Neerja Singh, Members:
1. This appeal arises from the order dated 22.1.2010, passed in C.C. No. 128/2009 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajgarh, directing the opposite party to pay the accidental benefit of the policies to the complainant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent husband, Shri Shailendra Gupta (hereinafter referred to as the insured), had three insurance policies, Nos. 351721510, 351721511 and 352331081, for र1 lakh each. The policies also included accidental benefit. The policies were issued by the appellant, Bharatiya Jeevan Bima Nigam (hereinafter referred to as LIC). On 29.11.2006, some miscreant abducted the insured and later killed him. The respondent states that though the LIC paid her the sum insured, the accidental benefit, amounting to र3 lakh for the 3 policies, was not paid. They informed her that the decision would be taken after the decision of the case before the Sessions Court. The decision of the Court, dated 10.9.2008, was sent to the LIC. On 3.11.2008, LIC informed the respondent that the accidental benefit on policy No. 352331081, was not payable, as the murder was not an accident.
3. The appellant LIC stated that the insureds death was a planned murder and was not an accident, so the accidental benefit claimed under the policies is not payable.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed on record.
5. The short point involved in this dispute is whether the murder of the insured could be considered an accidental death. In the judgment of the Sessions Court, filed before us, it has been held that there were monetary dealings between the murder accused and the insured. The insured used to lend money to the accused on interest. The Sessions Court came to the conclusion that probably a dispute arose regarding the settlement of accounts, and in the ensuing scuffle, the insured was killed.
6. In the case of Smt. Rita Devi & Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., II (2000) ACC 291 (SC)=IV (2000) SLT 179=II (2000) CLT 192 (SC)=(2000) 5 SCC 113, the Honble Supreme Court held, "The question, therefore, is, can a murder be an accident in any given case? 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 a killing. But there are also instances where a murder can be an 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 dominant intention of the Act of felony is to kill any particular person then such a 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. This view was again taken by the Honble National Commission in the case of Maya Devi v. LIC of India, III (2008) CPJ 120 (NC), wherein they have cited Halsburys Laws of England, Vol 25, Pg 311 Para 575, 4th Edition, which stipulates that unless the immediate cause of the injury is the deliberate and wilful act of the insured himself the murder would be considered an accident.
8. In the instant case, the insured used to lend money to the accused on interest. Whether the insured went to meet them to demand his money, or they abducted him with the intention of murdering him, by no stretch of imagination can it be said to be an accident, it was the act of the insured himself, which was the immediate cause of the injury. The accused had a motive and sufficient reason to kill him. In our considered view, it is a clear case of murder simplicitor.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed, and the impugned order of the District Forum is set aside. No order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.