[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Branch Manager vs Smt. Laxmi Jain on 7 March, 2026

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2026:RJ-JD:10754]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18680/2024

Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation Of India, Branch
Pali-1, Mandia Road, Pali, District Pali (Raj.) Through Mr. Subash
Chandra Sharma Son Of Late Shri Surendra Sharma Aged 58
Years, Authorized Signatory And Manager (Legal), Presently At
Life Insurance Corporation Of India, Divisional Office, Jodhpur.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
Smt. Laxmi Jain W/o Late Shri Naresh Kumar Jain, Resident Of
23, Semegiyo Ki Patti, Pali (Raj.).
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Naman Bhansali.
For Respondent(s)         :     -



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                    ORDER

Reserved on:- 24/02/2026 Pronounced on:- 07/03/2026

1. By way of filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, the petitioner - Life Insurance

Corporation of India (LIC) has assailed the validity and correctness

of the award dated 20.08.2024 passed by the Permanent Lok

Adalat, Pali in Case No. 15/2023 titled "Laxmi Jain vs. Branch

Manager, LIC, Branch Pali I", whereby the Permanent Lok Adalat

has directed the petitioner - LIC to pay a sum of Rs.3,65,000/-

along with interest @ 6% per annum and Rs.10,000/- towards

litigation expenses to the respondent - Laxmi Jain.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon

perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that

the husband of the respondent, Shri Naresh Kumar Jain, had

(Uploaded on 07/03/2026 at 12:05:55 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:10754] (2 of 4) [CW-18680/2024]

obtained two insurance policies, namely Jeevan Mitra (Triple Cover

and Endowment Plan with Accident Benefit No.108024951) and

Jeevan Labh (Limited Premium Endowment Plan No.146903563),

from the petitioner - LIC after regularly paying the requisite

premiums.

3. After the demise of her husband, the respondent submitted

claim forms as prescribed by LIC seeking the insurance amount

along with accidental death benefits, stating that on 16.02.2021,

her husband slipped while riding a motorcycle, sustained severe

head injuries, and was taken to a Government Hospital where he

was declared dead.

4. Admittedly, LIC disbursed the sum of Rs.2,09,400/- towards

insurance amount and bonus under the Jeevan Labh policy and

Rs.5,70,532/- towards insurance amount and bonus under the

Jeevan Mitra policy. However, the additional accidental death

benefits of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,65,000/- respectively under

the aforesaid policies were denied on the ground that the death of

the insured was not accidental. According to LIC, neither was any

FIR lodged nor was a postmortem conducted to establish that the

death resulted from a road accident.

5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the respondent filed a

complaint before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Pali seeking a

direction to LIC to release the accidental death benefits under the

Jeevan Mitra and Jeevan Labh policies.

6. The Permanent Lok Adalat, after hearing the parties and

examining the material available on record, concluded that when

the insured Naresh Kumar was brought to Bangad Hospital, the

cause recorded was head injury due to a motorcycle accident.

(Uploaded on 07/03/2026 at 12:05:55 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:10754] (3 of 4) [CW-18680/2024]

Further, eye-witnesses, namely Kamlesh Bhandari and Ketan Jain,

filed affidavits affirming that they had witnessed the accident. On

the basis of the documentary evidence and affidavits, the

Permanent Lok Adalat allowed the claim and directed LIC to

release the accidental benefits. The relevant portion of the award

dated 20.08.2024 is reproduced below for ready reference:-

"हमने उभय पक्षकारान के तर्कों पर मनन किया। पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया। परिवादिया के मत ृ क पति की मत्ृ यु दिनांक 16.12.2021 को शाम 8:15 बजे दर्घ ु टना होना बताया है । पत्रावली पर जो राजकीय बांगड़ चिकित्साल्य पाली का बाह्रा रोगी उपचार पत्र प्रस्तुत किया गया है । उसके अनुसार नरे श कुमार को दिनांक 16.12.2021 को शाम के 8:44 बजे अस्पताल ले जाया गया था। जिसे बाद जांच उसी समय 8:55 बजे मत ृ घोषित कर दिया था। उक्त रोगी उपचार पत्र पर रोगी के शरीर पर सिर में चोट बाईक स्लीप हो जाने के कारण आना अंकित किया हुआ है । इसका अर्थ यह हुआ कि मत ृ क को अस्पताल ले जाने वाले व्यक्ति ने तुरंत डॉक्टर को चोट का कारण बताया गया जो बिना किसी पश्चातवति ृ सोच के सही बताया गया था। इस बात पर विश्वास नहीं किये जाने का कोई कारण नहीं है ।

पत्रावली पर घटना के प्रत्यक्षदर्शी 2 गवाहान ् कमलेश भण्डारी व केतन जैन के शपथ पत्र भी प्रस्तुत किये गये हैं , जिनमें उन्होंने इस बात की पष्टि ु की है कि परिवादिया के पति की मत्ृ यु परिवाद में अंकित घटना के अनस ु ार ही हुई थी।

उपरोक्त साक्ष्य को गलत माने जाने का कोई ऐसा आधार अप्रार्थी कंपनी की ओर से प्रस्तुत नहीं किया गया है । ऐसी परिस्थिति में परिवादिया द्वारा एफ. आई.आर. दर्ज नहीं करवाने एवं मत ृ क का पोस्टमार्टम नहीं करवाने के आधार पर यह नहीं माना जा सकता कि परिवादिया के पति की मत्ृ यःु दर्घ ु टना के फलस्वरूप नहीं हुई हो।

उपरोक्त विश्लेषण से हम इस निष्कर्ष पर पहुंचते हैं कि इस बात में कोई संदेह नहीं है कि परिवादिया के पति नरे श कुमार की मत्ृ यु परिवाद में अंकितानुसार दर्घ ु टना के कारण ही हुई थी। बीमा कंपनी ने परिवादिया द्वार प्रस्तुत साक्ष्य को एफ.आई.आर. व पोस्टमार्टम के अभाव में ठोस साक्ष्य नहीं मानकर उसका दावा खारिज किया है । जिसे उचित नहीं माना जा सकता।

(Uploaded on 07/03/2026 at 12:05:55 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:10754] (4 of 4) [CW-18680/2024]

अतः हमारी राय में परिवादिया द्वारा प्रस्तत ु दर्घ ु टना हितलाभ दिलाये जाने बाबत ् यह परिवाद स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य है ।"

7. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner

and upon consideration of the material available on record, finds

that lodging of an FIR is not an indispensable requirement for

processing an accidental death claim, particularly when hospital

records and eye-witness statements sufficiently establish that the

insured's death was caused by injuries sustained in an accident. If

LIC had any doubt regarding the genuineness of the documents or

affidavits, it could have sought cross-examination of the

concerned witnesses or produced material to rebut the claim.

However, the claim could not have been denied merely on the

absence of an FIR or postmortem report. Denial of accidental

insurance benefits on such hyper-technical grounds is neither