' MUSARRAT HILALI, J.---Impugned herein is the judgment dated 16-2-2012 of learned District Judge/ Insurance Tribunal, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar whereby petition of the respondent with regard to benefits of accidental death was allowed.
2. Background of the controversy is that Late Muhammad Iqbal Marwat, Ex-District Police Officer, Bannu was critically injured in a suicide bomb blast at Bannu on 11-2-2010, who was rushed to Cantonment Military Hospital, Rawalpindi but could not survive and embraced `Shahadat' in the hospital on 17-2-2010. During the life time, the deceased had insured himself with the appellants for a sum of rupees one million. The respondent/widow being nominee preferred an application to the appellants for claim of insured amount. The latter paid Rs,10,50,000 but declined to pay the amount of accidental death benefits albeit according to the respondent it was -covered by supplementary contract AIB No,599195-Occup extra. After refusal of the accidental death benefits/claim, the respondent vide application approached the appellants for accidental benefit but with no fruitful result. She again approached the appellants asking reasons for refusal of the same benefit, however, the latter conveyed vide letter dated 23-12-2012 mentioning the grounds for refusal a.... "that the death of the deceased comes under murder and assault and this risk is excluded for which no accidental death benefits were payable".
' Appellants were put on notice, who contested the claim of the respondent by filing written statement. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, the learned Insurance Tribunal accepted the claim put forth by the respondent vide judgment dated 16-2-2012 impugned herein.
3. Learned counsel for appellants contended that the judgment recorded by learned Insurance Tribunal is against the agreement executed between the parties, therefore, the same has no value in the eye of law. Further contended that the finding of learned Tribunal on issue No,1 is against the Muhammadan Law as the respondent has not impleaded the father and mother of the deceased as necessary parties, hence the same is liable to be struck down. He was of the view that the findings of learned Tribunal on issues Nos.2 and 3 are totally beyond the scope and against the terms and conditions of clause-7 of the supplementary contract executed between the parties, therefore, the same requires to be set at naught. Further contended that the decision of Wafaqi Mohtasib on the same issue escaped attention of learned Tribunal, which has caused miscarriage of justice.
4. Learned counsel for respondent while refuting the arguments from other side contended that the learned Tribunal has appraised the entire evidence in its true perspective and drawn therefrom a fair conclusion, which is neither perverse nor arbitrary, hence the same requires no interference by this court. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record available before us.
5. The record is suggestive of the fact that the claim of respondent with regard to life insurance has been admitted by the appellants, however, the appellants refused to pay the deceased the benefits of accidental death while pressing into service supplementary contract AIB No,599195- PWCUBExtra Exh.P.W.1/3. The ground prevailed with the appellants for the refusal was that the death at the deceased fell under the definition of murder and assault and such risk was excluded for which no additional accidental benefits were admissible.
6. The appellants have mainly relied on the contract clause "Risk excluded" under which the contract was not covering the death caused by assault or murder. The learned Tribunal while thrashing out this plea of the appellants was of the view that under the law the assault/murder is always done with malice or due to some personal enmity whereas the accidental death is caused spontaneously and through unexpected external force. The respondent's case is covered by the 'risk clause', because the death has been caused by the events, which were unusual to the deceased. The incident took place unexpectedly and without any apparent cause or fault on the part of the deceased. The deceased has embraced 'Shahadat' in line of duty when he was critically injured in a suicidal bomb blast, therefore, his death is not at all assault or murder to be treated as excluded risk by the appellants to deprive the respondent from the accidental death benefits, thus, keeping in view the above facts and circumstances the learned Tribunal was perfectly justified in holding that the refusal on the part of the appellants to the extent of accidental death benefits to the respondent was unjustified, hence she was held entitled for the recovery of the same.
' In the circumstances, learned counsel for appellants is unable to make out a case for interference in the well reasoned judgment recorded by learned Tribunal, hence instant appeal being without any legal substance is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. C.M. 206-P of 20121 having become redundant also stands disposed of.