1. -THE above appeal is filed as against the order dated 24. 2. 2005 passed by the District Forum, Chennai (South) in OP. No. 814/2004. The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant before District Forum.
2. THE complaint is filed by raising the contentions as follows: the complainant''s son late Mr. Jose Philip has insured his life with the opposite party by taking Janata Gramin Personal Accident Policy. The sum assured is for Rs. 2 lakh. The complainant is the nominee of the said policy. On 22. 5. 2002, when the insured was proceeding to his office in a motorcycle at Annasalai, he was killed by a group of persons in furtherance of unlawful object and gain. The insured died with multiple injuries. The complainant being a nominee, lodged a claim with the opposite party on 5. 8. 2002. In spite of the production of all the documents, her claim was not settled. In the meanwhile, the persons who were charged with the murder were acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Poonamallee in SC No. 616/2003, vide judgment dated 1. 6. 2004. Under the said circumstances, the complaint is filed seeking a direction to the opposite party to settle the claim amount with adequate compensation and cost.
The opposite party resisted the complaint on the ground that the insured is died out of murder and simplicity and it cannot be equated to a death in course of accident. It cannot be considered that the insured is died due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle. It is further contended that there is a difference between "murder", "which is not an accident" and the accident has to be decided with regard to the proximity of the cause of such murder.
The District Forum rejected the contentions of the opposite party and allowed the complaint by placing reliance upon two decisions as referred hereunder.
(a) It is held in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. Ummadi Shankunthala and Ors. Reported in I (2005) ACC 112 that "the repudiation of claim is unjustified as the murder which is an unexpected event, has to be construed as a stand point of the victim and as such the same has to be construed as accident,
(b) It is held in Rita Devi and Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. , reported in IV (2000) SLT 179=ii (2000) ACC 291 (SC) that "the claimants are entitled to compensation without having wrongful act or negligent or default of anyone". In the light of the above decisions, the District Forum has allowed the Complaint, against which the present appeal is filed.
3. THE learned Counsel for appellant has mainly contended that the Hon''ble Supreme Court, in its decision rendered in Rita Devi and Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra), while dealing with the question of death of an auto driver, which occurred consequent to selling of the said autorickshaw, has made a clear distinction in a murder simplicity and an accident. The learned Counsel appellant placed much reliance upon the observations of the Supreme Court:
" A cojoint reading of the above two sub-clauses of Section 163a shows that a victim or his heirs are entitled to claim from the owner/insurance Company a compensation for death or permanent disablement suffered due to accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle (emphasis supplied) without having to prove wrongful act or neglect or default of any one. Thus it is clear, if it is established by the claimants that the death or disablement was caused due to an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle then they will be entitled for payment of compensation. In the present case, the contention of the Insurance Company which was accepted by the High Court is that the death of the deceased was not caused by an accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle. Therefore, we will have to examine the actual legal import of the words ''death due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle''. The question therefore is, can murder be an accident 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 killing. But there are also instances where murder can be by 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 case of such murder. In our opinion, if the dominant intention of the act of felony is to kill any particular person then such killing is not an accidental murder but is a murder simplicitor, while if the cause of murder or act or murder was originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of any other felonious act then such murder is an accidental murder. "
In the light of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the claim petition ought to have been rejected.
4. PER contra, the learned Counsel for respondent placed several other decisions. Even though all the decisions cited by the Counsel for the respondent/complainant are referable to the decisions passed by other State Commissions and in none of those cases the judgment of the Supreme Court cited by the appellant viz. Rita Devi and Others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , was not relied upon.
An unreported decision of the Hon''ble National Commission, New Delhi in RP No. 2824/2007 dated 21. 5. 2008 was placed before this Commission to substantiate the contentions of the complainant. A perusal of the said decision discloses that the relevant terms of the policy is identical case on hand. The relevant portion of the policy as follows:
"10 (b ). Death of the life assured-To pay an additional sum equal to the Death Benefit under this policy, if the Life Asurance shall sustain any bodily injury resulting solely and directly from the accident caused outward, violent and visible means and such injury shall within 180 days of its occurrence solely, directly and independently of all other causes result in the death of the life assured. However, such additional sum payable in respect of al the policies taken under this plan and under Bima Kiran Plan (Table No. 111) on the same life to which this benefit will apply shall not exceed Rs. 5,00,000. "
After extracting the above, the Hon''ble National Commission has further observed that there is no exclusion clause in the said policy by excluding the death due to murder for any reason. According to the National Commission, in the absence of exclusion clause, the complainant cannot be deprived of the accidental benefit.
5. IN view of the fact that the Hon''ble National Commission has allowed the claim of the complainant in identical case, wherein the judgment of the Apex Court in Rita Devi''s case referred supra is also considered, we are constrained to dismiss the above appeal. However considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to modify the interest of 9% p. a. , to 7. 5% p. a. , from 11. 7. 2003 till the date of payment with cost of Rs. 1,000.
6. ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is dismissed with the direction to the appellant/opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 as claimed with interest @ 7. 5% p. a. , from 11. 7. 2003, till the date of payment with cost of Rs. 1,000.
The appeal is disposed of in above terms. Appeal dismissed.
