Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant writ petition has been filed for seeking direction to respondent No.1 to decide the claim arising as a consequence of accidental death of petitioners father and make payment of the claim at the rate of double of the insured amount. (2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are t hat petitioners father Mahendra Nath Arora had been working with respondent No.2 University and he was a member of Pension and Group Insurance Scheme of respondent No.1-the Life Insurance Corporation of India. He died on 2.11.1990 at Ayodhya Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh, on account of firing made by U.P. Police and other forces deployed by the State to save the Babri Mosque. His family members has been paid the amount of insurance claim to the tune of Rs. 1,01,907/-but petitioners claim is that as per the Terms of the Policy, they were entitled to the sum double of the insured amount and as said amount has not been paid, they have approached this Court. (3). Respondent-Life Insurance Corporation has filed the reply, according to which the death of the father of petitioner did not occur because of the accident as he died in the police firing at Ayodhya while violating the curfew and in the mob which had demolished the Babri mosque and, thus, the petitioner was not entitled for any compensation due to loss of life of her father because of alleged accidental death, as required under the policy. (4). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. (5). A copy of the First Information Report dated 2.11.90 has been filed by the petitioner herself as Annexure 2 to the petition. The salient features of the F.I.R. had been that on the said date, a large number of persons, as ``Kar Sewaks, came to Ayodhya with determination to ``Do or Die alongwith weapons showing their de-termination to demolish the Babri mosque. They had violated the curfew imposed in the area; demolished the mosque and also shouted the slogan showing hatred towards Muslims etc. and attacked the police force, the Magistrate on the spot ordered for firing and some persons died therein. (6). They had violated the curfew imposed in the area; demolished the mosque and also shouted the slogan showing hatred towards Muslims etc. and attacked the police force, the Magistrate on the spot ordered for firing and some persons died therein. (6). Petitioner has not alleged or even contended that the curfew was not im-posed on that date at Ayodhya, nor is it her case that her father had not violated the curfew as there appears to be no such ground in the petition. Her only case is that in all the circumstances it was a case of accidental death and as such her family was entitled to get the sum double of the insured amount. The contention of the respondent Corporation that he did not die of accidental death, has not been rebu-tted by the petitioner by filing rejoinder-affidavit though the reply had been filed more than two years ago. Therefore, the only question left to be determined by this Court remains: whether petitioners father, who had taken the law in his own hand and tried to violate the curfew by becoming a member of the unlawful assembly which demolished the Babri mosque and died in police firing, can be held to have died in accidental death, for the reason that double benefit under the Group Insurance Scheme would be available only if a person died in an accidental death as per the terms of the insurance policy and as there is no rebuttal to the fact that the Corporation had already paid the family of the deceased a sum of Rs. 1,01,907/-long back. (7). `Accident has not been defined in any Act; but in common parlance or in popular sense, an accident is any unexpected injury resulting from any unlooked-for mishap of occurrence. The House of Lords, in Fenton (Pauper) and J. Thorley & Co., Limited (1) had observed as under:- ``The expression `accident is used in the popular and ordinary sense of the word as denoting an unlooked-for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed.....the word `accident in the statute is to be taken in its popular and ordinary sense.....it denotes or includes any unexpected personal injury .....from any unlooked-for mishap or occurrence. (8). (8). In Regional Director, ESIC vs. Francis De Costa (2) the Honble Apex Court has observed that ``the popular and ordinary sense of the word `accident means the mishap or an untoward happening not expected and designed to have an occurrence is an accident. (9). Ordinarily, `accident means an event which takes place without ones foresight or expectation. (Vide Nagaraja Mooppanar vs. Emperor (3). The essence of an accident is something fortituous which could not be or was foreseen and the expression applies both to the unexpected result of natural act or to the natural result of an unexpected fortifuous act. (10). In a recent judgment, the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court, in Ambalal Lallubhai Panchal vs. L.I.C. of India (4) considered the meaning of `accident wherein the person had died of dog-bite. The Honble Court observed as under:- ``The word `accident has a very wide significance in its ordinary sen-se. In the present case, we are not concerned with the philosophical meaning of the expression `accident. The word, though easy to understand when used in any particular context, is found to be difficult to define in a manner that would encompass all its shades of meanings. The expression `accident generally means some unexpe-cted event happening without design, even though there may be negligence and it is used, in a popular and ordinary sense of the word, as denoting as unlooked for mishap or an untoward event which is not brought about by intention or design. It is however, unnecessary to attempt any uniform definition of a term which has the utility of answering varied situations...In legal contemplation, accident happens without any designed, intentional or voluntary causation such as an occurrence which happens by reason of some violence, casualty or vis major without any design or consent or voluntary co-operation. An unexpected personal injury resulting from an unlooked-for -mishap or occurrence would be an accident. The word `accident would get its colour from the context in which it is used.... In its ordinary meaning word accident does not negative the idea of negligence on the part of the person whose act brought about that event. An unexpected personal injury resulting from an unlooked-for -mishap or occurrence would be an accident. The word `accident would get its colour from the context in which it is used.... In its ordinary meaning word accident does not negative the idea of negligence on the part of the person whose act brought about that event. An accident may arise from the carelessness of men, and the fact that the negligence of the person injured contributed to produce a result will not make it any less an accident and in this sense accident can be defined as a fortuitous event which may be preventable but is not prevented or an unexpected or unforeseen event happening with or without human fault. The term accident is thus, more comprehen-sive than the term negligence, and, often the terms `pure accident or `mere accident or unavoidable accident are employed in the legal context where accidents occurring due to negligence are to be ruled out or excluded from the ordinary meaning of the word accident. In the context of an Insurance Policy to exclude negligence, by the very nature of things, will make the indemnity practically valueless. Therefore, barring the exceptions which are enumerated in the clause itself, all accidents which are caused by `outward, violent and visible means would be covered whether or not caused by carelessness or negligence or whether or not expected and avoidable. The concept of duty to take reasonable care which is relevant in respect of liability arising out of the tort of negligence need not be imported in a clause of Insurance Policy which assures accident benefits in respect of the loss caused from any accident by `outward, violent and visible means. There is no warrant to qualify this clause by carving out any exception on the grounds such as carelessness, negligence, avoidability etc. The only exceptions that apply are those which have been specifically enumerated and for all other eventualities which can be described as accident by its general and non-technical sense the liability to pay the accident benefit arises when the accident is caused by outward violent and visible means. This qualification is meant to provide for ascertainability of the event. A dog bite is not brought about by any design or intention. It is an unexpected harm. This qualification is meant to provide for ascertainability of the event. A dog bite is not brought about by any design or intention. It is an unexpected harm. A dog bite is surely something that is outward, violent and visible by which the harm is brought about and the death resulting therefrom would therefore in our opinion be a death resulting from an accident caused by outward, violent and visible means within the meaning of the accident benefit clause of the policy under which the LIC was bound to pay an additional sum equal to the sum assured under the policy. (11). If the aforesaid case is examined from that angle, it cannot be said that the petitioners father had died because of accidental death as it was a simple and plain case of violating the curfew imposed by the State and he was a member of the group which had gone there to demolish the Babri mosque. In such circumstances, his death may be held to be suicidal, sacrifice of life for his religious belief or martyr for a particular cause, but certainly does not fall within the ambit of accidental death. More so, per force, the police firing occurred under the order of an Authority, thus, the same remained to be a designed act. (12). The petition is devoid of any merit and the family of the petitioner is held `not entitled for the relief sought for. The petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.