Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant writ petition has been filed for seeking direction to respondent No.1 to decide the claim arising as a consequence of accidental death of petitioners father and make payment of the claim at the rate of double of the insured amount.

(2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are t hat petitioners father Mahendra Nath Arora had been working with respondent No.2 University and he was a member of Pension and Group Insurance Scheme of respondent No.1-the Life Insurance Corporation of India. He died on 2.11.1990 at Ayodhya Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh, on account of firing made by U.P. Police and other forces deployed by the State to save the Babri Mosque. His family members has been paid the amount of insurance claim to the tune of Rs. 1,01,907/-but petitioners claim is that as per the Terms of the Policy, they were entitled to the sum double of the insured amount and as said amount has not been paid, they have approached this Court.

(3). Respondent-Life Insurance Corporation has filed the reply, according to which the death of the father of petitioner did not occur because of the accident as he died in the police firing at Ayodhya while violating the curfew and in the mob which had demolished the Babri mosque and, thus, the petitioner was not entitled for any compensation due to loss of life of her father because of alleged accidental death, as required under the policy.

(4). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(5). A copy of the First Information Report dated 2.11.90 has been filed by the petitioner herself as Annexure 2 to the petition. The salient features of the F.I.R. had been that on the said date, a large number of persons, as ``Kar Sewaks, came to Ayodhya with determination to ``Do or Die alongwith weapons showing their de-termination to demolish the Babri mosque. They had violated the curfew imposed in the area; demolished the mosque and also shouted the slogan showing hatred towards Muslims etc. and attacked the police force, the Magistrate on the spot ordered for firing and some persons died therein.

(6). Petitioner has not alleged or even contended that the curfew was not im-posed on that date at Ayodhya, nor is it her case that her father had not violated the curfew as there appears to be no such ground in the petition. Her only case is that in all the circumstances it was a case of accidental death and as such her family was entitled to get the sum double of the insured amount. The contention of the respondent Corporation that he did not die of accidental death, has not been rebu-tted by the petitioner by filing rejoinder-affidavit though the reply had been filed more than two years ago. Therefore, the only question left to be determined by this Court remains: whether petitioners father, who had taken the law in his own hand and tried to violate the curfew by becoming a member of the unlawful assembly which demolished the Babri mosque and died in police firing, can be held to have died in accidental death, for the reason that double benefit under the Group Insurance Scheme would be available only if a person died in an accidental death as per the terms of the insurance policy and as there is no rebuttal to the fact that the Corporation had already paid the family of the deceased a sum of Rs. 1,01,907/-long back.

(7). `Accident has not been defined in any Act; but in common parlance or in popular sense, an accident is any unexpected injury resulting from any unlooked-for mishap of occurrence. The House of Lords, in Fenton (Pauper) and J. Thorley & Co., Limited (1) had observed as under:-

``The expression `accident is used in the popular and ordinary sense of the word as denoting an unlooked-for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed.....the word `accident in the statute is to be taken in its popular and ordinary sense.....it denotes or includes any unexpected personal injury .....from any unlooked-for mishap or occurrence.

(8). In

Click Here to Read the rest of this document