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 Dattatray Mahadev Gaikwad was an agriculturist, holding agricultural land Gut No.25 at village Kanhapuri, Taluka-Pandharpur, District-Solapur. He died accidentally on 1^st May, 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 O.P.No.1/Insurance Company appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 14^th December, 2012 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)                The O.P.No.2 appeared and filed written statement.  It is submitted that the claim of the complainant was received through the O.P.No.3 and it was forwarded to the O.P.No.1 and the O.P.No.1 repudiated the claim vide letter dated 14^th December, 2012.

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

5)                After hearing the argument of the complainant and the O.P.No.1, following points arise for our consideration.

POINTS

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 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 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 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.  The police complaint was lodged by Police Naik Shri Bhalerao after investigation. The investigation shows that deceased was driving his motorcycle rashly and negligently and gave dash to S.T. Bus from back 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. 

7)                The learned advocate for the opponent has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.648 of 2008, in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited –Versus- Prithvi Raj, decided on 24^th January, 2008, reported in 2008(2) Supreme Court Cases 338.  In para 10 and 11 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under :

Para 10: In the instant case, the State Commission has  categorically found that the evidence on record clearly  established that the licensing authority had not issued any  license, as was claimed by the Driver and the respondent.   The evidence of Shri A.V.V. Rajan, Junior Assistant of the  Office of the Jt. Commissioner & Secretary, RTA, Hyderabad  who produced the official records clearly established that no driving license was issued to Shri Ravinder Kumar or Ravinder Singh in order to enable and legally permit him to drive a motor vehicle.  There was no cross examination of the said witness.  The National Commission also found that there was no defect in the finding recorded by the State Commission in this regard. 

Para 11: It appears that pursuant to the orders dated 14.07.2005 passed by this Court, the entire amount awarded was deposited in this Court.  Since, we have held that the appellant-Insurance Company has no liability, the amount deposited be returned to the appellant-Insurance Company with accrued interest, if any.

In view of the abovecited judgment and Tripartite Agreement, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as claimed and the complaint deserves to be dismissed.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

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

Pronounced on 5^th January, 2016