The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Subhadrabai Sahebrao Gaike

Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the judgement and award passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in consumer complaint No.158/2004 decided on . The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directed the Insurance18/11/2005 Company/appellant herein to pay an amount of ` 1 Lakh to complainant No.1 with interest @ 6% p.a. from . Aggrieved by this, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal.10/07/2003

2. The undisputed facts are that husband of respondent No.1 is resident of Tal. Vijapur, Dist. Aurangabad had taken some loan from Bhivgaon Village Co-operative Credit Society and said Credit Society had taken insurance cover for all its depositors or loanee and therefore, deceased husband of complainant No.1 Sahebrao Rangnath Gaike was also covered under the same policy purchased by Aurangabad District Central Co-operative Bank, Aurangabad. Late Sahebrao R. Gaike died in an accident on . Claim was filed through the Bank with the Insurance20/02/2002 Company on . Claim was repudiated on the ground that the death was not due to08/04/2002 accident, but it was due to inhaling of poison at the time of spraying insecticide on the crop in his field. Therefore, widow of the deceased had filed consumer complaint claiming amount of ` 1 Lakh under the Janata Personal Accident Policy.

3. The Insurance Company filed written version and denied the contention of the complainant and accordingly, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim on . Deceased husband10/07/2003 of the complainant committed suicide was the stand taken by the Insurance Company in the written version. The Insurance Company empathetically pleaded that deceased did not die because of accidental death, but it was suicide committed by him. Therefore, claim was not payable.

4. Upon hearing both the parties through their Counsels and after perusal of documents placed on record, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum held that deceased had died because of accident and not because of commission of suicide. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum held that it was the duty of the Insurance Company to prove by adducing cogent evidence that deceased was died because of suicide. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum noted that the deceased was spraying insecticide on the crop in his field and at that time due to accident he had inhaled poison and died because of inhaling of the insecticide accidentally. Therefore, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay an amount of ` 1 Lakh to the complainant No.1 with interest @ 6% p.a. from . As such Insurance Company has filed this appeal.10/07/2003

5. We heard Mr.H.G. Misar, Advocate for the appellant. None is present for the respondent Nos.1&2.

6. We are finding that the documents on record are clearly pointing out that deceased was died because of inhaling poison accidentally when he was spraying insecticide on the crop in his field. There is nothing on record to show that deceased had died because of suicide as contended by Advocate Mr.Misar for the appellant. We asked Advocate Mr.Misar what are the documents they relied upon to show the suicide committed by deceased husband of complainant No.1. He could not point out any document which supported his theory that deceased had died because of commission of suicide. A person who is in his field spraying insecticide would not consume poison to commit suicide. It was an accidental death and it was so reported to the Police Station concerned. It was registered as accidental death and postmortem revealed that because of inhaling of insecticide, death had occurred. So, there is nothing on record to even remotely suggest that deceased husband of respondent No.1 had committed suicide. Once suicide is ruled out the only available inference is that the deceased had died because of accident and since he was covered with Janata Personal Accident Policy taken by the Credit Society for its depositors and loanee, the deceased was covered under the said policy and under the said policy, Insurance Company is required to pay ` 1 Lakh since it was death because of accident. Those who are covered under the Janata Personal Accident policy, if they died due to accident, 100% amount of the sum assured is payable. Relying on 8 of the written version of the Insurance Company, Para we hold that the Insurance Company is liable to pay ` 1 Lakh as damages to widow of the deceased since he was covered by Janata Personal Accident Policy.

7. Advocate Mr.Misar contended that maximum liability of the Insurance Company in respect of number of such policies in force shall be limited to ` 25,000/- only. However, it is not established by the appellant by adducing any cogent evidence that under various other policies purchased by the Bank, widow of the deceased had received ` 25,000/- under 3 or 4 different policies purchased by the Credit Society for its depositors from various Insurance Companies. Unless that is established this clause cannot be invoked. Thus, there is no substance in the argument advanced before us by Advocate Mr.Misar in this behalf.

8. In this view of the matter, we are finding that there is no substance in the appeal. Appeal filed by the Insurance Company is devoid of any merit. Hence, we pass the following order :- -: ORDER :-

1. Appeal stands dismissed.

2. No order as to costs.

3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. Pronounced . Dated 21 September 2011 st [Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member