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 Ganesh Vitthal Bhapkar was an agriculturist, holding agricultural land Gut No.244 at village Loni Bhapkar, Taluka-Baramari, District-Pune. He died accidentally on 18^th April, 2012 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/Insurance Company appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 30^th April, 2013 as the deceased was not holding valid driving license.  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)                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 the revenue record showing that her husband was holding agricultural land and he was farmer. The complainant has also produced the copies of Police Complaint, Crime Details Form, Inquest Panchanama and Post Mortem Report.  On going through all these papers, it is clear that the husband of the complainant died in 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 the 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 the 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 the valid driving license of the deceased.  As per police papers on record, the deceased was driving the Motorcycle rashly and negligently and he was not holding the valid driving license. The police investigation show that the deceased himself was at fault.  He was not holding the valid driving license therefore the Scheme was not applicable to the deceased and hence the complainant is not entitled for the claim as prayed. 

5)                The learned advocate for the complainant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission reported in II (2006) CPJ 144 (NC).  In this judgment, there were excess passengers.  The learned advocate for the complainant has further placed reliance on the another judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC).  In this judgment, vehicle was given on hire.  The facts before us are totally different from the facts in the abovecited judgments.  In this complaint, the police investigation show that accident took place due to the fault of the deceased himself and deceased was driving vehicle without valid driving license.  Therefore, in view of Clause (VI) (A) 2 of the Tripartite Agreement, the complainant is not entitled for the benefit of the Scheme of Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojana. 

                   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 3^rd December, 2015