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 Ashok Baliram Patil was an agriculturist holding Gut No.266 at village Waloli, Taluka-Panhala, District-Kolhapur. He died accidentally on 21^st January, 2011  in motor vehicle 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 O.P.No.1 appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that the claim was rejected vide letter dated 27^th July, 2011 as the deceased was driving the vehicle with excess passenger. 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, Kolhapur and the same was forwarded to the O.P.No.1 and the O.P.No.1 repudiated the claim vide letter dated 27^th July, 2011.   

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 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 died in the motor vehicle accident.  According to the opponents, the deceased was driving motorcycle alongwith three more passengers i.e. in excess of capacity of the motorcycle.  The learned advocate for the O.P.No.1 has drawn our attention to the police complaint dated 10^th February, 2011.  In police complaint, it is written that the deceased was driving his motorcycle and Yuvraj Malvi, Vijay Malvi and Prakash Lokhande were the pillion riders.  The complainant has palced reliance on the police investigation papers for the accident and accidental death.  As per police investigation papers, the deceased was driving motorcycle along with three pillion riders.  As per rule, only one pillion rider is permissible under the Motor Vehicle Act/Rules.  But, the deceased was driving his motorcycle alongwith three pillion riders.  Thus, the act of the deceased was illegal.  As per Tripartite Agreement,  Clause (VI), if the accident took place while driving the motor vehicle in excess of the capacity of the vehicle and the deceased was driving the vehicle then the deceased was not entitled for the benefit of the Scheme.  Therefore, in view of the Tripartite Agreement, the complainant is not entitled for the benefit under the Scheme.  Hence, we proceed to pass 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