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 Sukhdev Narayan Nawle was an agriculturist holding Gut No.741 at village Ekhatpur, Taluka-Sangola, District-Solapur. He died accidentally on 30^th November, 2010 in motor vehicle accident by drowning into the well water.  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 14^th January, 2012 as the deceased had no valid driving license and complete set of documents was not submitted within time as per Tripartite Agreement 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)                The O.P.No.2 appeared and filed written statement and submitted that claim was received through District Agricultural Officer, Solapur and the same was forwarded to the O.P.No.1 and the O.P.No.1 repudiated the claim. 

4)                The O.P.No.3 absent though duly 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. The complainant also produced the copies of Police Complaint, Crime Details Form, Inquest Panchanama, Post Mortem Report.  On going through all these papers, it is clear that the husband of the complainant was driving Dipper vehicle and while taking the vehicle at reverse side, he fell into the well along with the vehicle thereby he died by drowning into the well water. According to the opponent, the deceased had no valid driving license and his license was not renewed at the time of accident and the accident took place due to the fault of the deceased himself therefore he is not entitled for the benefit under the Scheme of Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojana.  The learned advocate for the opponent has drawn our attention to Tripartite Agreement.  As per Clause (VI) of the Agreement, in case of road accident the claimant has to produce the documents i.e. 1) F.I.R., 2) Spot Panchanama, 3) Inquest Panchanama, 4) Post Mortem Report and 5) valid driving license.  As per Clause (VI) (A) 2., if the deceased was driving vehicle without valid driving license, the Scheme is not applicable.  In the instant complaint before us, the complainant has not produced valid driving license alongwith claim form and also before this Forum.  In the written statement as well as in the affidavit of evidence, the opponents have taken specific defence that the deceased was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently without holding valid driving license and the accident took place due to fault of the deceased himself.  On this background, it was necessary for the complainant to produce valid driving license of the deceased.  The accident was investigated by P.S.I. Dhumal and after his investigation, he lodged his report in the police station.  The investigation shows that the deceased was taking his vehicle at reverse side without holding valid driving license and he fell down into the well along with his vehicle and thereby he died due to drowning into the well water.  The police investigation shows that the deceased himself was at fault.  He was not holding valid driving license therefore the Scheme was not applicable to the deceased and hence the complainant is not entitled for the claim as prayed. 

7)                In this complaint, the police investigation shows that the accident took place due to the fault of the deceased himself and the deceased was driving vehicle without valid driving license.  Therefore, in view of Clause (VI) (A) 2 of the Tripartite Agreement, the complainant is not entitled for the benefit of the Scheme of Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojana. 

                   Thus, there is no merit in the complaint and it deserves to be dismissed.  Hence, the following order.

ORDER

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

Pronounced on 3^rd November, 2014