LIC OF INDIA vs HUNDI BAI

LATE Shri Madan Lal Dhakar, the deceased insured, had obtained a life insurance policy (with accident benefits) from the appellant Insurance Company for Rs. 25,000/- on 31.12.1993. Shri Madan Lal died on 6.3.1994. Smt. Hundi Bai, respondent complainant who was the nominee of the deceased insured in the policy, preferred her claim with the appellant for the assured sum and other accidental benefits under the said policy, the appellant accepted her claim to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- i.e. the sum assured only, but repudiated her claim for equal amount on the ground of accidental death of the insured holding that Shri Madan Lal had not died an accidental death. On a complaint having been filed by the respondents with it, the D.F. has accepted her version and directed the appellant to pay a further sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent complainant. Aggrieved by the said order of the D.F. the appellant has filed this appeal.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant took us through the material available on the record of the D.F. and highlighted the fact that there was absolutely no positive evidence on the point that the deceased insured had died an accidental death. It was pointed out by the learned Counsel that in her own application filed by the respondent with the appellant, she had stated that the deceased insured had died all of a sudden. No cause of his death was mentioned in the application dated 7.3.1994. It was further pointed out by the learned Counsel that the theory advanced by the respondent complainant relating to the accidental death of the deceased insured was also not believable. The case of the respondent complainant was that while going on his bicycle when the deceased insured had passed through his well, he had fallen from his bicycle into a pit and sustained fatal injuries. It was submitted by the lenared Counsel that in respect of such assertion, the respondent complainant had filed no evidence at all. There was no evidence of any eye-witness on the point. No FIR was lodged in respect to such incident with the concerned police station. No medical opinion was obtained. It was further submitted that even if the verison advanced by the respondent is accepted of its face value, it was not believable that a person would sustain fatal injuries simply by a fall from a bicycle on the ground. It was pointed out that there was no evidence that the ground upon which the deceased insured is alleged to have fallen was of hard surface and he had sustained any injury on his person. Then there was no evidence on the point that some person had picked up the injured deceased from that place and had taken him to his house and that he was given any treatment.

We have examined the arguments advanced before us by the learned Counsel with reference to the material available on the record of the Forum. We are impressed with the arguments advanced. In fact there is no evidence on the point that any person had seen the deceased either falling in the pit or to have sustained any injuries on his person. There is also no evidence on the point that the deceased had died as a result of having sustained some injuries. The approach of the D.F. in holding that since it could not be proved that the deceased might have died of accidental death, it may be inferred that he might have sustained fatal injuries by his fall from the bicycle. The approach of the D.F. was not correct. It simply proceeds on surmises and conjectures. There is vast difference between must be and may be. Financial liabilities are to be casted on a person when the existence of the relevant facts are so probabalised that they exclude the possibility of their non-existence. In this case there was no positive evidence to prove that the deceased had ever sustained any injury on his perosn and that such injuries had led to his death.

IN view of the above the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with cost on parties. Appeal allowed.