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 Shri Haridas Bharat Mali was an agriculturist holding Gut No.126/1 at village Aljapur, Taluka-Barshi, District-Solapur. He died accidentally on 23rd December, 2010 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 Opponent appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that complete set of documents was not submitted and the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 14th January, 2012 for the reasons given in the letter. 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 :- There is no dispute that the deceased was agriculturist and he died in motor vehicle accident. As per tripartite agreement, clause 2(III) Exclusion 12), if the insured died due to any breach of law or misfeasance, the deceased is not entitled for the benefit of this scheme. As per police investigation papers filed by the complainant herself, it is clear that the deceased was driving his motor cycle along with two pillion riders. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the opponent that driving motor cycle along with two pillion riders is against the legal provision under the Motor Vehicle Act. According to him, the deceased has committed breach of law under the Motor Vehicle Act. Therefore, as per Tripartite Agreement, Clause 2(III), Exclusion 12, the deceased is not entitled for the benefit of the scheme. The defense taken by the opponent is corroborated by the documents produced by the complainant herself. Apparently, the deceased has committed breach of law under the Motor Vehicle Act by driving motor cycle along with two pillion riders. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the benefit of the scheme.
5) The learned advocate for the complainant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court reported in 2009 ACJ 1073 in the case of Nirmalabai –Versus- State of Maharashtra. In that judgment, the deceased was passenger. In the instant complaint before us, the deceased was driving motor cycle. Therefore, the abovecited judgment is not applicable.
6) Thus, the deceased has committed breach of law. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the insurance claim as per Clause 2(III), Exclusion 12 of the Tripartite Agreement. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
- Complaint stands dismissed.
- Parties are left to bear their own costs.
- Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 8th October, 2014
