ORIENTAL INSURANCE Company Limited vs Sukhdev Kaur

-SURJIT Singh, husband of Sukhdev Kaur, respondent No. l and father of Hardeep Singh and Harjinder Kaur, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, was the account holder with the Sangrur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. , Branch Kamalpur respondent No. 5. The appellants had issued the Kisan Khatta Credit Holder Insurance Policy Scheme in favour of respondent No. 5 by which all the account holders of the Bank, respondent No. 5 including Surjit Singh were insured with the appellants against death by accident in the sum of Rs. 50,000. Surjit Singh was murdered on 14. 9. 2004. F. I. R. No. 110 under Sections 302/34, IPC was registered in Police Station, District Sangrur. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 lodged the insurance claim with the appellants but it was repudiated by the appellants. Hence, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed the complaint in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short the ''district Forum'' ).

THE appellants filed the written reply. It was admitted that Surjit Singh was insured for a sum of Rs. 50,000 for the period from 3. 11. 2003 to 2. 11. 2004. It was also not denied that said Surjit Singh was murdered on 14. 9. 2004 by Amrik Singh son of Maghi Singh for which a criminal case was registered at Police Station, Dirba. However, it was stated that the death of Surjit Singh was not by an accident. Hence it was pleaded that the repudiation was legal and valid and dismissal of the complaint was prayed. The learned District Forum considered the matter and accepted the complaint with cost of Rs. 1,000 vide impugned order dated 11. 5. 2007. Rs. 3,000 were awarded as compensation and the appellants were directed to make the payment of insurance amount of Rs. 50,000 with interest @ 9% p. a. from the date of complaint i. e. 1. 5. 2006 till the date of payment.

Hence the appeal.

THE submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants was that the death of Surjit Singh was not by an accident, and therefore, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were not entitled to claim the insurance amount. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon''ble Haryana Commission in First Appeal No. 661 of 2005, Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Smt. Omwati, decided on 28. 3. 2007, judgment of Hon''ble National Commission in First Appeal No. 204 of 1999, Prithvi Raj Bhandari v. Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors. , III (2006) CPJ 213 (NC), decided on 10. 5. 2006 and on the judgement of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported as Rita Devi and Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. , II (2000) ACC 291 (SC)=iv (2000) SLT 179=ii (2000) CLT 92 (SC)=2000 ACJ 801. On the other hand, the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent was that since Surjit Singh had not died a natural death and he was killed, therefore, the death was by accident. In support of this submission, reference was made to the judgment of this Commission reported as Bimla Rani Grover v. Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , II (2003) CLT 122 and the judgment of National Commission reported as Manda Savarna v. LIC of India and Ors. , IV (2006) CPJ 135 (NC)=1998 (2) Con. LT 640.

RECORD has been considered. Submissions have been perused. It is not disputed that appellants had issued Kisan Khatta Credit Holder Insurance Policy in the name of respondent No. 5 i. e. Sangrur Central Co-operative Bank, and under the said policy, all the account holders of the bank, respondent No. 5 were insured for a sum of Rs. 50,000 on account of death by way of visible and violent accidental means. It is also not disputed that Surjit Singh (now deceased), husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was an account holder with respondent No. 5 and thereby was insured with the appellants under the said scheme. It is also not disputed that said Surjit Singh was murdered during the subsistence of the said insurance policy on 14. 9. 2004 and a criminal case was got registered for his murder at F. I. R. No. 110 dated 14. 9. 2004 at Police Station Dirba (Annexure A-l ). The dead body of Surjit Singh was subjected to post mortem examination according to which the death of Surjit Singh was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation which was ante-mortem in nature and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. On the face of it, the act of strangulation was an outward visible and violent accidental act which caused the death of Surjit Singh. Obviously it was neither a natural death of Surjit Singh nor it was a suicide. The death of Surjit Singh had taken place due to outward violent and visible means adopted by a third person and over which Surjit Singh had no command and therefore it amounted to death by accident.

THE judgment of the Hon''ble National Commission in Prithvi Raj Bhandari''s case (supra) and the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Rita Devi''s case (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants came up for consideration before the Hon''ble National Commission in the latest judgment in Revision Petition No. 2824 of 2007, Maya Devi v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, III (2008) CPJ 120 (NC), decided on 21. 5. 2008 in which the Hon''ble National Commission was pleased to observe as under: "firstly, it is to be stated that in the case of Rita Devi (supra), the Apex Court considered and interpreted a phrase providing "death due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle". Thereafter, the Court referred to various decisions and arrived at a conclusion that they have no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the deceased, Dashrath Singh, was employed to drive an auto rickshaw for carrying passengers on hire. On the fateful day the auto-rickshaw was parked at auto-rickshaw stand and unknown passengers engaged the said auto-rickshaw for their journey and during that journey, it was alleged that the passengers caused murder of Dashrath Singh. The Apex Court held that death in such case was due to accident. The Court further observed that the difference between ''murder which is not an accident'' and ''murder with is an accident'' depends on the proximity of the cause of such murder. If the cause of murder or act of murder was originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of any felonious act then such murder is an accidental murder arising out of the use of motor vehicle and held that the Insurance Company was liable to reimburse the claimant. The Court referred to the decision in the case of Nisbet v. Rayne and Burn, (1910) 1 KB 689, where a cashier, while travelling in a railway to a colliery with a large sum of money for the payment of his employer''s workmen, was robbed and murdered. The Court of Appeal held that murder was an accident from the standpoint of the person who suffered from it and that it arose ''out of'' an employment which involved more than the ordinary risk and consequently the widow was entitled to compensation under the Workmen''s Compensation Act. Despite the aforesaid two judgments, in the case of Prithvi Raj Bhandari (supra), the Commission observed that ''the important point which required notice was whether murder was an accident would depend upon proximity of cause of such murder'' and held on facts that the complainant has suppressed the fact that various complaints against the deceased were filed under various sections of the IPC, and concluded that there was no doubt that this was a murder by design and intent rather than a case of accidental murder. In our view, the said reasoning cannot be justified by any standard. LIC policy excludes death due to limited causes mentioned in Exclusion clauses under para 10 (b) and, therefore, it is totally irrelevant to find out the background of the deceased. Further, even in case where there is a criminal background of the assured, it would be difficult to hold that his murder was not accidental unless he has taken up the quarrel and that the immediate cause of injury was deliberate and wilful act of the insured himself. "

THE Hon''ble National Commission also discussed the meaning of the word ''accident'' in this judgment as under: "further, in England Law on the subject is settled. In Halsbury''s Laws of England Vol. 25 Pg. 307 Para 569, 4th Edition (2003 reissue), as to the meaning of the word ''accident'', it is stated as under: "569. Meaning of ''accident''. The event insured against may be indicated in the policy solely by reference to the phrase ''injury by accident'' or the equivalent phrase ''accidental injury'', or it may be indicated as ''injury caused by or resulting from an accident''. The word ''accident'', or its adjective ''accidental'', is no doubt used with the intention of excluding the operation of natural causes such as old age, congenital or insidious disease or the natural progression of some constitutional physical or mental defect; but the ambit of what is included by the word is not entirely clear. It has been said that what is postulated is the intervention of some cause which is brought into operation by chance so as to be fairly describable as fortuitous. The idea of something haphazard is not necessarily inherent in the word; it covers any unlooked for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed, or any unexpected personal injury resulting from any unlooked for mishap or occurrence. The test of what is unexpected is whether the ordinary reasonable man would not have expected the occurrence, it being relevant that a person with expert knowledge, for example of medicine, would have regarded it as inevitable. The stand point is that of the victim, so that even wilful murder may be accidental as far as the victim is concerned. "

In view of the judgment of the Hon''ble National Commission, neither the judgment of the Hon''ble National Commission in Prithvi Raj Bhandari''s case (supra) nor the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Rita Devi''s case (supra) are of any assistance to the appellants.

On the other hand, the judgment of this Commission in Bimla Rani Grover''s case (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said judgment, the insured was murdered by a third person by giving a fatta blow and it was held by this Commission that the death of the insured amounted to death by accident. It was held by this Commission as under: "8. It is now to be determined as to whether the injuries caused to Krishan Lal Grover, which resulted into his death were solely and directly the result from accident caused by outward, violent and visible means or it was the result of any breach of law with criminal intent on the part of the deceased. Krishan Lal Grover was given a ''fatta'' blow by Mukhtiar Singh, which resulted into his death. Sh. Krishan Lal Grover did not die of natural causes. He was done to death in a violent manner. The premature termination of life of Krishan Lal Grover took place because of injuries inflicted upon him by Mukhtiar Singh. It cannot be said that the death of Krishan Lal Grover resulted from natural consequences of events in the life of the deceased. His death was caused due to the injuries inflicted on him by Mukhtiar Singh. "

IN the present case also the death of Surjit Singh was caused by Amrik Singh by strangulation which obviously is an outward, violent and visible means and the case is covered by the ratio of law laid down by the Hon''ble National Commission in Maya Devi''s case (supra) and by this Commission in Bimla Rani Grover''s case. In this context, reference may also be made to another judgment of the Hon''ble National Commission reported as Rita Devi @ Rita Gupta v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. , IV (2007) CPJ 355 (NC ). In this case the husband of the appellant had died by cold wave. The Hon''ble National Commission was pleased to hold that it was an accidental death. Keeping in view the discussion made above, the death of Surjit Singh was by accident and respondent No. l to 3 were entitled to the insurance claim. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000.

THE arguments in this case were heard on 27. 5. 2008 and the orders were reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. The appellants have deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000 at the time of filing of appeal with this Commission. This amount along with interest, if any, be remitted by the Registry to respondent No. 1 by way of crossed bank draft/cheque after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants. The balance amount be paid by the appellants to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 immediately. Appeal dismissed.