V.K.Jain, J. - (1.) Late Smt. Amravati Prajapati had obtained a personal accident insurance policy from the respondent for the period from 18.08.2003 to 17.08.2004. The insured was murdered by her husband and others on 19th /20th of August' 2003 and an FIR under section 302 of IPC was registered in this regard. A claim for payment of benefit under the policy taken by the deceased was submitted by the complainants. The claim having been rejected, they approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint. The complaint was resisted by the respondent primarily on the ground that the deceased having been murdered, no benefit under the said policy was payable.
(2.) The District Forum having ruled in favour of the complainants, the insurer approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 011.2017, the State Commission allowed the appeal and consequently, dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the petitioners/complainants are before this Commission by way of this Revision Petition. The repudiation letter, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under: "In this regard, we wish to inform you that the claim is not payable as per the exclusion clause 4.2 of the policy, which states that The Company will not pay for any event that arises because of, is caused by, or can in any way be linked through deliberate or intentional, unlawful or criminal act, error, or omission. In view of the above we are left with no option but to repudiate our claim."
(3.) The only question which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the death of the deceased insured was accidental or not. The policy having been taken by her being a personal accident insurance policy, the liability was attracted only in case of the insured meeting with accidental body injury which caused his/her death within 12 months. It is not in dispute that an FIR under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the husband of the deceased and others was lodged and a charge-sheet was later filed against them. A perusal of the impugned order would also show that the FIR was lodged by none other than the father of the deceased in which he specifically alleged that the persons named in the FIR had killed his daughter in the night intervening 19th/20th of August' 200 The charge-sheet filed against the persons named in the FIR resulted in conviction of the husband of the deceased. It is therefore, evident that the deceased had been murdered and her death did not occur on account of an accidental injury sustained by her. This is not a case where the murder happened in the course of or in order to facilitate the Commission of some other crime such as Commission of a robbery. Here, the intention was to murder the deceased insured. Such a murder cannot be said to be an accidental murder.;