased Madhusudan Pandey committed suicide by deliberately coming before the train. In view of above, there appears to be cogent and reliable evidence to indicate that the deceased insured himself deliberately came before the train and had thus committed suicide. In view of the above repudiation of the complainant''s claim by the respondent, appears to be bona fide and cannot be brushed aside. In such circumstances the complainant cannot succeed in her complaint.

THE learned Counsel for the complainant/appellant strenuously urged that some other complaints of the complainant regarding the death of the deceased have been allowed with regard to other policies obtained by the deceased. However, from the record it is clear that in the said cases, the driver was not examined and there was no sufficient material in those cases to show that the deceased committed suicide. However, as has been rightly pointed out by the District Forum, each case deserves to be decided independently on the material placed on record. In the instant case as noticed above the respondents have placed unimpeachable material on record, to show that the deceased committed suicide. THErefore, the complainant cannot succeed, merely because award has been passed in other matters, relating to the other policies obtained by the deceased.

ON perusal of the impugned order it is clear that the District Forum after detailed consideration and discussion of the material placed on record, correctly arrived at the finding that the complainant''s husband Madhusudan Pandey having committed suicide, the complainant was not entitled to the benefit under the Group Janta Personal Accident Policy in view of the exclusion clause contained therein which excluded the risk arising from death due to suicide. The complaints, therefore, were rightly dismissed by the impugned orders. The same do not call for any interference. These appeals have no merit. They are accordingly dismissed. Appeals dismissed.