Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 359 (UTT)

United Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamla Pati Pant

2005-08-18

LUXMI SINGH, SURENDRA KUMAR

body2005
JUDGMENT Sri Surendra Kumar, Acting President : This is an appeal against the order dated 20.4.1996 passed by the District Forum, Pithoragarh whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 18,000/- to the complainant by 31.5.1996 and in default to pay interest from the date till the date of actual payment @ 10%. 2. The brief facts of the case are that brother of the complainant namely Sri Laxmi Dutt Pant was having an account No. 03/400 in the Indian Overseas Credit Limited, Branch Pithoragarh. The complainant is the nominee of the said account. Sri Laxmi Dutt pant expired on 4.1.1993. There was a condition in the rules of the Indian Overseas that if the R. D. account holder dies, then his nominee will get free accident amount of Rs. 18,000/-. It is alleged that in spite of requests repeated several times, the amount was not paid to him. Thereafter he filed the complaint before the Learned Forum. 3. The appellant filed written statement and admitted that the deceased was having an account with the opposite party No.2. It is pleaded that the deceased committed suicide. The opposite party No. 1 in its written statement that in cases of suicide, the amount of accident insurance cannot be paid. Suicide is also proved from the postmortem report. The complainant is not entitled to any claim. 4. The Learned Forum after taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them passed the impugned order, against which the present appeal has been preferred. 5. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. The postmortem report is available on record which is Annexure-2 in which it is mentioned that the cause of death was hanging. It is further mentioned that there was no external injury. Annexure-3 is the statement of Sri Prem Prakash Pant, elder brother of the deceased. In his statement he mentioned that the deceased was killed and thereafter he was hanged. He has further written that the Naib Tehsildar told that the case is doubtful. The Thekedar was called but he did not turn up. He further stated that he has full hope that his brother was killed and thereafter his body was hanged. He said that on 10.1.1993 he met the District Magistrate and requested for inquiry. He has further written that the Naib Tehsildar told that the case is doubtful. The Thekedar was called but he did not turn up. He further stated that he has full hope that his brother was killed and thereafter his body was hanged. He said that on 10.1.1993 he met the District Magistrate and requested for inquiry. Annexure-4 is the statement of the complainant. He also said that his brother was murdered and the inquiry was pending. He received the information regarding the death of his brother after 3 days of his death. He stated that his brother was a hale and healthy person and there was no reason of him committing suicide. 6. The paper No. 3 is the letter of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pithoragarh to the District.. Magistrate dated 2.7.1996. In his letter the Judicial Magistrate specifically mentioned that parcha No. 25 page 18 is dated 21.5.1994 and parcha No. 26 page 9 is dated 12.5.1994 and said that parcha No. 26 should have been written earlier because it is of an earlier date. He found many discrepancies in the investigation. The Learned Judicial Magistrate also found discrepancies in the case diary. The Learned Judicial Magistrate concluded that this is a very serious matter and points towards the killing of the deceased. He did not accept the final report. There is also a report of the District Magistrate. He has mentioned that there was contradiction in the statement of Sri Diwani Ram, Village Pradhan and also in the statement of Sri Narayan Singh with whom the deceased was living. He further ob-• served that he is satisfied with the findings of the court that the deceased did not commit a suicide rather he was killed and his body was hanged on the tree. The District Magistrate recommended for CBCID inquiry. 7. There is no evidence available on record to prove that the deceased committed suicide. To the contrary the specific letter of the Judicial Magistrate and statement of the brothers of the deceased and also the report of the District Magistrate for one the case of murder. If some criminal case or inquiry is pending, that will not bar the claim of the complainant. It is proved on record that the deceased did not commit suicide therefore the complainant is entitled to the amount as awarded by the Learned Forum. If some criminal case or inquiry is pending, that will not bar the claim of the complainant. It is proved on record that the deceased did not commit suicide therefore the complainant is entitled to the amount as awarded by the Learned Forum. The order of the Learned Forum, calls for no interference. This appeal has got no force and is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is hereby dismissed. Cost shall be easy.