PER MR H.K.BHAISE,HON’BLE MEMBER

1)                The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, his father Shri Vishwas Rangrao Sawant was an agriculturist holding Gut No.591 at village Hangirge, Taluka-Sangola, District-Solapur.  He died accidentally on 2^nd October, 2011 in motor vehicle accident. He submitted insurance claim under the Government Scheme of Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojana.  His claim was not satisfied therefore he 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 23^rd July, 2012  as the deceased was carrying passengers in excess of vehicle capacity. 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 vide letter dated 23^rd July, 2012.

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 his father was holding agricultural land and he was farmer. There is no dispute about the death in motor vehicle accident.  The claim was repudiated by the O.P.No.1 on the ground that the deceased was driving vehicle with excess passenger therefore he was not entitled for the benefit of the Scheme. The complainant has produced police investigation papers and placed reliance on those papers.  As per police investigation papers, the deceased was driving motor cycle along with two pillion riders.  On motorcycle, only one pillion rider is allowed.  Thus, admitted position is that the deceased was carrying passengers excess to the vehicle capacity. As per Tripartite Agreement, Clause (VI) (A) 1), if the accident occurred while carrying passengers in excess of the capacity of the vehicle then the driver of the motorcycle is not entitled for the benefit of the Scheme.  Therefore, the O.P.No.1 has rightly repudiated the claim.  Hence, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as prayed.  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 15^th November, 2014