AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE two Appeals had came up for hearing before us on a previous date and we disposed off the two appeals by order dated 1.12.92. On an application being made by one of the parties we have heard both the appeals again.
AFTER hearing the parties we had set aside our previous order and decided that two appeals be heard again in presence of both the parties. We heard Mr. Arjun Bhargava in Appeal No. 510/SC/92. The learned Counsel of the Appellant contended that Insurance Policy does not provides for death by murder or death as a result of accident at a public place. According to him in such cases nominee of insured is only entitled to amount equal to the premium paid under the policy. It is also contended that the instant case is one of murder. In this respect attention has been drawn to terms of policy. Emphasis is laid by the learned Counsel for the respondent on costs. The Counsel indicates that the Insurance Policy was an accident claim and thus venue of the accident is a material fact. The Counsel also drew our attention to a clause which describes the accident claim to be under clause B.
In regard to the plea that the incident is one of murder and hence claim is not payable. We see no justification to entertain the question as no foundation was laid for such a case in the pleading of the parties.
WE accordingly find no merit in appeal No. 510/SC/92 which is dismissed. In Appeal No. 446/SC/92 the Appellant contended that since the death occurred as a result of accident, the nominee is entitled to receive double the amount for which insurance was made. In the instant case there is no such scheme. In this view of the matter we repel the contention of the complainant that he is entitled to double the amount of the sum assured. For reasons stated above, Appeal No.446/ SC/92 is dismissed. As a result of the findings recorded both the appeals are dismissed and the order of the Distt. Forum is upheld. Both Appeals dismissed.