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 Dashrath Mahadev Kambli was an agriculturist holding Gut No.3771 at village Kumbhavade, Taluka-Rajapur, District-Ratnagiri. He died accidentally on 14^th February, 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 O.P.No.1 appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that the claim was rejected vide letter dated 26^th February, 2011  as 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, Ratnagiri and the same was forwarded to the O.P.No.1 and the O.P.No.1 repudiated the claim vide letter dated 26^th February, 2011.

4)                The O.P.No.3 appeared but failed to file written statement.

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 :- There is no dispute about the death of the husband of the complainant.  The claim was repudiated on the ground that the deceased was more than 75 years of age therefore, she is not entitled for the benefit of the Scheme under Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojana. In the written statement and affidavit of evidence, the opponents have specifically stated that the deceased was more than 75 years of age on the day of the accident.  The O.P.No.1 also produced Vote ID Card of the deceased.  It shows that on 1^st January, 1994, the deceased was aged about 66 years.  He died on 14^th February, 2010.  It means that he was aged about 82 years on the day of the accident. He was more than 75 years old therefore the Scheme of Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojana is not applicable. As per Tripartite Agreement, it was necessary for the complainant to produce the age proof of the deceased.  In spite of specific defence taken by the opponents, the complainant did not bother to produce any evidence showing the age of the deceased.  The learned advocate for the complainant has submitted that as per the Cause of Death Certificate, the deceased was 65 years on the day of death.  This evidence is not sufficient to prove the age of the deceased.  As there is no sufficient evidence showing the age of the deceased, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as claimed.  Hence, the following order.

ORDER

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

Pronounced on 3^rd December, 2014