Does a killing planned by gangsters stop being an accident for an insurer? Not necessarily: murder by gangsters can be accidental death for insurance claims, the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held, and LIC must pay the double accident benefit under four policies.
Chandigarh: A District Commission order has been set aside by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which has directed the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) to pay the double accident benefit under four policies held by a man murdered at his shop in Moga. LIC could not deny the benefit merely because the killing was alleged to be a pre-planned act of a gangster, the Commission ruled [Ripendeep Kaur Kambo and Others v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another].
On October 13, 2026, an Additional Bench of Presiding Judicial Member H.P.S. Mahal and Member Kiran Sibal partly allowed the appeal. Member Kiran Sibal authored the judgment.
Two questions, kept apart
The Commission agreed with the legal propositions in Rita Devi and Prithvi Raj Bhandari but held that they did not apply on these facts, since LIC’s own case was that the insured was killed by a gangster to create terror. The FIR and the DSP’s closure report, it found, showed that the insured was killed as part of the gangsters’ criminal activities, and LIC had brought no convincing material showing any involvement of the insured. A social media post of the alleged assailant claiming a dispute with the insured was not corroborated by the FIR or the police report, and carried no evidentiary value unless proved.
“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. 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.”
LIC’s approach was hyper technical, the Commission said, and the insurer had to show that the circumstances of death fell outside the policy cover. It also pointed to LIC’s own Circular dated October 15, 2007, which both sides had relied on:
“If a policyholder is murdered and there is nothing in the police investigation report and the charge sheet framed by the police to lead to suspicion of the murder being self provoked and the claimant is having a hand in it, our offices should not withhold/repudiate the claim/Accident Benefit Claim.”
The National Commission’s decision in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pawan Balram Mulchandani, where a murder without the deliberate or wilful act of the insured was treated as accidental death, was also noted. Repudiating the claim without proving an exclusion, and without placing any exclusion clause on record, amounted to deficiency in service.
Four policies, one repudiation
Tajinder Singh Kambo held four LIC policies with a double accident benefit, with sums assured of Rs 10 lakh, Rs 5 lakh, Rs 10 lakh and Rs 1.60 lakh. On July 14, 2020, he was murdered by unidentified persons while sitting at his shop in Moga. LIC paid the basic death benefit to his widow, the nominee, but repudiated the double accident benefit by a letter dated April 30, 2021.
LIC’s stand was that, going by material collected from social media and a police closure report, the death was a pre-planned murder attributed to gangster Sukhpreet Singh alias Sukha Gill Lamme, committed to create terror in the area, and so was not an accidental death. These are LIC’s assertions, and the allegations against the named person are untested before any criminal court. The criminal proceedings were stated to be pending, and this order decides only the insurance claim.
The widow, the minor son and the mother of the deceased sought the balance of Rs 26.60 lakh with interest before the District Commission, Moga, which dismissed the complaint on November 29, 2022. Their appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 was filed on January 24, 2023, and the Commission reserved judgment on September 25, 2026.
Rita Devi and the proximity of cause
The District Commission had relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and the National Commission’s ruling in Prithvi Raj Bhandari v. Life Insurance Corporation. Rita Devi holds that a murder can be an accident depending on the proximity of the cause. Where the dominant intention is to kill a particular person, it is a murder simpliciter, whereas a killing that was not originally intended and happened in furtherance of another felonious act can be an accidental murder.
LIC argued that a pre-planned killing meant to spread terror was not unexpected and so not an accident. The complainants countered that the gangsters targeted a known person only to create terror and collect ransom, and that the insured had no role in their activities.
What LIC must now pay
The double accident benefit under the four policies is payable to the appellants in equal shares, with interest at 6% per annum from April 30, 2021, the date of repudiation, until realisation. LIC must also pay a composite Rs 50,000 as compensation and litigation expenses, and comply within 60 days of receiving a certified copy of the order.
The wider point for insurers
Whether the assailants meant to kill and whether the death is an accident within the policy are separate questions. A killing carried out as part of wider gangster activity, without any link to the insured, does not by itself take a claim outside accident cover.
Insurers also carry the burden of proving an exclusion, and their own internal circulars on murder claims can be used against them when they repudiate a benefit.
Case Title: Ripendeep Kaur Kambo and Others v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another
Case Number: First Appeal No. 58 of 2023
Bench: Presiding Judicial Member H.P.S. Mahal and Member Kiran Sibal, Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Additional Bench)
Date of Judgment: October 13, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Liza Bansal for the appellants; Advocate Sandeep Bhardwaj for LIC