Back
2010(2) CPR 415
U.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUCKNOW
Bhanwar Singh, President and Mrs. Rachna, Member
State of U.P. and Ors. —Appellants
versus
Meera —Respondent
Appeal No. 728 of 2009
Decided on 22.12.2009
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. Manoj Mohan, Advocate.
Fr the Respondent:Mr. R.D. Kranti, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Burden to prove complaint case lay upon the complainants and lack of positive rebuttal may not acquire the proof of evidence.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(g), 15—Deficiency in service—Non-payment of insurance amount—Husband of claimant No. 1 died while on election duty—Cause of death not known—Post-mortem report not indicating any injury on his body—Terms of the insurance policy providing for payment of insurance claim on death resulting from violence—No evidence to demonstrate that the deceased was victim of some violence—Benefit of insurance cover cannot be made available to claimants—Complaint dismissed. (Paras 6 to 9)
Bhanwar Singh, President—This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.8.2008 of the District Consumer Forum, Lalitpur whereby the complaint of the respondents Smt. Meera and others was allowed with a direction to the State Government to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 in accordance with the terms and conditions of its agreement with the Insurance Company. While issuing the mandate, a default clause was also incorporated whereby it was postulated that in case the payment was not made within two months, interest @ 12% per annum would be payable. The complaint case, as pleaded by the complainants, was that late Sri Ram Charan a Homeguard, the husband of Smt. Meera and the father of the other complainants was deputed for an election duty from 22.4.2004 to 11.5.2004 and during this period he was asked to be present at the Police Chowki, Nai Basti of Lalitpur District. Sri Ram Charan was found dead in the morning of May 9, 2004. The Government paid to his family members from Homeguard Welfare Fund a sum of Rs. 50,000 but the family members of the late Homeguard were not satisfied with the said meagre financial aid, therefore, they had filed their complaint for recovery of Rs. 2,50,000 as the insurance amount on account of late Sri Ram Charan being killed on election duty.
2. The Insurance Company was not impleaded in the array of opposite parties. However, the Government contested the complaint on the ground that the cause of death of Sri Ram Charan could not be known, therefore, the complainants were not entitled for the insurance claim, although it was not disputed that Sri Ram Charan was on duty during elections.
3. The I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company had entered into an agreement with the Government to pay the insurance claim in respect of the accidental death which could have taken place during elections provided such death was the direct result of violence.
4. It is not disputed that Sri Ram Charan was on election duty in the Police Chowki, Nai Basti of Lalitpur. He was found dead in the morning hours of May 9, 2004 and while being on duty he had the status of a Homeguard.
5. A crucial question which arises before us is as to whether the legal heirs of the deceased would be entitled to claim the insurance money merely because he died on duty or the condition precedent for payment of such claim was his accidental death following violence?
6. We have perused the relevant record before us. The F.I.R. paper No.24 and post-mortem report paper No.25 are absolutely silent about the cause of death of the Homeguard. As is recited in the FIR his dead body was found lying on the floor of the gallery of the police outpost. His death had possibly occurred between 5.30 and 6.30 a.m. but how he died could not be ascertained. The post-mortem report does not indicate any injury on his body nor cause of death was discernible. In other words, there is no document available on record to lead us to the conclusion that the death of Sri Ram Charan could possibly have occurred on account of some known reason. The appellants have filed before us extract of part 2 of schedule of the insurance policy. The scope of the insurance cover postulates as follows:
“The policy shall cover death, permanent disability and partial disability, resulting solely and directly from accident caused, by violent, external and visible means independent of any other cause, arising out of and in course of elections whilst discharging the election duties.”
7. The above quoted provisions clearly prove that a death resulting from violence would bring an insurance claim within the ambit of the insurance policy. In other words, a simple death may not fetch the result insofar as the insurance claim is concerned. And, there cannot be a presumption that some violent act had caused the death of late Sri Ram Charan. It is clearly recited in the policy that death should result directly from accident caused by violent, external and visible means. In the ca
