Commission holds that pre-planned murder by gangsters to create terror qualifies for double accident benefit; repudiation by LIC amounts to deficiency in service.
In a significant consumer protection ruling dated 13th October 2026, the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Chandigarh bench) allowed the appeal filed by Ripendeep Kaur Kambo and others against Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), directing the insurer to pay the double accident benefit under four life insurance policies. The policies had been taken by the deceased, Tajinder Singh, who was murdered in July 2020 by unidentified gangsters while sitting at his shop in Moga.
The insurer had paid only the basic death benefit but refused to pay the additional double accident benefit on the ground that the murder was pre-planned and thus not accidental. LIC relied on social media material and police closure reports suggesting the murder was committed by gangster Sukhpreet Singh alias Sukha Gill Lamme as an act to create terror in the area. LIC argued that since the murder was intentional and premeditated, it did not fall within the ambit of accidental death under the policy terms.
The appellants contended that there was no evidence to show that the insured was involved or had any enmity with the accused gangsters. They further relied on a 2007 internal circular of LIC which stipulates that in cases of murder where police investigation does not raise suspicion of self-provocation or involvement of the claimant, the double accident benefit should not be withheld. The appellants also cited precedents holding that a murder can be an accident if the insured was not the intended target but was killed incidentally during a felonious act.
The Commission examined the facts, including the FIR and police reports, and noted that the murder was committed to create terror in the locality and not targeted specifically against the insured. The social media post relied upon by LIC alleging a personal dispute was not corroborated by police records and held to have no evidentiary value. The Commission further distinguished between "murder simplicitor" (intentional killing of a particular person) and "accidental murder" (death occurring during a felonious act without the insured being the intended victim).
Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Smt. Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and other consumer commission rulings, the Commission held that repudiation of the double accident benefit claim solely on the ground of pre-planning without proving exclusion under policy terms amounts to deficiency in service by the insurer.
Consequently, the Commission set aside the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga, which had dismissed the complaint, and directed LIC to pay the double accident benefit amounting to Rs. 26,60,000/- under all four policies along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of repudiation (30.04.2021) till realization. LIC was also ordered to pay Rs. 50,000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses. The order must be complied with within 60 days.
This judgment reinforces the principle that insurance companies cannot adopt a hyper-technical approach to deny accidental death benefits in cases where the insured's death occurred during criminal acts intended to terrorize but not specifically target the insured, especially in absence of any exclusion clause or proof of involvement by the insured.
Bottom Line:
Insurance - Double Accident Benefit - Murder of insured by gangsters to create terror in area - In absence of proof that murder was self-provoked, claimant was involved, or policy exclusion/terms excluding such death were produced, repudiation of accidental benefit claim merely on ground that murder was pre-planned held unjustified - Such death held covered for double accident benefit.
Statutory provision(s):
Consumer Protection Act, 2019; Life Insurance Policy Terms and Conditions.
