Maharashtra

Central Mumbai

CC/14/329

SHRI RAGHUNATH VISWNATH GAJAKOSH - Complainant(s)

Versus

FUTURE GENERALI INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

SHRI NITIN KALE

08 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CENTRAL MUMBAI
Puravatha Bhavan, 2nd Floor, General Nagesh Marg, Near Mahatma Gandhi Hospital
Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Phone No. 022-2417 1360
Website- www.confonet.nic.in
 
Complaint Case No. CC/14/329
 
1. SHRI RAGHUNATH VISWNATH GAJAKOSH
RESIDING AT-POST-AMBAJOGAI, TALUKA-AMBAJOGAI
DISTRICT-BEED
MAHARASTHRA STATE
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. FUTURE GENERALI INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGER
INDIA BULLS FINANCE CENTRE, TOWER 3, 6TH FLOOR, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, ELPHINSTONE ROAD (WEST)
MUMBAI-400 013
MAHARASHTRA STATE
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. B.S.WASEKAR PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. H.K.BHAISE MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
Shri Nitin Kale-Advocate
 
For the Opp. Party:
Smt.Bhavana Bhat-Advocate
 
Dated : 08 Aug 2016
Final Order / Judgement

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, his father Shri.Vishwanath Jalaba Gajakosh was an agriculturist holding Gut No.518 at village-Ambejogai, Taluka-Ambejogai, District-Beed. He died accidentally on 15th March, 2013 due to drowning in to the well.  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. appeared and filed written statement.  It is submitted that, no claim was submitted within time limit. 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

Sr.No.

Points

Findings

1)

Whether there is deficiency in service ? 

Yes

2)

Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed ?  

Yes

3)

What Order ? 

As per final order

REASONS

4) As to Point No.1 & 2 :- The complainant has produced revenue record, showing that his father was holding agricultural land and he was farmer. The complainant also produced copies of Police Complaint, Spot Panchanama, Inquest Panchanama, Post Mortem Report. On going through all these papers, it is clear that the father of the complainant died due to drowning in to the well.

5)                During the course of argument the learned advocate for the opponent submitted that, the deceased was aged about 83 years at the time of death therefore the scheme of Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojana is not applicable. As per Tripartite Agreement, the deceased should be aged about 10 to 75 years.  If, the deceased is more than 75 years old, the scheme will not be applicable. In this complaint, the deceased was illiterate. As per the Tripartite Agreement, the claimant has to produce age proof i.e. School Leaving Certificate/Ration Card/Election Card/Gram Panchayat Certificate. In this complaint, the opponent has not produced any evidence showing the age of deceased.  The opponent has produced repudiation letter dated 30/09/2013 repudiating the claim on the ground that deceased was aged about 83 years at the time of death.   As per Election Card, the deceased was aged about 83 years.  On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned advocate for the complainant that the deceased was illiterate therefore he could not say about his age. The age written in Election Card and in Form No.6D must have been written by the concern officer. Therefore, it should not be accepted. According to him, in the post mortem report, age is written by the Medical Officer who is supposed to be an expert person. In post mortem report, age is written 70 years. The deceased was illiterate villager therefore he was not expected to know his age. The possibility can not be ruled out that the age in Election Card as well as in Form No.6D must have been written by the concern officer approximately. Medical Officer is supposed to be an expert person who has calculated age at the time of conducting post mortem and disclosed it in his report.  Therefore, we are accepting the age written by the Medical Officer in the post mortem report.  As per post mortem report, deceased was aged about 70 years therefore the scheme of Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojana is applicable.

6)                The opponent has repudiated the claim on the ground of over age only.  As discussed above, the deceased was not over aged therefore the claim was wrongly repudiated.  The complainant has produced all the required documents.  The deceased died due to drowning in to the well.  Thus, there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the deceased was the farmer holding agricultural land. He died accidentally due to drowning in to the well.  The complainant is a son therefore, as per tri party 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 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 insured i.e. 15 March, 2013  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.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. B.S.WASEKAR]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. H.K.BHAISE]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.