The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that an insurer cannot deny Double Accident Benefit merely because the policyholder’s murder was pre-planned, when it has placed no exclusion clause on record. Setting aside a Moga District Commission order, it directed the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) to pay the benefit under four policies to the family of a Moga shopkeeper killed by gangsters.
The appeal was decided by a Bench of Presiding Judicial Member H.P.S. Mahal and Member Kiran Sibal, with the judgment authored by Member Kiran Sibal.
Background
Tajinder Singh held four LIC policies carrying Double Accident Benefit, with sums assured of ₹10 lakh, ₹5 lakh, ₹10 lakh and ₹1.6 lakh. On 14 July 2020, he was murdered by unidentified persons while sitting at his shop in New Town, Moga. An FIR was registered.
LIC released the basic death benefit but withheld the additional accident benefit. By a letter dated 30 April 2021, it repudiated the claim. It said that social media material and the police closure report showed the murder was pre-planned by gangster Sukhpreet Singh alias Sukha Gill Lamme to create terror in the area, and was therefore not accidental.
His widow Ripendeep Kaur Kambo, his minor son and his mother approached the District Commission, Moga. They sought ₹26.6 lakh with interest. The District Commission dismissed the complaint on 29 November 2022, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Smt. Rita Devi vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and the National Commission’s decision in Prithvi Raj Bhandari vs LIC.
Arguments
Advocate Liza Bansal, appearing for the appellants, argued that LIC’s own case was that the deceased was killed by a gangster group to create terror. She submitted that the DSP’s report showed the deceased had no role in the gangsters’ activities, and that their aim was to kill any known person in the city to spread fear and collect ransom. She added that there was no evidence of any specific enmity between the accused and the deceased. She also relied on LIC’s Circular dated 15 October 2007.
Advocate Sandeep Bhardwaj, appearing for LIC, contended that the District Commission had rightly dismissed the complaint. Citing the Oxford dictionary meaning of “accident”, he argued that a pre-planned murder intended to cause terror was not unexpected. He pointed out that the DSP’s report recorded that Sukha Gill Lamme had claimed responsibility for the murder with an associate.
Commission’s Findings on Double Accident Benefit
The Commission agreed with the law laid down in Rita Devi and Prithvi Raj Bhandari, but held that those rulings did not apply to the facts of this case. It noted that the FIR and the DSP’s closure report indicated the deceased was killed as part of the gangsters’ criminal activities. LIC had not shown that he had any involvement in the incident.
The Commission rejected LIC’s reliance on a social media post by the accused alleging a dispute with the deceased. It noted that neither the FIR nor the DSP’s report corroborated this, and that the post had no evidentiary value unless proved.
The Commission observed, “The intention of the assailants to commit murder and the question whether the resulting death falls within the meaning of accidental death under the insurance policies are two distinct matters.”
It added, “Merely because the death was caused by a pre-planned criminal act, it cannot automatically be concluded that the claim is not payable under the policies, especially in the absence of any terms and conditions.”
The Commission further remarked, “It appears that the respondents/OPs have adopted hyper technical approach to deny the Double Accident Benefit, for which the DLA was duly covered under the policy and was part of the policy terms.”
It also referred to Clause 6 of LIC’s own 2007 circular, which states that an accident benefit claim should not be withheld where the police report and charge-sheet raise no suspicion that the murder was self-provoked or that the claimant had a hand in it. The Commission further noted the National Commission’s ruling in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Pawan Balram Mulchandani, relied on by the appellants.
Holding that LIC had failed to justify the repudiation, the Commission ruled, “The repudiation of the claim, without establishing that the circumstances of the death were excluded from the coverage under the policies that too, without bringing on record any terms and conditions/exclusion clause qua the same, amounts to deficiency in service.”
Outcome
The Commission set aside the District Commission’s order and partly allowed the appeal. LIC was directed to pay the Double Accident Benefit under the four policies, with 6% annual interest from 30 April 2021 until realisation, to the appellants in equal shares. It must also pay a composite cost of ₹50,000 towards compensation and litigation expenses, within 60 days of receiving a certified copy of the order.
Case Title: Ripendeep Kaur Kambo and Others vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another
Case No.: First Appeal No. 58 of 2023
Bench: H.P.S. Mahal (Presiding Judicial Member) and Kiran Sibal (Member)
Date: 13 October 2026
