Maharashtra

Central Mumbai

CC/14/229

SMT YASHODA BAPU KALE - Complainant(s)

Versus

FUTURE GENERALI INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., THROUGH ITS MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

SHRI ABHAY JADHAV

04 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CENTRAL MUMBAI
Puravatha Bhavan, 2nd Floor, General Nagesh Marg, Near Mahatma Gandhi Hospital
Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Phone No. 022-2417 1360
Website- www.confonet.nic.in
 
Complaint Case No. CC/14/229
 
1. SMT YASHODA BAPU KALE
R/AT JAINAKWADI TAL BARAMATI
PUNE
MAHARASHTRA
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. FUTURE GENERALI INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., THROUGH ITS MANAGER
INDIABULLS FINANCE CENTRE, TOWER 3, 6TH FLOOR, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, ELPHINSTONE (WEST), MUMBAI 400 013
MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. B.S.WASEKAR PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. H.K.BHAISE MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
Mr.Abhay Jadhav-Advocate
 
For the Opp. Party:
Mrs.Bhavna Bhat-Advocate
 
ORDER

PER MR.B.S.WASEKAR, HON’BLE PRESIDENT

1)                The present complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, her husband Mr.Bapu Bajirao Kale was an agriculturist holding Gut No.174 at village Jainakwadi, Taluka-Baramati District-Pune. He died accidentally on 23rd February, 2012 by fall. 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 appeared and filed written statement.  It is submitted that the complaint failed to submit required documents.  As there are no documents as per requirement of the agreement, the complainant is not entitled for insurance benefit.  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

Sr.No.

Points

Findings

1)

Whether there is deficiency in service ? 

No

2)

Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed ? 

No

3)

What Order ? 

As per final order

REASONS

4) As to Point No.1 & 2 :- The complainant has produced the revenue record, showing that her husband was holding agricultural land and he was farmer. The claim submitted by the complainant was repudiated by the opponent vide letter dated 14/08/2012 on the ground that, the required documents were not submitted.  It is submitted by the learned advocate for the opponent that, even before this forum the complainant has not submitted the required document as per government circular and tri-party agreement.   It appears that information was not given to the police station at all.  As per Government Resolution and agreement, it is necessary to submit documents i.e. F.I.R./Police Patil Report, Inquest Panchanama and Post Mortem Report.  These documents were not submitted before the opponent.  The complainant also failed to produce these documents before this Forum with the complaint.  As there are no documents, there is no compliance of Government Resolution and agreement. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the insurance benefit.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

                      ORDER

  1. Complaint stands dismissed.
  2. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
  3. Inform the parties accordingly. 

Pronounced on 04th July,  2016

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. B.S.WASEKAR]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. H.K.BHAISE]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.