JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - The Petitioner has filed this writ petition raising a grievance that even though her husband had paid the premiums under the Policy of Assurance issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, after the death of her husband in an accident the entire amount towards the death of the life assured is not being released in her favour and only a part thereof has been paid. 2. The brief facts leading to the writ application are as follows: The husband of the Petitioner, late Pramod Kumar Nath, was a daily labourer. On acceptance of the proposal for assurance and receipt of first premium, the L.I.C. of India under Branch Manager, Kendrapara-opposite party No. 2, on 27.6.1996 issued the Policy Bond bearing Policy Number 580699708 vide Annexure-3 in favour of the husband of the Petitioner. The term of the policy was 12 years commencing from 28.3.1996 and the sum assured was Rs. 12,000/-. The husband of the Petitioner deposited the second premium within the due date, but before the 3rd premium was paid, her husband died due to the injuries sustained by him in a blast which occurred in the fire work of a marriage procession. The body of the deceased was seized by the police authorities and an U.D. case was registered. The post-mortem was conducted, the report of which is annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Entry of the Petitioner's husband into the policy and payment of premiums by him have not been disputed by the Corporation. After the death of her husband, the Petitioner, being the nominee, applied for payment of the death claim. The Corporation paid the sum assured, i.e. Rs. 12,000/- along with an amount of Rs. 1656/- towards interest accrued on the sum assured, but did not pay the additional sum equal to the sum assured. 3. According to learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner is entitled to get the additional sum equal to the sum assured in terms of Clause-10.2(b) of the Conditions of the Policy. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party-Corporation. 3. According to learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner is entitled to get the additional sum equal to the sum assured in terms of Clause-10.2(b) of the Conditions of the Policy. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party-Corporation. In paragraph-14 of the said counter affidavit it has been stated that the Petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit provided under Clause-10.2(b) of the Conditions of Policy because the death of the husband of the Petitioner was not caused by an accident but it was a case of murder as per the FIR lodged by the Petitioner vide Annexure-8. 5. The FIR (Annexure-8), to which our attention was drawn shows that the same was scribed by some one and contained the L.T.I. of the Petitioner, who has stated that she found her husband's dead body packed in a gunny bag which was thrown by one Nilamani Nath near her house. This was reported on 16.7.1997, though the death of the deceased was 11.7.1997. 6. Annexure-9 is the death certificate of the husband of the Petitioner, in which the place of death of her husband has been shown as SCB Medical College Hospital, Cuttack. The post-mortem report (Annexure-6) reveals that the cause of death was due to burn injuries, which were ante mortem in nature, possibly caused by blasting, and the cause of death was shown as respiratory failure due to repatriate of right lungs and the time of death caused was indicated to be within six hours from the time of conducting postmortem examination. The post-mortem was conducted on the very same day of the death of the husband of the Petitioner, i.e. 11.07.1997. One U.D. case was registered being U.D. Case No. 469 dated 11.07.1997, which was closed by the I.I.C., Mangalabag with the report that the death was due to burn injuries caused by fireworks. The Certificate of Hospital Treatment and Medical Attendant's Certificate under Annexures-4 and 5 respectively, certified by one Dr. Rabinarayan Jee of S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital discloses that the primary cause of death of the deceased was Blast Injury and Rt. hand in low condition. The Police Investigation indicates that the blast occurred in a marriage procession where fire crackers were used, causing death of the husband of the Petitioner. The authorities of the Corporation have also enquired into the claim of the Petitioner. 7. hand in low condition. The Police Investigation indicates that the blast occurred in a marriage procession where fire crackers were used, causing death of the husband of the Petitioner. The authorities of the Corporation have also enquired into the claim of the Petitioner. 7. Now, let us see the provision of Clause-10.2(b) of the Conditions of the Policy to find out whether the Petitioner is entitled to get the additional sum equal to the sum assured under this Policy. Clause 10.2(b) of the Conditions of the Policy is extracted hereunder: Death of Life Assured: to pay an additional sum equal to the Sum Assured under this Policy, if the Life Assured shall sustain any bodily injury resulting solely and directly from the accident caused by outward, violent and visible means and such injury shall within 120 days of its occurrence solely, directly and independently of all other causes result in the death of the Life Assured. However, such additional sum payable in respect of this Policy, together with any such additional sums payable under other Policies on the life of the Life Assured shall not exceed Rs. 5,00,000. The Corporation shall not be liable to pay the additional sum referred in (a) or (b) above, if the disability or the death of the Life Assured shall (i) be caused by intentional self injury, attempted suicide, insanity or immorality or whilst the Life Assured is under the influence of intoxicating liquor, drug or narcolic; or (ii) take place as a result of accident while the Life Assured is engaged in aviation or aeronautics in any capacity other than that of a fare-paying, part-paying or non-paying passenger in any aircraft which is authorized by the relevant regulations to carry such passengers and lying between established aerodromes, the Life Assured holding at that time no duties on board the aircraft or requiring descent the refrom; or (iii) be caused by injuries resulting from riots, civil commotion, rebellion, war (whether war be declared or not) invasion, hunting, mountaineering, steeplechasing or racing of any kind; or (iv) result from the Life Assured committing any breach of law; or (v) arise from employment of the Life Assured in the armed forces or military service of any country at war (whether war be declared or not) or from being engaged in police duty in any military, naval or police organization. 8. 8. In our considered opinion, the case of the Petitioner is not coming within the exclusions stipulated in Clause-10.2(b) of the Conditions of the Policy. In this case since the death of the life assured was caused by outward violent and visible means within 120 days of its occurrence and solely, directly and independently of all other causes resulting in the death of the life assured, the Petitioner is entitled to the additional sum equal to the sum assured under the Policy. We are going one step ahead to say that the Petitioner is a poor and illiterate lady and will only get a further sum of Rs. 12,000/- with interest as on date, to which the Corporation should not have any objection. 9. We accordingly allow this writ petition and direct the opposite parties-Life Insurance Corporation to pay the balance amount to the Petitioner as indicated above towards the final settlement of the death claim along with interest at the prevailing lending rate of interest of Bank, within a period of one month from the date communication of this order. 10. Let a writ be issued to the opposite parties accordingly, requisites for which shall be filed by the Petitioner within Seven days hence. Final Result : Allowed