Maharashtra

Central Mumbai

CC/14/13

Padmavati Namdev Ghare - Complainant(s)

Versus

FUTURE GENERALLI INDIA INSURACE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH IT'S MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Abhaykumar Jadhav

26 Sep 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CENTRAL MUMBAI
Puravatha Bhavan, 2nd Floor, General Nagesh Marg, Near Mahatma Gandhi Hospital
Parel, Mumbai-400 012
 
Complaint Case No. CC/14/13
 
1. Padmavati Namdev Ghare
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. FUTURE GENERALLI INDIA INSURACE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH IT'S MANAGER
DGP HOUSE, 1ST FLOOR, 88C, OLD PRABHADEVE ROAD, NEAR BENGAL CHEMICAL, PRABHADEVI,
MUMBAI 400 025
MAHARASHTRA
2. CABAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH IT'S MANAGER
MITTAL TOWERS, 118, B WING, 11TH FLOOR, NARIMAN POINT,
MUMBAI 400 021
MAHARASHTRA
3. GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRATHROUGH DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
SHIVAJI NAGAR
PUNE
MAHARASHTRA
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'ABLE MR. B.S.WASEKAR PRESIDENT
 HON'ABLE MR. H.K.BHAISE MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
Mr.Abhaykumar Jadhav, Adv.
 
For the Opp. Party:
None present
 
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 Namdeo Baburao Ghare was an agriculturist holding Gut No.69 at village Sawantwadi, Taluka-Maval, District-Pune. He died accidentally on 4th December, 2011 in motor 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 and the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 31st December, 2012 for the reasons given in the letter. The deceased was not holding valid driving license. 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 and the same was forwarded by this O.P. to O.P.No.1. The complainant failed to produce the required documents.  The claim was repudiated by the O.P.No.1 as the deceased was not holding valid driving license.  There is no deficiency in service therefore the complainant is not entitled for the relief as prayed.

4)                The O.P.No.3 filed its written statement and submitted that the claim was submitted to the opponents.  The complainant failed to produce required documents.  As per tripartite agreement, claim arising out of any breach of law or misfeasance is excluded. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the insurance claim.

5)                After hearing all 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 ? 

No

2)

Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed ? 

No

3)

What Order ? 

As per final order

REASONS

6) As to Point No.1 & 2 :- There is no dispute that the deceased was agriculturist and he died in motor vehicle accident. As per Tripartite Agreement, clause 2(III) Exclusion 12), if the insured died due to any breach of law or misfeasance, the deceased is not entitled for the benefit of this scheme. According to the complainant, the deceased was innocent but the complainant failed to produce the driving license on record. Driving motor vehicle without license is a breach of law under the Motor Vehicle Act.  As per police papers on record, the deceased was driving motorcycle himself and accident took place as his motor cycle was slipped. As per Clause 2(III) Exclusion 12) of the Tripartite Agreement, accidental death arising out of any breach of law is excluded from the benefit of the Scheme. Therefore, her claim was repudiated.  Before this Forum also, the complainant failed to produce the driving license of the deceased.  The learned advocate for the complainant has placed reliance of 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 7th January, 2008. In that judgment, deceased was not driving the motor vehicle.  Therefore, there was no question of driving license.  In the instant complaint before us, the deceased was driving the motorcycle without license.  Therefore, this judgment is not applicable.  Thus, complainant is not entitled for the benefit of this Scheme as per exclusion clause of the Tripartite Agreement.

7)                From the above discussion, the deceased died due to breach of law and therefore the claim is excluded as per clause 2(III) (12) of the Tripartite Agreement. 

8)                From the above discussion, we came to conclusion that the complainant is not entitled for the benefit of this scheme.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

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

 

Pronounced on 26th  September, 2014

 
 
[HON'ABLE MR. B.S.WASEKAR]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'ABLE 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.