JUDGMENT One Sri Shenishetty Prabhakar, resident of Ramayampet Village and Mandal, Medak District; was functioning as Mandal President of Ramayampet, between 1995 and 2000. He has taken Janata Personal Accident Policy (for short 'the Policy'), of the United India Insurance Company Limited (for short 'the respondents') for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs. on 15-04-1998. Prabhakar was also a loanee of the Manjeera Grameena Bank. The said Bank has taken out two policies, for sums of Rs.1 lakh and Rs.25,000-, covering his life. On 14-09-2000 he was shot-dead by the Peoples War Group Naxalites (for short 'the PWG'), at Laxmapur Village. 2. The petitioner herein is the wife of late Phabhakar. She submitted claims to the respondents. The latter, however, repudiated the claims, through separate letters dated 11-03-2002 and 08-10-2002, respectively, on the ground that late Prabhakar was involved in a criminal case. On a request made by the petitioner, the matter was referred to the Insurance Ombudsman, Hyderabad. He passed two separate orders dated 11-03-2002 and 11-12-2002, allowing the claims of the petitioner. He imposed a condition that the amount covered by the policy shall be paid, if it is established that late Prabhakar was found not guilty in the case, that was registered against him in the year 1999. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the said orders, and has filed these two writ petitions. 3. The petitioner submits that the very purpose of issuing the policies was, to cover the life of the insured, and once it is established that Prabhakar was killed by Naxalites, the amount became payable. She contends that a case was registered against her husband, when he was alive, alleging that one of the accused in a crime, relating to attacking the Police Station, stated that, on a telephone call made by Prabhakar, one Van was arranged for transporting the extremists. She contends that the very allegation against her husband was without any basis, and at any rate, the case against him abated, on his death. 4. On behalf of the respondents, counter - affidavits are filed. They rely upon Clause 3(e) of the Policy, in support of their decision. According to them, Prabhakar was facing prosecution in Crime No.84 of 99, on the allegation that he facilitated the extremists in providing conveyance for committing an offence against the Police Station, and in that view of the matter, Clause 3(e) is attracted. They rely upon Clause 3(e) of the Policy, in support of their decision. According to them, Prabhakar was facing prosecution in Crime No.84 of 99, on the allegation that he facilitated the extremists in providing conveyance for committing an offence against the Police Station, and in that view of the matter, Clause 3(e) is attracted. An objection is raised as to the maintainability of the writ petitions. 5. Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the policy covers the risk to life of an insured, and once it is established that the insured was killed by extremists, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents, to pay the amount. He contends that none of he conditions, contained in Clause-3 of the Policy, are attracted, and there is no basis for repudiation of the claims. Learned counsel submits that the observation made by the Insurance Ombudsman, that the amount shall be paid in the event of late Prabhakar being found not guilty in the case registered in the year 1999, is erroneous and untenable. 6. Sri Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that, it is a matter of record that the deceased was accused of helping the extremists in blasting a Police Station, and his death is, in a way, connected to the said event. Learned counsel contends that though the death of Prabhakar cannot be strictly linked to his involvement in Crime No. 84 of 99, it has certainly have connection with that, and thereby, Clause 3(e) is attracted. He submits that the writ petitions are not maintainable, since they involve adjudication of disputed questions of fact. He places reliance upon the precedents, in support of his contention. 7. There is no dispute that Prabhakar has taken out a policy In his name, for a sum of RS.5 lakhs, and the Manjeera Grameena Bank has taken out two policies for Rs.1 lakh and Rs.25,000/-, respectively, in the name of Prabhakar. The brother of late Prabhakar, by name, S. Venkatesham, submitted a complaint to the Station House Officer, Narayampet, on 14-09-2000. It was alleged that at 6:00., on 14-09-2000, one person, by name, Srinivas came to the House of Prabhakar and handed over a letter addressed by a Squad of PWG Naxalites. Prabhakar and Srinivas are said to have proceeded to the house of Anjaiah Gupta at Katrial. It was alleged that at 6:00., on 14-09-2000, one person, by name, Srinivas came to the House of Prabhakar and handed over a letter addressed by a Squad of PWG Naxalites. Prabhakar and Srinivas are said to have proceeded to the house of Anjaiah Gupta at Katrial. There, the leaders of the PWG, by name, Yella Reddy, Prasad Gaud, Manohar, and Santosh Reddy, have spoken to Prabhakar for about one-hour, and thereafter, taken Prabhakar towards Laxmapur Village. It was alleged that when the villagers requested the extremists, not to cause any harm to Prabhakar, they were given assurance that he would be let-off, after some discussion. The complainant stated (hat after proceeding to certain distance, the driver of the vehicle was asked to go away; Prabhakar was pushed down, and Prasad Gaud and Santosh Reddy have fired at Prabhakar, with their Guns. The letter, said to have been addressed to Prabhakar, was also enclosed. Crime No. 66 of 2000 was registered. 8. The daughter of Prabhakar was given employment by the District Collector, Medak, as a compassionate measure. The petitioner submitted her claim for Rs.5 lakhs, under the policy. The Bank, which gave loan, has also submitted separate claim to the respondents. Through their letter dated 11-03-2002, the Branch Manager of the Insurance Company, rejected the claim, with the following reasoning: "Payment of compensation in respect of death, injury or disablement of the insured arising or resulting from the insured committing any breach of law with criminal intent". 9. The claim made by the Co-operative Society was rejected through letter dated 08-10-2002, by the Senior Divisional Manager, with the following endorsement: "Insured has committed breach of law with criminal intent, which is excluded under the scope of the policy, vide condition No.3(e)" 10. The Central Government framed "Redressal of Public Grievances Rules. 1998 (for short 'the Rules'), in exercise of power conferred upon it, under Section 114(1) of the Insurance Act, 1938. The Rules provide for constitution of a Governing Body of the Insurance Company, which, in turn, is conferred with the power to appoint an Ombudsman. The functions of the Ombudsman are mentioned under Rule 12 of the Rules. He is required to act as Counsellor and Mediator, in the matters, which are referred to him. 11. The matter, in relation to repudiation of the two claims, in connection with late Prabhakar, was referred to the Ombudsman, at Hyderabad. The functions of the Ombudsman are mentioned under Rule 12 of the Rules. He is required to act as Counsellor and Mediator, in the matters, which are referred to him. 11. The matter, in relation to repudiation of the two claims, in connection with late Prabhakar, was referred to the Ombudsman, at Hyderabad. Before the Ombudsman, the respondents pleaded that by the time he died. Prabhakar was facing prosecution in connection with blasting of a Police Station. The allegation against him was that, he has facilitated the extremists for providing conveyance to extremists, for the said incident: The Ombudsman passed on award dated 05-07-2002 with the following conclusion: "Para-8: (i) I find that the Insurance Company relied on the 1999 criminal case which was sub-Judice for repudiating payment of compensation in the case, which has arisen in the year 2000. The 1999 criminal case was sub-judice. Ultimately, if the court finds that the insured was a member of banned organization, the repudiation of the claim by the Insurance Company in the 2000 case would be in order. On the other hand, if the complicity of the accused is not established in the 1999 case, the Insurance Company is liable to settle the claim arising out of the 2000 case in favour of the widow of the insured along with interest. (ii) In view of the position indicated above, the Insurance Company is directed to separately provide for the iial1ility in this case as a fixed deposit in a Bank with immediate effect, as if the sum insured is payable to the nominee of the Insured. In case, the court gives a judgment in which the complicity of the accused in 1999 case is not established, the nominee of the insured in the 2000 case shall be paid compensation with accrued interest on this fund from the date of this order till the date of payment by the insurance Company. On the other hand, if the court judgment establishes the complicity of the accused in the 1999 case, the amount provided for in the company accounts may be reversed to the appropriate account". 12. Therefore, it needs to be seen, as to whether the repudiation of the claim by the respondents, and the view taken by the Ombudsman, are proper and legal. 13. The basis on which, the claim was repudiated, is Clause 3(e) of the Policy. 12. Therefore, it needs to be seen, as to whether the repudiation of the claim by the respondents, and the view taken by the Ombudsman, are proper and legal. 13. The basis on which, the claim was repudiated, is Clause 3(e) of the Policy. For the sake of convenience, the entire clause is extracted. If reads as under: "Clause 3: Payment of compensation in respect of death, injury or disablement of the insured from,- a) intentional self-injury, suicide or attempted suicide (b) whist under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drug (c) whist racing on wheels, hunting, Big game Shooting, Mountaineering or whilst engaged in winter sports, skiing and ice Hockey. (d) directly or indirectly caused by insanity, and (e) arising or resulting from the insured committing and breach of the law with criminal intent". 14. Even according to the respondents, sub-clauses (a) to (d) of Clause (3) of the Policy do not apply. Sub-clause (e) can be invoked, only when the death of the insured had arisen, or resulted from a breach of law committed by him, with criminal intent. In other words, if the death occurs in the course of commission of a crime, by the insured, the respondent cannot be compelled to pay the amount covered by the Policy. In the instant case, the insured did not die, on account or any criminal act attributed to him. It is not even denied that, he was killed by a team of PWG Naxalites. While the undisputed fact !s that he became the victim of an attack by extremists, an attempt was made, to present him not only as a criminal, but also a victim of his own crimes. 15. Though the orders of repudiation are cryptic and silent, as to the basis, the respondents pleaded in their counter-affidavits, that the deceased figured as accused in Crime No. 84 of 99. The allegation against him was, that he facilitated certain extremists in committing a crime of blasting a Police Station. This accusation was made on the basis of an alleged confession of one of the accused in Crime No. 84 of 99. 16. Assuming that there is an element of truth in the allegation against the deceased, it is just un-understandable, as to how his death, on 14-09-2000 can be traced to his involvement, in Crime No. 84 of 99. This accusation was made on the basis of an alleged confession of one of the accused in Crime No. 84 of 99. 16. Assuming that there is an element of truth in the allegation against the deceased, it is just un-understandable, as to how his death, on 14-09-2000 can be traced to his involvement, in Crime No. 84 of 99. On the other hand, the basis pleaded by the respondents turns out to be a self-contradictory. The reason is that the deceased is portrayed as a person, supporting the Naxalites, and at the same time, it emerged that he was killed by those very persons. Be that as it may, as long as no criminal acts or omissions were attributed to the deceased, for the incident, that took place on 14-09-2000, and it is not alleged that the death of the deceased occurred on account at his own criminal acts, there would not be any occasion to press Clause (3) into service. The view taken by the respondents cannot be sustained in law. 17. The Ombudsman was also convinced that the deceased did not die as a result of any criminal acts attributed to him. Curiously, he made a reference to the case, which was pending against the deceased, and took the view that, if the Court, in which Crime No. 84 of 99 is pending, finds the deceased guilty of any crime, the repudiation would be proper. He further observed that, if Prabhakar is acquitted therein, the Insurance Company shall be liable to pay the amount. This observation was made, obviously not being aware of the fact that once an individual is no more, the question of his being held guilty, or being acquitted, does not arise. This vital aspect and settled principle of law, however, was not taken into account, by the Ombudsman. 18. Viewed from any angle, the stand taken by the respondents, or the Ombudsman, cannot be sustained, either on facts or in law. 19. The objection raised by the respondents, as to the maintainability of the writ petitions; is on the basis of certain observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in some of the decided cases. 18. Viewed from any angle, the stand taken by the respondents, or the Ombudsman, cannot be sustained, either on facts or in law. 19. The objection raised by the respondents, as to the maintainability of the writ petitions; is on the basis of certain observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in some of the decided cases. In ABL International Limited v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd, the Supreme Court took the view that, where the adjudication of disputed questions of fact is involved, and where evidence is necessary, to record a finding as to the legality of clauses in the Insurance Policy, writ petitions are not a proper remedy. In life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Goel, similar view was taken. 20. A Division Bench of this Court, through its judgment in National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. v. M/s. Bhanu Construction Co. P. Ltd. held that disputed questions of fact need to be adjudicated as regards the performance of Bank guarantee, and writ petition is not a proper remedy. The subject- matter in N. Jaya Krishna v. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., was claim of compensation for the loss of goods covered by an Insurance Policy. There again, serious differences persisted, as to the purport of different clauses of Insurance Policy, and the occurrence of events. In Ch.Narasimhulu v. United India Insurance CO., a learned single Judge of this Court took the view that, where the Insurance Ombudsman rejected a claim, the remedy for an aggrieved party is to file a suit, subject to law of limitation. The subject-matter of that case was a claim of compensation for injuries. It was pleaded that the insured had suffered 50% disability in the right leg. The question as to whether the insured suffered injuries, as a result of accident, and if so, the extent of disability, are undoubtedly, matters of evidence, and this Court rightly declined to entertain a writ petition. 21. In contrast, there are absolutely no disputed questions of fact, in the instant case. The insured died in the hands of PWG Naxalites, and the policy was in force. There is not an inkling of doubt, as to the legality or coverage of the policy. The only ground on which the claim was repudiated was, that the deceased figured as an accused, in a case registered one year before his death. The insured died in the hands of PWG Naxalites, and the policy was in force. There is not an inkling of doubt, as to the legality or coverage of the policy. The only ground on which the claim was repudiated was, that the deceased figured as an accused, in a case registered one year before his death. Even if the same is taken on its face value, it cannot constitute a ground, and it is a pure question of law. The Ombudsman made an observation, which, indeed, would shock the conscience of any person, having basic knowledge of law. He wanted the matter to be kept pending till the deceased was, either acquitted, or found guilty in Crime No. 84 of 99. Except this, he had no inkling of doubts, as to the entitlement of the petitioner, to be paid the amount. 22. Had there been even a semblance of dispute, as to any factors, this Court would certainly have left it open to the petitioner to work out the remedies in a civil suit. When no such disputed questions exist, the poor widow cannot be driven to a Civil Court. Further, the only issue, that may have to be decided In the Civil Court, would be, as to whether a dead person can be held guilty of a crime, alleged to have been committed, during his lifetime. An issue of this nature, would tell upon the absence of basic knowledge of everyone, who is associated With such a case. 23. There, the writ petitions are allowed, and the respondents are directed to release the amounts, covered by the policies, within three months from today, with interest, as per the terms of the Insurance Policy. 24. There shall be no order as to costs.