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 Sampat Somnath Padalkar was an agriculturist holding Gut No.713 at village Tekawadi, Taluka-Purandar, District-Pune. He died accidentally on 17^th October, 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 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)                The O.P.No.2 appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that the claim of the complainant was received through District Agricultural Officer, Pune on 16^th November, 2012 and the same was forwarded by this O.P. to O.P.No.1 on 10^th December, 2012.  There is no deficiency in service therefore the complainant is not entitled for the relief as prayed.

4)                The O.P.No.3 appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that claim form was received by this office on 17^th October, 2011 and the same was forwarded onwards. 

5)                After hearing all the parties and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.

POINTS

REASONS

6) As to Point No.1 & 2 :- The complainant has produced revenue record, showing that her husband was holding agricultural land and he was farmer. The complainant also produced copies of Police Complaint, Crime Details Form, Inquest Panchanama, Post Mortem Report. On going through all these papers, it is clear that the husband of the complainant died in the motor vehicle accident. According to the opponents, 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 claim to the concern agricultural department and the concern agricultural department has to comply all the formalities i.e. necessary documents and submit 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 government officer within time.  There is no repudiation on record.  The complainant has produced information received under Right to Information Act, 2005 showing that claim form of the complainant forwarded to the O.P.No.1 by the O.P.No.2.  If, according to the opponents, 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. The O.P.No.3 in written statement has admitted that claim form was received by the office on 17^th October, 2011.  As per Tripartite Agreement, claim should be submitted within ninety days from the expiry of the policy period.  Therefore, the defence taken by the opponents can not be accepted. The complainant has produced all the required documents under agreement therefore her claim can not be rejected.  

7)                The opponents have placed reliance on the judgment of our State Commission in First Appeal No.1114 of 2008 dated 16^th 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)                The learned advocate for the O.P.No.1 has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 1994(1) CPR 108 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 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. 

9)                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, in First Appeal No.1009/2007 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, claim form was immediately submitted to the government officer. Therefore, the claim of the complainant can not be repudiated. 

10)              It is submitted by the learned advocate for opponents 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 the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited –Versus- Smt.Sindhubai Khanderao Khairnar in First Appeal No.1009/2007 dated 7^th 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 7^th 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 Lorry and not of the deceased.  Therefore, the submission of the learned advocate for the opponents can not be accepted.

11)              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 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 insured i.e. 17^th October, 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 26^th September, 2014