PER MR.B.S.WASEKAR, HON’BLE PRESIDENT

1)                The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, her husband Shri Dnyanu Yesba Patil was an agriculturist holding Gut No.149 at village Golivade, Taluka-Panhala, District-Kolhapur.  He died accidentally on 15^th April, 2011 due to fall from height. She submitted insurance claim under the Government Scheme of Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojana.  Her claim was not satisfied therefore she has filed this complaint for insurance claim of Rs.1 Lakh with interest. 

2)                The opponent/Insurance Company appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that the claim was rejected vide letter dated 28^th February, 2012 as his age was above 75 years on the day of death therefore, she can not file claim before this Forum. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

3)                After hearing both the parties and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.

POINTS

REASONS

4) As to Point No.1 & 2 :- The complainant has produced revenue record showing that her husband was holding agricultural land and he was farmer. The complainant also produced copies of Police Complaint, Police Report to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Police Report under section 174 of Cr.P.C., Post Mortem, Information received under the Right to Information Act showing that claim was submitted. On going through all these papers, it is clear that the husband of the complainant died due to fall from the height. According to the opponent, complete set of documents was not submitted. On perusal of the documents produced by the complainant, it is complete set as per requirement under the Agreement.  Under the Government Resolution, the beneficiary has to submit the claim to the concern agricultural department and the concern agricultural department has to comply all the formalities i.e. necessary documents and submit it to the opponent. Liability is fixed on the government agricultural department. The beneficiary should not be suffered due to lack of the compliance within time by the government machinery. According to the complainant, the claim was submitted to the opponent government office within time. The opponent had produced copy of repudiation letter dated 28^th February, 2012. The opponent has also produced Voter ID Card of the deceased.  The learned advocate for the opponent has submitted that as per Voter ID Card, the age of the deceased was more than 75 years on the day of death.  On perusal of copy of Voter ID on record, it is clear that the age of the deceased was 52 years on 1^st January, 1994.  It means that on the day of death, his age was not more than 75 years. In Post Mortem Report also, the age of the deceased is shown as 65 years.  Thus, as per evidence on record, the deceased was below 75 years on the day of death.  Therefore, the defence taken by the opponent can not be accepted. 

5)                The learned advocate for the complainant has placed reliance on the judgment of our State Commission reported in 2008(2) All MR (Journal) 13 in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited –Versus- Smt.Sindhubai Khanderao Khairnar, decided on 7^th January, 2008. In para 9 of the judgment, the Hon’ble State Commission has observed as under :

The Government declares various benevolent schemes for Agriculturists and person coming from lower strata of society. For effective implementation of the claim, Govt. prescribed simple procedure. Taking into consideration, the illiteracy in the rural areas, the liability is imposed on the Village Revenue Officer and Tahsildar for purpose of collection of necessary documents and submission of the claim to the insurance company. The success of benevolent scheme depends as to how and in what manner such schemes are implemented. Unfortunately, because of lukewarm and obstructive attitude of insurance company, genuine and honest claim of widow is defeated for no fault of her.

In the instant complaint before us also, claim form was immediately submitted to the government office. Therefore, the claim of the complainant can not be repudiated. 

6)                Thus, there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the deceased was the farmer holding agricultural land. He died accidentally due to fall from height.  The complainant is a widow therefore as per the Agreement, the opponent is liable to satisfy the claim of the complainant. The complainant has complied all the formalities as required under the Agreement and the Government Resolution. 

         As discussed above, the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Complaint is allowed.
2. The O.P./Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.One Lakh Only) to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of death of the insured i.e. 15^th April, 2011 till its realization.
3. The O.P./Insurance Company is further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rs.Three Thousand Only) to the complainant as cost of this proceeding.
4. The above order shall be complied with within a period of one month from today.
5. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost

Pronounced on 13^th February, 2015