Maharashtra

Central Mumbai

CC/14/136

SMT. PUSHPA NARAYAN SHELAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

SHRI. ANKUSH NAVGHARE

03 Dec 2015

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/14/136
 
1. SMT. PUSHPA NARAYAN SHELAR
RESIDING AT OKHAWADI, TALUKA-JAWLI
DISTRICT-SATARA
MAHARASHTRA STATE
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. FUTURE GENERALI INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGER
DGP HOUSE, 1ST FLOOR, 88 C, OLD PRABHADEVI ROAD, NEAR BENGAL CHEMICAL, PRABHADEVI
MUMBAI-400 025
MAHARASHTRA STATE
2. CABAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH ITS MANAGER
MITTAL TOWERS, 118 B-WING, 11TH FLOOR, NARIMAN POINT
Mumbai-400 021
MAHARASHTRA STATE
3. GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, SATARA
TALUKA-SATARA
DISTRICT-SATARA
MAHARASHTRA STATE
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. B.S.WASEKAR PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. H.K.BHAISE MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
Mr.Abhaykumar Jadhav-Advocate
 
For the Opp. Party:
Smt.Bhavana Bhat-Advocate
 
ORDER

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 Narayan Ramchandra Shelar was an agriculturist, holding agricultural land Gut No.4 at village Okhawadi, Taluka-Jawli, District-Satara. He died accidentally on 20th November, 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.No.1 appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 30th March, 2012 as the deceased had no 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)                The O.P.No.2 appeared and filed written statement and submitted that claim was received through District Agricultural Officer, Satara and the same was forwarded to the O.P.No.1 and the O.P.No.1 repudiated the claim vide letter dated 30th March, 2012.

4)                The O.P.No.3 failed to appear before this Forum.

5)                After hearing the argument of complainant and the O.P.No.1/Insurance Company 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

6) 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 the 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 opponents.  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.

7)                The O.P.No.2 has placed reliance on the judgment of our State Commission in First Appeal No.1114 of 2008 dated 16th March, 2009.  In that judgment, Tahsildar failed to produce the documents in spite of service of notices for several times.  In the instant complaint before us, there is no evidence to show that the complainant was intimated to produce the documents.  In the absence of such evidence, it can not be said that the complainant failed to produce the required documents. Therefore, the abovecited judgment is not applicable to this complaint.

8)                It is submitted by the learned advocate for opponent that the deceased was not having valid driving license therefore he is not entitled for the benefit of this scheme.  For this purpose, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 338.  This judgment is under Motor Vehicle Act.  The Scheme of Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojana is a special scheme which is beneficial to the farmers.  Therefore, the above cited judgment is not applicable here.  The learned advocate for the complainant has submitted that there was no fault of deceased in the accident.  Therefore, driving license is not required.  For this purpose, he has placed reliance on the judgment of our State Commission in First Appeal No.1009/2007, in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited –Versus- Smt.Sindhubai Khanderao Khairnar decided on 7th January, 2008, reported in 2008(2) All MR (Journal) 13.  In para 8 of the judgment, the Hon’ble State Commission has held as under :

The Insurance Company insisted for driving license.  In fact, driving license is not necessary. From the perusal of the F.I.R., it is revealed that one Hundai car gave dash to the motor cycle from behind, which was being driven by the deceased.  In the said accident Shri Khanderao Krishna Khairnar sustained serious head injury and ultimately succumbed to the head injury in civil hospital on 7th June, 2005. He was not at the fault.  He did not attribute for the commission of an accident. Therefore, driving license is not at all necessary to settle the insurance claim. In case of an accident on the road, information report, spot panchanama, inquiry report and post-mortem report are required as per the scheme.  In fact, these documents were submitted to the Insurance Company.  There is nothing on record to show that the deceased was under influence of any intoxication. Shri Khanderao Krishna Khairnar died because of head injury sustained in the road accident. Therefore, as per the scheme, widow of the deceased was one of the complainants. Widow stands at Serial No.1 in the list of claimants. 

In the instant complaint before us also, as per police investigation papers, accident took place due to the fault of the driver of the Truck and not of the deceased.  Therefore, the submission of the learned advocate for the opponent can not be accepted.

9)                Thus, there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the deceased was the farmer holding agricultural land. He died accidentally in 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 O.P.No.1/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. 20th November, 2011 till its realization.
  3. The O.P.No.1/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 3rd December, 2015

 
 
[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.