United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs P. Srinivasan

THE claim arose on the death of one Pennatchi Ammal. THEre is much mystery surrounding the death of Pennatchi Ammal.

IN the notice issued by the complainant through his lawyer, it is stated that Pennatchi Ammal died by falling into a well. The heirs of Pannatchi Ammal have given an affidavit along with their claim in which they have stated that on 15.9.1998 Pennatchi Ammal fell down accidentally into a well and died. The death certificate gives the date of death as 15.9.1998 whereas we find that the declaration affidavit signed by the heirs gives the date as 15.6.1998. FIR has been registered and it is under Section 174, Cr.P.C. It has been registered on 15.9.1998 at about 7.45 p.m. If really she died because of accident by falling into a well, it is rather strange that a claim came to be registered under Section 174, Cr. P.C. Death of drowning cannot come under Section 174, Cr.P.C. Section 174, Cr. P.C. reads as follows : "When the officer-in-charge of Police Station or some other Police Officer specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf receives information that a person had committed suicide, or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident, or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence, he shall immediately give intimation thereof to the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquests...."

The FIR reads as follows : That on 15.9.1998 at about 7.45 p.m. his mother who has gone out had not returned home. Therefore, he went and searched for her and found her in a well and they immediately brought her up out from the well and noted that she was dead and, therefore, he has reported the matter to the Village Officer." The report of the Village Officer is not produced. Even on the 15th night he came to know about the death but the complaint has been given on 16.9.1998 at about 10.15 a.m. It is stated that the accident took place or the incident took place at the village which was about only 3 kms. away from the police station. The post-mortem certificate shows that there was no water found in the lung. The doctor has found certain abrasions. He is not able to say whether the abrasions were ante-mortem, or post-mortem. The impression of the doctor is that the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage. The doctor has found the lungs empty, and collapsed. It is also noted that the stomach was distended but empty. He did not find any fractures. The viscera was not sent for chemical analysis. From the records, we find that the police have originally registered the case as death due to stomach ache and intake of pesticides mixing. Thereafter, they closed the case after the complaint was registered from the son of the deceased stating that the post-mortem certificate, shows that the deceased was died of shock and haemorrhage. Thus, we find that serious doubts are raised about the cause of death. If the death was due to shock and haemorrhage there must be congestion either in the brain or in the kidney or in other vital parts. But the doctor does not mention anything about the factor. Thus, in this case, we find that the cause of death is not established. On the other hand, the FIR index which is marked as Ex. B4 shows that Pennatchi died and the cause of death is mentioned as consumption of pesticides as she was having stomach pain. It further mentions she was taken to Trichy where she died. On the other hand, the FIR states that she was found floating in the well and she was taken out in dead condition. Thus, there is lot of discrepancy in this case. The doctor has not stated positively in the post-mortem report that the death was due to drowning. The post-mortem report does not disclose the presence of water either in the stomach or lung. If according to the earlier report, she died after consuming pesticides, then, the viscera should have been preserved and sent for examination. But, that has not been done. Therefore, all these circumstances would go to show that since the cause of death has not been satisfactorily established and there are serious doubts about the same, the repudiation was just and, therefore, the lower Forum was wrong in accepting the claim.

In the result, this appeal is allowed but in the circumstances without cost. The order passed by the lower Forum is set aside. The complaint will stand dismissed but in the circumstances without cost. Appeal allowed.