Life Insurance Corporation of India vs BEENA DEVI

THE grounds on which this appeal has been filed are, that respondent No. 1 Smt. Beena Devi Wd/o of the life assured late Sh. Manoj Kumar, is not entitled to any amount because it was she who had abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Further according to Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant, she was prosecuted in that behalf. She has been acquitted according to Mr. Kanwar learned Counsel for the respondents and he referred to the photostat copy of the order passed by District and Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, in Sessions Trial No. 2-ST/7 of 2002 dated 7. 9. 2002 in case titled as State of HP v. Smt. Beena Devi, (respondent No. 1) and Another. This was a case under Section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code, from the complaint file.

WE are of the view that decision of this case need not detain us in the face of the documents on the complaint file. However, we may notice briefly some facts necessary for deciding this appeal. Smt. Beena Devi is the widow and Kumari Parvati @ Parul is the daughter of deceased-life assured late Sh. Manoj Kumar, Smt. Jaggo Devi is his mother are the other facts not disputed on behalf of the parties. From the record of the complaint file it is evident, that a Civil Suit No. 56/1 of 2002, was filed by Smt. Jaggo Devi in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sirmaur District at Nahan, wherein relief claimed was that the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled to the policy benefits as detailed in it, being the legal heirs of deceased Manoj Kumar to the extent of equal shares and decree for permanent injunction was prayed against the appellant, (who was arrayed as defendant No. 1 in this suit) from making the payment alone to defendant Nos. 2 and 3 i. e. Smt. Beena Devi and Kumari Parul respectively. This suit was decided vide Annexure R-V. This is a certified copy of judgment and decree-sheet passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), in the Civil Suit No. 56/1 of 2002, dated 6. 4. 2004. As per decree it has been held that Smt. Jaggo Devi, Smt. Beena Devi and Kumari Parul are entitled to the amount in equal shares. Annexure R-VIII is the copy of the order of acquittal passed by District and Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, dated 7. 9. 2002 referred to above in this order.

Faced with this situation Mr. Sharma learned Counsel for the appellant stated, that judgment of acquittal carries no weight in this case, as according to him standard of proof is higher in criminal cases, therefore no benefit can be derived by the acquittal of respondent No. 1 by the respondents. Suffice it to say in this behalf, that so far legal proposition is concerned, there cannot be any dispute. However the fact remains that it has some evidentiary value and cannot be totally brushed aside.

AT this stage we may also observe that even if this submission of Mr. Sharma is accepted, decree of Civil Suit is there and its certified copy has been produced by none-else but by the appellant itself. It could not be disputed on behalf of the appellant, that this decree has attained finality intra-parties, i. e. Smt. Jaggo Devi plaintiff; and the defendants on the other, (who are parties in this appeal) when their inter se claims in the suit were settled. As such the appellant cannot now come out of slumber and say that it is not liable for payment of the amount to the respondents. In case appellant felt that it is not liable for payment of any amount to the respondents, it could have challenged the judgment and decree of the Civil Court which admittedly has not been done. In any situation respondents cannot be deprived of the amount allowed to them by the District Forum below of course subject to the decree of the Civil Court, which is earlier in point of time on the plea of the commission of the alleged offence, of which respondent No. 1 along with the other lady has been acquitted. At this stage Mr. Sharma tried to catch the last straw by referring to Clause 6 of the insurance policy. According to him since this is a case of suicide, therefore his client was not liable to any amount. We would have certainly examined this submission if the judgment and decree of the Civil Court was not there wherein appellant, as well as respondents were arrayed as defendants and the mother of the deceased-life assured Manoj Kumar was the plaintiff, and in case the appellant wanted to take benefit of Clause 6, then it should have challenged this decree by appealing against it before appropriate Court. Again at the risk of repetition we may observe, that this was not done as such the submission of Mr. Sharma based on Clause 6 has no substance and is accordingly rejected.

NO other point is urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed subject to payment of Rs. 2,500 as cost. All interim orders passed from time-to-time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith. Learned Counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the copy of this order from the Reader free of cost as per rules. Appeal dismissed.