LIC OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs. SHAMBHU KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will govern the disposal of R.P. Nos. 143/07 and 152/07 which arise out of similar orders dated 3.10.2006 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan, Jaipur dismissing appeals against identical orders of a District Forum dated 25.9.2004 in Complaint Case Nos. 130/2004 and 131/2004. The District Forum had allowed Complaint Case No. 130/04 with direction to the petitioner to pay amount of Rs. 5 lakh with interest @ 9% p.a. In Complaint Case No. 131/2004 the direction was to pay Rs. 1 lakh with interest at the said rate to the respondent.

(2.) Policy of Rs. 5 lakh was taken on 28.4.2003 while policy of Rs. 1 lakh was purchased on 12.5.2003 by Salman @ Sonu from the petitioner/opposite party. It was alleged that Salman was hit by Roadways bus No. RJ22P 1392 in the intervening night of 9/10.6.03 while going on foot alongwith the cattles purchased, near Tiraha, Rajgarh. He was admitted in a hospital at Sarana and while being taken to Ajmer for treatment he succumbed to injuries on 15.6.2003. On claim under the two policies not being paid, two complaint case Nos. 130/2004 and 131/2004 were filed by the respondent/complainant which were contested by the petitioner Insurance Company mainly on ground of life assured having committed suicide and not having died due to injuries sustained in the accident.

(3.) Main thrust of argument advanced by Mr. Ashok Kashyap for petitioner was that the body of Salman was cremated without post-mortem examination on 15.6.2003 and he could not have died as a result of two minor injuries sustained in the accident; petition filed by the respondent claiming compensation of Rs. 9 lakh was dismissed by a Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act holding that Salman was not involved in an accident; Salman was not having sufficient means to purchase the policies of huge amounts of Rs. 5 lakh and 1 lakh. As may be seen from the orders passed by Fora below the life assured got himself medically examined on 11.6.2003 after the police declined to register a case against the driver of the bus and, thereafter, he also filed a complaint which was sent for investigation under Section 156 (3), Cr. P.C. by the concerned Magistrate to the police and a charge-sheet under Sections 279, 337 and 304A has been filed against the driver of the bus. In the meantime, Salman had died on 15.6.2003. In ordinary course of human conduct, a person attempting to or committing suicide would not go in medical examination, visit the police station for lodging FIR and file a complaint before a Magistrate for initiating legal action against the erring bus driver. Viewed in this perspective, we are in total agreement with the finding returned by Fora below that Salman had not committed suicide but had died due to the injuries sustained in bus accident. Copy of the order dismissing petition filed by the respondent by a Tribunal has not been filed. In our opinion, State Commission had rightly ignored that order taking note of the outcome of investigation under Section 156(3), Cr. P.C. and the police having submitted charge-sheet under the said sections against the driver of the bus. Further, merely on ground of the life assured not having been treated in a good hospital for want of money, it cannot be presumed that he did not have the means to purchase the two policies in question. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by Fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Both the Revision Petitions are, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petitions dismissed.