Skip to main content

Murder is accident too, panel tells risk firm

The south Mumbai district consumer dispute redressal forum on Wednesday, while directing an insurance firm to pay the accident cover claim of a deceased policy holder to his mother, held that both murder and accident are considered as unfortunate incidents and thus murder of a person also comes under the definition of accident. The forum in its order copy has mentioned that as per the dictionary meaning, accident is an unfortunate incident and so was the murder of the deceased. Thus, it is counted as an accident.

How did the policy holder die?
As per the order copy, deceased Dilip Prabhu had opted for an accident cover policy in June 1995, and it was active till June 1997. In 1996, Dilip was murdered while he was returning from work. The CID was investigating the case. Dilip and his wife, who were married in 1993, had sought for divorce in 1996. However, before the court could pass the final orders in the case, Dilip was killed.

Who sought the accident claim amount?
After Dilip's death, his mother Shamala Prabhu, a resident of Thane, had sought the accident claim amount. His estranged wife, on the other hand, had approached the Bombay high court and filed the claim on the property of the deceased on the grounds that the family court had not passed an order on their divorce petition and thus she was still the legal claimant to the property. The high court thus asked the police to file a report on Dilip's death.

What did the risk firm say?
Meanwhile, when Shamala approached the insurance firm, the firm maintained that they would need the police report to decide on the death. If the claimant failed to file the report, then the matter would be treated as closed. The claimant informed the firm that she had submitted all documents except the police report, and requested the firm to not to close the matter.
By 2007, she submitted all required documents to the insurance firm along with the high court's order on the petition filed by the estranged wife of the deceased. But even then the firm failed to issue the accident claim to the claimant. Thus, she approached the consumer forum in 2010.

What did the forum tell the firm?
The forum asked the insurance firm to file its reply. The firm claimed that the mother of the deceased and his estranged wife were in a tussle and had approached the high court claiming as successors of the deceased. Also, there was no proper documents of the accident submitted by the claimant before the insurance firm. Thus the firm claimed that it was not at fault.
The insurance firm also claimed that Dilip did not die in an accident, but he was murdered on September 18, 1996.

Why was the firm held guilty?
The forum after going through the evidence and arguments advanced by the complainant and the insurance firm maintained that the Dilip was killed and did not meet with an accident. However, Dilip did not have any knowledge of his death, nor did he purchase the insurance policy knowing that one day he would be killed. Thus, it was indeed an unfortunate incident. The insurance firm was held guilty of providing faulty services to its consumer.

The forum asked the firm to pay the claimant Rs2 lakh along with six per cent interest on the amount from 2010. It also directed the firm to pay additional amounts of Rs4,000 and Rs3,000 towards the complainant's mental agony and litigation cost, respectively.

 Article referred: http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-murder-is-accident-too-panel-tells-risk-firm-2036744

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more