Back
UTTARAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DEHRADUN
D.S. Tripathi, President and Udai Singh Tolia, Member-II
Smt. Madhvi Bisht —Appellant
versus
Branch Manager, Canara Bank and Anr. —Respondents
First Appeal No.09 of 2015
Decided on 8.4.2022
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Sh. Pradeep Bartwal, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1:Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2:Sh. Suresh Gautam, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINTS
(i) Breach of law – there is no evidence on record to prove that the life assured was having any arm without license at the time when the incident happened and the life assured was murdered. Thus, it can not be said that the life assured had committed breach of any law.
(ii) Gang war – Injuries – If a gang war takes place between the two parties, there is every possibility that the other party / accused person(s) shall also receive injuries in the incident. There is no evidence on record to establish that the accused persons had received injuries in the incident.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.15[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.41] – Penal Code, 1860 – S.302 – Services – Banking Insurance – personal accident insurance cover – Repudiation of claim on the ground that breach of law with criminal intent by the life assured – Appeal Against order of District Commission – Whether there was a criminal history of the life assured and there was a breach of law – As far as breach of law with criminal intent by the life assured by departing from his house to purchase an arm without license is concerned, no doubt if a person possess an arm without a valid license issued by the competent authority, it will amount to breach of law under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1878, but it is not borne out from the record that the life assured had purchased an arm before his murder. It is also not borne out from the record that any arm was recovered from the vehicle, in which the life assured – Hence, there is no evidence on record to prove that the life assured was having any arm without license at the time when the incident happened and the life assured was murdered. Thus, it can not be said that the life assured had committed breach of any law. Further, there is no evidence on record to establish that the life assured was having any criminal intent to commit any offence at the time, when he was murdered – If a gang war takes place between the two parties, there is every possibility that the other party / accused person(s) shall also receive injuries in the incident. There is no evidence on record to establish that the accused persons had received injuries in the incident. Further, there is no iota of evidence available on record to prove that gang war took place between the life assured; his companion and accused persons – Therefore, life assured did not commit any breach of law with criminal intent and the claim is not hit by exclusion clause No. 1(e) of the insurance policy. The findings recorded by learned District Commission on this score are perverse, insurance company is directed to pay the insured amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs Only) to the appellant. [Paras 12 to 15]
Result: Appeal allowed.
ORDER
D.S. Tripathi, President.—This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 20.12.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nainital (in short “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 06 of 2013; Smt. Madhvi Bisht Vs. Branch Manager, Canara Bank and another, whereby the consumer complaint filed by the appellant – complainant has been dismissed.
2. Facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are that according to the consumer complaint, during his lifetime, late Sh. Rajendra Singh Bisht, the deceased husband of the complainant – Smt. Madhvi Bisht, had taken a housing loan from respondent No. 1 – bank, who had got the loanee insured with the respondent No. 2 – insurance company under Uni Home Care Policy, wherein the loanee was provided personal accident insurance cover to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-. On 05.09.2011, the life assured (deceased husband of the complainant) and Sh. Amit Arya were going to Chandigarh along with one Sh. Laxman Singh alias Lucky Commando and the life assured had told the complainant that he will come back within 2-3 days’. On 06.09.2011, the complainant received intimation to the effect that in vehicle No. UK04-G-3308, the dead body of the life assured and Sh. Amit Arya is lying, whereupon the complainant along with her relatives visited the spot and after performing last rites, the complainant submitted the entire documents with the respondents on 18.11.2011 and lodged claim for the insured amount. The insurance company through letter dated 29.08.2012 sought information regarding license in respect of purchase of revolver by the life assured, which was not at all warranted. After expiry of sufficient period, the claim was not settled. The respondents have resorted to deficiency in service. Thus, consumer complaint was instituted before the District Commission.
3. The bank filed written statement before the District Commission, wherein it was averred that it has wrongly been impleaded as party to the consumer complaint. No cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant against the bank. The liability to pay the amount of personal accident insurance cover of the life assured is not that of the bank.
4. The insurance company filed written statement before the District Commission, thereby pleading that on 06.09.2011, Sh. Jaman Singh, maternal uncle (Mama) of the life assured, had lodged an F.I.R. with the P.S. Bhowali, to the effect that his nephew – life assured along with his friend Sh. Amit Arya had gone to Chandigarh by vehicle No. UK04-G-3308 for purchasing a revolver and had taken sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- from the house. On the next day, both the said persons were found dead in the car within the vicinity of P.S. Bhowali. Sh. Lucky Commando had murdered his nephew as well as his friend. On the basis of the said report, case was registered against the accused person under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and charge-sheet was submitted before the court. The insurance company through letter dated 29.08.2012 asked for submitting the certified copy of license issued by the competent authority for purchase of revolver by the life assured, which was not submitted by the complainant and, as such, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 26.09.2012. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, if the life assured had committed any breach of law with criminal intent, the insurance company is not liable to pay any amount. No deficiency in service has been committed by the insurance company by repudiating the claim.
5. After giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, the consumer complaint has been dismissed by learned District Commission vide impugned judgment and order dated 20.12.2014. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant – complainant has preferred the instant appeal.
6. We have heard rival arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7.
