JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The deceased Shanker, husband of the complainant was employed with a mining company and by virtue of the said employment, he was member of a Group Janta Personal Accident Policy, which covered his life in the case of death except by suicide. The deceased Shanker having died in a train incident on 23.07.2002, the complainant lodged a claim with the petitioner Company for payment in terms of the insurance policy under which her husband was covered. The claim, however, was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that the deceased had committed suicide and therefore, no benefit under the insurance policy was payable to the complainant.
2. Being aggrieved, she preferred a complaint before the concerned District Forum. The I n s u r a n c e C o m p a n y r e m a i n e d ex-parte before the District Forum, which decided against it vide order dated 30.08.2006. On an appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the matter was remanded back to the District Forum. Even thereafter, the Insurance Company did not put in appearance before the said Forum. The District Forum, vide its order dated 15.10.2007, dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant had not filed the repudiation letter dated 17.05.2004, issued by the Insurance Company. Being aggrieved the complainant approached the concerned State Commission, by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 02.05.2011, the State Commission allowed the said appeal. Being aggrieved from the order of the State Commission, the Insurance Company is before us by way of this revision petition.
3. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the State Commission, would show that during the course of hearing, the Insurance Company took the plea that the deceased having committed suicide, no claim was payable to him in terms of the insurance policy by which he was covered. Therefore, the only question which arises for our consideration in this matter is as to whether the deceased had died in a train accident or he had committed suicide before a train.
4. It can hardly be disputed that the onus was upon the Insurance Company to prove that the deceased had committed suicide either by coming in front of a moving train or by lying on a railway track or in some other manner involving the train. No eye witness was found by the investigator, appointed by the Insurance Company, who may have seen the deceased jumping before a train or lying on a railway track or otherwise committing suicide before a train. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has drawn our attention to the Panchnama dated 23.07.2002, prepared by the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station. The aforesaid Panchnama to the extent it is relied, reads as under:- We panchas are of the opinion that apparently the deceased Shanker Vishwakarmas body was cut down by train and this was the cause of his death. Even though we know the cause of death but we agree that post mortem must be done on the body of deceased Shanker Vishwakarma to ascertain the cause of death. Opinion of the panchas is that:- Shanker Vishwakarma committed suicide. I also agree with the opinion of the panchas. But to know the cause of death it is necessary to get the autopsy of his body. It would be seen from a careful scrutiny of the aforesaid extracts that the Panchas had not expressed any opinion stating therein that the deceased had committed suicide. They only stated that the body had been cut down by train and that was the cause of his death. The police officer wrongly recorded to the effect that in the opinion of Panchas, deceased Shanker had committed suicide.
5. In any case, neither the opinion of the Panchas nor the opinion of the police officer could have established that the deceased had committed suicide. There is absolutely no expert evidence on record to prove that the wounds found on the dead body of the deceased could have come only in a case where suicide was committed either by coming in front of a moving train or by lying on a railway track. There is no medical opinion that such wounds could not have come in case a person crossing a railway track was hit by a moving train and his body was cut by the said train. Since the onus was upon the Insurance Company to prove that the deceased had committed suicide, it was for the said Company to produce satisfactory evidence of the alleged suicide. Since no such evidence has been produced, it would be difficult for us to accept the theory that the deceased had committed suicide.
6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no good ground to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission. We accordingly direct the petitioner Company to pay the amount payable under the insurance policy taken by the deceased, alongwith interest on that amount @ 8% per annum w.e.f. three months from the date of submission of the claim till the date of payment. The petitioner shall write a letter to the complainant apprising her of this order. The payment shall be made as and when the complainant approaches the Insurance Company for this purpose. If the complainant does not approach the Insurance Company within three months of dispatch of the said letter, for payment in terms of this order, the said amount shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit in her name and as and when the complainant approaches the Insurance Company, the proceeds of the FDR including the interest on the principal amount comprised in the FDR shall be paid to her. The amount shall initially be kept in an FDR for one year, which shall be got renewed from time to time for seven years. If the complainant does not approach to the Insurance Company during seven years from today, the said Company shall be entitled to cancel the FDR and utilise its amount. The revision petition stands disposed of. ......................J
V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA MEMBER