Mr. Justice D.P.S. Choudhary, President—Appellant is the O.P. (Life Insurance Corporation of India) which has preferred the appeal against the order dated 28.2.2003 passed by District Forum, Bhojpur at Ara in Complaint Case No. 132/2002 directing the appellant to pay the complainant the double accident benefit claim of Rs. one lac with interest thereon @ 9% per annum and further allowed cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

2. The brief fact of the case is that complainant who is widow of the life assured alleged in the complaint petition that her husband was assured under the policy on his life for Rs. one lac. Her husband died while driving a bus on 23.11.2000. He was a bus driver. She made claim with the L.I.C. under the policy but she received the sum assured with bonus after a period of one year but the L.I.C. did not pay the double accident benefit claim in spite of all efforts. Accordingly she filed the complaint and claimed that there is deficiency in service of the L.I.C. and made a claim of Rs. one lac as double accident benefit claim, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation.

3. The O.P. appeared and filed written statement. Its main contention was that from the F.I.R. No. 113/2000 dated 23.11.2000 registered at the instance of one Maheshwar Singh with Charpokhri P.S. it appears that police registered a case under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304, I.P.C. and upon investigation it was found that the bus driver (life assured) was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently which caused the accident. The police submitted final form as there was also a death in the accident. It is also the case of the O.P. that complainant made a delay in submission of the required documents relating to the accident and death of the life assured and upon receipt of the documents, the L.I.C. paid the complainant on 11.2.2003. As per terms of Clause 10 of the policy bond, double accident benefit claim is not payable where the death was caused due to an illegal act committed by the life assured. Since the life assured was charged with rash and negligent driving, therefore it was an illegal act and he was not entitled for the benefit under the double accident benefit scheme. On this ground this part of the claim was repudiated and the complainant was paid Rs. one lac with bonus, which was the amount of insurance.

4. The District Forum after hearing the parties held that most of the fact in the case is admitted. The only point for decision is whether repudiation of the claim of double accident benefit claim of the complainant by the L.I.C. is justified.

5. The complainant’s husband Tej Pratap Singh (life assured) had insurance policy of Rs. one lac with double benefit of accident claim. Admittedly, he died in the bus accident of which he was himself a driver. The District Forum did not accept the contention of the L.I.C. that on the basis of F.I.R. and the final form the complainant is not entitled to get double benefit as per terms of the policy of her husband. Whether he was driving rashly and negligently is a sub judice matter and only on the basis of F.I.R. and final form it was not proper for the L.I.C. to come to the conclusion that there was violation of the Clause 10 of the policy bond. His rash driving will not come under the provision of illegal act as mentioned in Clause 10 of the policy bond. The District Forum accordingly held that repudiation of the claim of this part of the policy is illegal and it amounts to deficiency on the part of the L.I.C.

6. The learned Lawyer appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that double accident benefit is the privilege attached to the policy and is payable upon subjective satisfaction of the O.P. The District Forum did not appreciate the terms of Clause 10 of the policy bond because rash and negligent driving is an illegal act and it was committed by the life assured. The police after investigation submitted final form mentioning that accident was due to negligent an