The presence of a visible injury on the body is not necessary for an insurance policy covering accidental death to apply.

Nagendra Rai and R.S.Garg JJ.

1. This order shall dispose of L.P.A. Nos. 241 and 855 of 2002.

2. Though the said writ applications have been disposed of by different Honble Judges under separate orders but as the questions raised in each of the writ application are identical and require the interpretation of the identical phrase on almost similar facts, we are disposing of both the appeals.

3. L.P.A. No. 241 of 2002 arises out of C.W.J.C. No. 11174 of 2001 disposed of on 8.1.2002 while L.P.A. No. 855 of 2002 arises out of C.W.J.C. No. 7445 of 2002 disposed of on 1.7.2002.

4. In each of the matter, interpretation of the words

"the insurance is entitled to provide for payment of compensation in the event of death only resulting solely and directly from accident caused by external, violent and any other visible means"

, and the phrase

"the insured shall sustain any bodily injury resulting solely and directly from accident caused by external, violent and visible means"

is involved.

5 Though before learned single Judge certain facts were disputed but learned counsel for each of the appellants now did not challenge the facts but, however, confined their arguments to the legal question only. According to each of the appellants, the claimants were not entitled to any compensation because the death was not accidental or in any case the death did not result solely and directly from accident caused by external, violent and any other visible means.

6. It is contended before us that in each of the matter, the deceased did not suffer any visible injury, therefore, and as the death appears to be natural or at best as a result of some shock which cannot be said to be the result of an accident, the claimants would not be entitled to any compensation. The claimants on the other hand, submitted before us that Honble single Judges have properly appreciated the legal issues and after taking into consideration the present law and order situation of this State especially the fact relating to booth capturing and intimidation faced by the election officers, the polling officers, etc., were justified in awarding the compensation.

7. In each of the matter the insured was a Government servant who was assigned the election duty. The Election Commission much before assigning the duties had entered into insurance agreement with different companies; Memorandum of understanding was recorded and a good fortune was paid to the insurance companies for issuing the policy covers/accident covers. In each of the matter, the death of the insured Government servant, the claims were lodged but in each of the case the insurance company repudiated the claim and refused to make the payment, inter alia, observing that the death was not an accidental death and was not covered under the terms of the policy. It is contended before us that in the absence of any violent or any external injury or any visible injury or any violent injury leading to death, the accident policy would not become operative and the learned single Judge in each of the case was wrong in awarding the compensation.

8. The question of jurisdiction of the High Court in a matter of insurance claim was raised before the learned single Judge but after some arguments before us was abandoned and the counsel for the appellants simply submitted that they wanted an authoritative pronouncements from this court interpreting the above referred phrase that

"the policy would become operative in the event of death only resulting solely and directly from accident caused by external, violent and any other visible means".

9. The first case on the present subject relating to the liability of insurance is in Landress V/s. Phoenix Mut. L. Ins. Co., (1933) 291 US 491. In the said matter a distinction was drawn between accidental result/death and accidental means. That was a case of death by sunstroke. The insured while playing golf succumbed to the heat and died. His beneficiary claimed the compensation under the policy