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, he is holding agricultural land Gut No.1 at village Yelgi, Taluka-Mangalvedha, District-Solapur. He was injured due to fall into the well on 22^nd November, 2011. 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 31^st December, 2012 as the complainant is not entitled for the benefit of the Scheme. 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 31^st December, 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 he is holding agricultural land and he is farmer. There is no dispute that the complainant was injured by fall into the well.  According to the complainant, he is suffering from disability due to injury by fall into the well. He has produced xerox copy of Disability Certificate issued by Government Medical College, Solapur. As per this Certificate, the complainant sustained fracture injury on his leg and he suffering from 45% disability. As per the Tripartite Agreement, the Scheme is applicable to the person who lost on limb.  Admittedly, the complainant has not lost any limb.  His leg only is injured thereby he is suffering disability.  As there is no loss of any limb, the Scheme is not applicable and the complainant is not entitled for any benefit as per Tripartite Agreement. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opponents.  Hence, we proceed to pass 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