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 Kishore Shankar Jadahv was an agriculturist holding Gut No.705 at village Parinche, Taluka-Purander, District-Pune. He died accidentally on 23^rd May, 2011 due to snake bite. 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 O.P.No.1 appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that the claim was rejected vide letter dated 22^nd December, 2011. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

3)                The O.P.No.2 appeared and filed written statement and submitted that claim was received through District Agricultural Officer, Pune and the same was forwarded to the O.P.No.1 and the O.P.No.1 repudiated the claim vide letter dated 22^nd December, 2011.

4)                The O.P.No.3 remained absent though served.

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

POINTS

REASONS

6) As to Point No.1 & 2 :- The complainant has produced revenue record showing that her husband was holding agricultural land and he was farmer. According to the complainant, her husband died due to snake bite. The complainant has produced the copy of Post Mortem Report.  On perusal of it, opinion for cause of death was reserved and Viscera was preserved.  According to the O.P.No.1, Viscera was sent to C.A. and as per C.A.Report, there was no snake poison.  The O.P.No.1 has produced the copy of C.A.Report showing that no snake poison was detected.  Thus, as per the Post Mortem Report, cause of death was reserved awaiting C.A.Report.  As per C.A.Report, there was no snake poison.  The complainant has not produced any evidence showing the cause of death of her husband.  As per Tripartite Agreement, if the death is due to snake bite, then only the Scheme is applicable.  There is no evidence on record showing that husband of the complainant died due to snake bite.  In the absence of such evidence, the complainant is not entitled for the benefit of the Scheme and the O.P.No.1 has rightly repudiated the claim.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opponents. 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 15^th November, 2014