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 Santosh Yashwant Khaple was an agriculturist holding Gut No.23B at village Undi, Taluka-District-Ratnagiri. He died accidentally on 10^th February, 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. appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that 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 complainant failed to file evidence on affidavit.  The opponent filed evidence on affidavit. After hearing both the parties and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.

POINTS

REASONS

4) 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 opponent, the deceased had no valid driving license and the accident took place due to the fault of the deceased himself therefore he is not entitled for the benefit under the Scheme of Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojana.  The learned advocate for the opponent has drawn our attention to Tripartite Agreement.  As per Clause (VI) of the Agreement, in case of road accident, the claimant has to produce the documents i.e. 1) F.I.R., 2) Spot Panchanama, 3) Inquest Panchanama, 4) Post Mortem Report and 5) valid driving license.  As per Clause (VI) (A) 2., if the deceased was driving vehicle without valid driving license, the Scheme is not applicable.  In the instant complaint before us, the complainant has not produced valid driving license alongwith claim form and also before this Forum.  In the written statement as well as in the affidavit of evidence, the opponent has taken specific defence that the deceased was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently without holding valid driving license and the accident took place due to fault of the deceased himself.  On this background, it was necessary for the complainant to produce valid driving license of the deceased.  The police complaint was lodged by A.S.I. Shri Ale after investigation. The investigation shows that deceased was driving his motorcycle rashly and negligently and gave dash to another motorcycle by going to wrong side.  The police investigation show that the deceased himself was at fault.  He was not holding valid driving license therefore the Scheme was not applicable to the deceased and hence the complainant is not entitled for the claim as prayed. 

          Thus, there is no merit in the complaint and it deserves to be dismissed.  Hence, the following order.

ORDER

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

Pronounced on 1^st December, 2014