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 Sanjay Ravso Madakkari was an agriculturist, holding agricultural land Gut No.471 at village Dudge, Taluka-Gadhinglaj, District-Kolhapur. He died accidentally on 2^nd September, 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 31^st May, 2013 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)                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 also produced the copies of Police Complaint, Crime Details Form, Cause of Death Certificate and Copy of Chargesheet.  On going through all these papers, it is clear that the husband of the complainant died in motor vehicle accident.  According to the opponent, complete set of documents was not submitted. On perusal of the documents produced by the complainant, it is complete set as per requirement under the Agreement.  Under the Government Resolution, the beneficiary has to submit the claim to the concern agricultural department and the concern agricultural department has to comply all the formalities i.e. necessary documents and submit it to the opponent. Liability is fixed on the government agricultural department.  The beneficiary should not be suffered due to lack of the compliance within time by the government machinery. According to the complainant, the claim was submitted to the opponent within time.  The opponent has produced the copy of repudiation letter dated 31^st May, 2013.  If, according to the opponent, complete set of documents was not submitted within time, it was necessary to inform the complainant accordingly.  There is nothing on record to show that the complainant was informed to submit the complete set of documents.  Therefore, the defence taken by the opponent can not be accepted.  The complainant has produced all the required documents under the Agreement therefore her claim can not be rejected.  

5)                According to the opponent, last date of submission of claim was 15^th December, 2012 but the claim was submitted on 30^th May, 2013.  The complainant has produced the copy of Tripartite Agreement dated 12^th August, 2011.  As per this Tripartite Agreement, the policy was in force from 15^th August, 2011 to 14^th August, 2013.  The claim form was submitted on 30^th May, 2013 i.e. within the policy period.  It appears that the opponent has counted the period from the date of death.  As per Tripartite Agreement, the claim can be submitted within the policy period or within three months after expiry of the policy period.  The claim was submitted within the policy period therefore, the claim was wrongly repudiated by the opponent.

6)                The learned advocate for the opponent has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 1994(1) CPR 108 in Original Petition No.161 of 1992, in the case of Jewellers Narandas & Sons –Versus- The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, decided on 16^th December, 1993. In para 5 of the judgment, the Hon’ble National Commission has laid down as under :

Annexure R-V is a communication that gives detailed reasons in support of the decision taken by the insurer to repudiate the claim and it cannot be said that the said decision was taken arbitrarily and without due application of mind of the relevant facts and circumstances or otherwise than in good faith.  Such being the position, we have no hesitation to hold that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company so as to entitle the complainant to seek relief under the Consumer Protection Act.  In case the complainant feels aggrieved by the action of the Insurance Company in repudiating its claim, the remedy of the complainant to approach the ordinary Civil Court for appropriate relief.

In that judgment detailed reasons were given for repudiating the claim.  In the instant complaint before us, there is nothing on record to show that the complainant was informed to submit the required documents. In fact, as per Government Resolution, it is the liability of the government office to submit all the necessary documents. On their failure, the complainant who is the beneficiary should not be suffered.  Therefore, the abovecited judgment is not applicable in this case. Similar view is taken in other judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 1986-96 National Commission and SC page 3060 in the case of B.L.Agarwal –Versus- National Insurance Company Limited decided on 21^st October, 1993.

7)                The learned advocate for the complainant has placed reliance on the judgment of our State Commission reported in 2008(2) All MR (Journal) 13 in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited –Versus- Smt.Sindhubai Khanderao Khairnar,  decided on 7^th January, 2008. In para 9 of the judgment, the Hon’ble State Commission has observed as under :

The Government declares various benevolent schemes for Agriculturists and person coming from lower strata of society. For effective implementation of the claim, Govt. prescribed simple procedure. Taking into consideration, the illiteracy in the rural areas, the liability is imposed on the Village Revenue Officer and Tahsildar for purpose of collection of necessary documents and submission of the claim to the insurance company. The success of benevolent scheme depends as to how and in what manner such schemes are implemented. Unfortunately, because of lukewarm and obstructive attitude of insurance company, genuine and honest claim of widow is defeated for no fault of her.

In the instant complaint before us also, the claim form was immediately submitted to the government office. Therefore, the claim of the complainant can not be repudiated. 

8)                Thus, there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the deceased was the farmer holding agricultural land. He died accidentally in the motor vehicle accident.  The complainant is a widow therefore, as per the Agreement, the opponent is liable to satisfy the claim of the complainant. The complainant has complied all the formalities as required under the Agreement and the Government Resolution. 

         As discussed above, the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Complaint is allowed.
2. The opponent/Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.One Lakh Only) to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of death of the deceased insured i.e. 2^nd September, 2012 till its realization.
3. The opponent/Insurance Company is further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rs.Three Thousand Only) to the complainant as cost of this proceeding.
4. The above order shall be complied with within a period of one month from today.
5. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.

Pronounced on 3^rd December, 2015