MANGLA DEVI Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, reversing the decision of the District Forum.

(2.) BRIEFLY stating the facts were that the husband of the petitioner was working in M/s. J.K. Cement Works, Nimbhahera run by M/s. J.K. Cement Works. He was covered under group insurance policy of workmen in the said J.K. Cement Works. Mr. Bagduram Sharma, the deceased husband of the petitioner, under the said policy, was insured against accidental risk. The case of the complainant was that her husband was returning after performing his duties in the said factory at about 10.00 p.m. in the night intervening between 12th and 13th September, 1984. At that time there was some trouble taking place between workmen and its management relating to certain demands of the workmen. During this agitation, the police fired a gun shot which hit the petitioners husband who died as a consequence thereof.

(3.) THE matter was taken up with the Insurance Company who found that a criminal case has been registered by police for various offences and had filed a charge -sheet in the Criminal Court. The respondent No. 2, J.K. Cement Works took the plea that the death of Bagduram Sharma did not take place during the course of employment, while performing his duties, but because he participated in the agitation along with the other striking workers, so that he was not entitled to any insurance amount. The Insurance Company filed its version before the District Forum and they stated that the J.K. Cement Works submitted its claim on 12th March, 1985 but the Insurance Company came to the conclusion that the death of Bagduram Sharma had resulted from his committing breach of law with criminal intent. Therefore, there was no liability of the Insurance Company under Exception No. 5 in the terms and conditions of the Group Insurance Policy. The Insurance Company ultimately repudiated the claim on 3rd February, 1987. The letter dated 3rd February, 1987 was, however, addressed to M/s. J.K. Cement Works and not to the complainant who went on corresponding with the Insurance Company and even on 29th May, 1991. The Insurance Company wrote to the complainant that the matter was under consideration. It is stated that having received the letter of the complainant dated 16th May, 1991, and that the regional office was asking for information from its connected office and they were instructing the concerned office to take urgent action on the pending claim and that it was accepted that the complainant will receive satisfactory reply from the concerned office. This letter dated 29th May, 1991 clearly indicates that the complainants claim was still under active consideration. The complaint was filed on 27th January, 1993. The above facts clearly indicate that the matter was still being discussed between the Insurance Company and the widow of the insured, and that these circumstances should not have been ignored and a technical view should not have been taken by the State Commission in dismissing the complaint as time barred. All accused persons who were alleged to have been involved in the unlawful act have since been discharged as no case could be proved against them. At the time of hearing it was not disputed by Counsel for the Insurance Company before us that it was in the course of employment. In the light of this, the State Commission should have refrained from reversing the order of the District Forum. We accordingly, set aside the impugned order and uphold the order of the District Forum and the said order shall be complied within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Revision Petition allowed.