STUDY CIRCLE SOCIETY vs LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION

THIS is a complainant''s appeal against the order dated 3.1.1996 passed in Complaint Case No. 119/1993 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shivpuri (for short the ''District Forum'').

THE complainant No. 1 is the father of the deceased and the complainant No. 2 is the widow who claimed the amount of Rs. 1 lakh with all other benefits under the life insurance policy taken by the deceased Parmal Singh who died on 6.4.1991 in motor accident while he was going on motor cycle it was dashed by the truck coming from opposite direction. THE opposite party demanded succession certificate, and driving licence of the deceased. On making enquiries, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 2.1.1993 on the ground that within one year of the policy the deceased committed suicide while driving the motor cycle; he was disqualified to hold a driving licence being a minor at the time of issue of licence and that while driving the motor cycle he was under influence of liquor. THE complainants filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ''Act'') alleging deficiency in service. THE complaint was resisted. THE District Forum after appreciation of evidence and material on record held that though the deceased had a driving licence Exp. 1, but at the time of issue of licence i.e. on 24.5.1989 the deceased was a minor as is evident from the date of birth recorded as 12.8.1974 in Mark Sheet Ex. D3. As on the day of occurrence the deceased was driving the motor cycle without valid licence the repudiation of the claim was justified and would not fall within the ambit of deficiency in service on the part of Life Insurance Corporation (for short LIC) in relation to the performance of its duties under the contract of life policy. We have heard Mr. Mohan Chouksey, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Nilesh Khare, learned Counsel for the respondent and also considered the written submissions submitted by the respondent. The stand of LIC is that it is not liable to pay as the death of the life assured was caused by accident when the deceased was under the influence of intoxication of liquor amounting to suicide. It is well settled that when the LIC repudiates foe claim taking the defence of suicide, it has to establish the defence. It is not in dispute that a First Information Report was lodged of the accident and a case under Sections 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Crime No. 135/1991 by Police Station, Karera, District Shivpuri. The assured was sent to the Hospital for treatment for multiple injuries where he succumbed to injuries. Post- mortem was performed. On internal examination, the autopsy surgeon did not find the contents of liquor in the stomach. The death was due to temporal fracture as a result of head injury and its complications. Duration of death was within 0.6 hrs. since post-mortem examination. The post- mortem report is Ex. D2 dated 6.7.1991. The LIC made enquiries from the doctor that whether at the time of accident the deceased was under the influence of liquor. The surgeon in response sent letter Ex. C-23/D-15 wherein it is stated as no biochemical examination of the fluid was done by the Doctor who performed the post mortem, it is not possible to definitely state nature of the stomach contents. But most probably it could be gastric juice mixed with bile. From the above material on record, it is not established that the deceased was driving the motor cycle after consuming the liquor and at the time of accident he was under the influence of liquor.

The fact that a case was regsitered under Sections 279/337, IPC against the truck driver which was converted into Section 304-A of the IPC after the death of the deceased and ultimately, a final report was filed as driver of the truck was not traceable, it cannot be inferred that the deceased himself was responsible for causing accident resulting in intentional death so as to fall within the ambit of suicide.

IT is well known fact that in actual life it often happens that persons give false age of the boy at the time of admission to school so that later in life he would have an advantage while seeking public service. The Court of fact cannot ignore this fact while assessing the value of the entry and it would be improper for the Court to base any conclusion on the basis of the entry, when it is alleged that the entry was made upon the false information supplied with the above motive. See Brij Mohan Singh v. Priya Brat Narain Sinha, AIR 1965 SC 282. True, an entry relating to date of birth made in the school register is relevant and admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act but the entry regarding to the age of a person in a school register is not of much evidentiary value to prove the age of the person in the absence of material on which the age was recorded for that parents should be examined or the person on whose information the entry may have been made. See Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit, AIR 1988 SC 1796 and a Division Bench decision of M.P. High Court in Narain Singh v. Sunderlal Patwa, 1996 JLJ 158.

BESIDES, even if on the correct date of birth would have been disclosed to Licensing Authority, the driving licence would not have been issued to the deceased, but for that LIC could not have repudiated the claim as the death was caused in a head on collision of motor accident. At the most this could have been a defence in a motor accident claim for the insurer of the motor vehicle. Learned Counsel for respondent could not point out any of the condition from the policy that in case the life assured meets with an accident while driving the motor vehicle who does not hold a valid licence the LIC would not be liable to pay the claim under the life policy. The decision of this Commission in Tej Kumar v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., II (1998) CPJ 322, relied by him relates to a case where the driver of the motor vehicle was not holding a valid licence to drive a heavy goods vehicle which has no application in the facts of the present case. In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the repudiation of the claim was not on justifiable grounds which amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, the complainants who have already produced succession certificates before the LIC, which is on record of the case are entitled to Rs. 1 lakh the sum assured and all other benefits under the policy. The appellants would also be entitled to interest on amount of Rs. 1 lakhs at the rate of 12% per annum from the LIC from the date of repudiation of the claim that is 2.7.1993. The amount under the policy inclusive of the interest as awarded by us shall be paid by the LIC within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of copy, failing which the interest shall be payable at the rate of 15% per annum on the amount of Rs. 1 lakh.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed. A copy of this order be conveyed to parties and a copy be sent to the District Forum with the record of the case. Appeal allowed.