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 son Jitendra Janardan Sawant was an agriculturist, holding Gut No.281 at village Humbarne, Taluka- Kankawali District-Sindhudurg.  He died accidentally on 20^th April, 2012 in motor accident.  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 claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 13^th December, 2012 on the ground that the deceased was not the farmer and his name was not recorded in land record register at the time of inception of the policy. 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 the argument of 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 the revenue record showing that her son was holding agricultural land and he was farmer. The complainant also produced the copies of Police Report, Crime Details Form, Inquest Panchanama, Post Mortem Report, Death Certificate.  On going through all these papers, it is clear that the son of the complainant died accidentally in motor accident. As per written statement filed by the opponent, the claim was repudiated as the deceased was not farmer on the day of inception of the policy.  On perusal of the revenue record, it is clear that name of the deceased was recorded as farmer on 10^th February, 2012 as per Mutation Entry No.186.  He died accidentally on 20^th April, 2012.  It means that he was registered farmer on the day of accident.  It is submitted by the learned advocate for the opponent that he was not the registered farmer on the day of inception of policy as per the Tripartite Agreement therefore, she is not entitled for the benefit of the Scheme.  On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned advocate for the complainant that it is sufficient that the deceased was the registered farmer on the day of accident.  For this purpose, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission, in Revision Petition No.1664 of 2011, in the case of Reliance General Insurance Company Limited –Versus- Smt.Sakorba Hetubha Jadeja and Ors., decided on 27^th August,. 2012. In para 7 of the judgment, the Hon’ble National Commission has held as under :

We carefully perused the conditions laid down by the Government in which it is mentioned that age of an agriculturist must be between 12 to 70 years. The registered farmer who is less than 12 years will be automatically covered in the future from the date he completes 12 years and will be covered under the scheme till he attains the age of 70 years till the end of the financial year. Considering this provision of resolution of Government we can safely conclude that it was the intention of the Government to extend the benefits of the scheme to those farmers who acquire eligibility criteria even after the commencement of the policy. And accordingly, since the deceased had become registered farmer after the inception of policy, he was deemed to have been covered under the insurance scheme. If the Government wanted to exclude the farmer who had become registered farmer after the inception of policy then in that case the Government would have made specific reference in the GR for exclusion of benefits to those farmers who have acquired land after the inception of policy. No such exclusion clause is found in the resolution. We are of the opinion that it was the intention of the Government to extend the benefits of the scheme automatically to those farmers who became registered farmer after the inception of the policy. Farmers who completes the age of 12 years are automatically covered under the scheme and therefore, by necessary implication it can be inferred that the farmers who acquire the land or who become the registered farmers after the commencement of policy are also deemed to have been covered under the scheme automatically. Therefore, the heirs of the deceased are also entitled to get the benefits under the scheme. It is the settled principle of interpretation that when two views are possible, than the view favourable to the insured should be preferred. Insurance policy is a contract for the benefit of insured and interpretation should promote its object and serve interest of consumer. If two interpretations are possible, one which favours the consumer is to be adopted. Further it is also settled principle of interpretation of statutes that when policy conditions are not clear and capable of more than one interpretation, the interpretation beneficial to consumer should be adopted. In light of these principles we are of the firm opinion that though the deceased had become registered farmer after the inception of the policy he was well covered under the scheme as soon as he acquired the land and became registered farmer during the policy period or after the inception of the policy.”

In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, it is sufficient that the deceased was the registered farmer on the day of accident. In the instant complaint before us, the deceased was the registered farmer on the day of accident.  In view of the above said law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, the opponent has wrongly repudiated the claim.  The complainant has complied all the formalities.  She is the mother of the deceased farmer.  Therefore, she is entitled for the benefit under the Scheme.  The learned advocate for the opponent has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in a case of Original Petition No.161/1992 Jewellers Narandas & sons-V/s.- The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd decided on 16/12/1993 But the facts before us  are totally deferent therefore the above sited judgment is not applicable. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Complaint is allowed.
2. The O.P.No.1/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 deceased insured i.e. 20^th April, 2012 till its realization.
3. The O.P.No.1/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 04^th July, 2016