(Per Hon’ble Sou.Usha S. Thakare, Presiding Judicial Member)

(1)               Being aggrieved by the order dated 18/02/2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik in consumer complaint no.278/2008, the original complainant/present appellant-Machindra Ramnath Chavanke has preferred this appeal.  By the order under challenge, the learned District Forum was pleased to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant. 

(2)               The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:-

                   The Govt. of Maharashtra by notification dated 19^th August, 2004 under public welfare policy accepted the proposal of Group Insurance Policy known as ‘Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojana.  Under the public welfare policy to avoid starvation of the family members of an agriculturist on account of death or permanent disablement of an agriculturist if caused by Motor Accident/Railway accident, lightening of strike/electric shock, murder, snake bite or any other accident, the Govt. of Maharashtra as per Govt.Resolution No. NAIS 1204/Pra.no.166/11-A dated 5^th January, 2005 has drawn a group insurance policy i.e. Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojana.  The father of the complainant was holder of the said policy.  Late Ramnath Baburao Chavanke was insured under Shetkar Apghat Vima Yojana on 31/02/2005, insured Ramnath Chavanke died due to assault on his head by iron rod in quarrel which was taken place between the relatives on account of dispute of land and well water.  The complainant, who is son of insured Ramnath Chavanke claimed benefit of the insurance.  He had submitted documents to Tehsildar, Sinnar and asked for claim on 24/01/2006.  Tahsildar, Sinnar sent his proposal to the opponent.  The opponent did not take steps.  Therefore, the complainant issued notice to the opponent on 12/07/2008, but of no use.  Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file consumer complaint before the District Forum. By filing the complaint,  the complainant claimed an amount of `1,00,000/- towards insurance with interest @24% p.a. from 13/02/2006.  He had also claimed an amount of `50,000/- towards mental pain and agony.  He had claimed an amount of `5,000/- towards costs. 

(3)               The opponent resisted the complaint by filing written version and opposed the claim of the complainant.  It is submitted that the complaint is not tenable in law and same is liable to be dismissed with costs.  Basically, the insurance policy is a contract of insurance and this contract is binding upon both the parties to the contract.  The terms & conditions of the contract of insurance are and must be obeyed and followed by the parties.  The complaint is not tenable in law as there is no deficiency in service.  There is no privity of contract between the complaint and opponent.  The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as all the legal heirs of the deceased insured are not impleded in the complainant.  The Govt. of Maharashtra is also necessary party to decide the complaint.  The opponent has not received death claim of Ramnath Chavanke from the Govt. of Maharashtra.  The complainant has not filed any document to show that deceased Ramnath Chavanke was registered farmer on 10/01/2005.  The complaint is time barred.  There is no cause of action arose to file the complaint and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. 

(4)               Both the parties led evidence on affidavits along with documents.  After considering the affidavits on record and after giving thoughtful consideration to the arguments advance on behalf of the parties, the learned District Forum was pleased to dismiss the complaint by an order dated 18^th February, 2011.  The learned District Forum held that the complainant/present appellant is a consumer; however, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent. 

(5)               Heard learned counsel Mr.K.S.Shelake-advocate for the appellant and learned counsel Mrs.Varsha Chavan-advocate for the respondent. 

(6)               The complainant/appellant is son of the deceased Ramnath Chavanke.  He is legal heir of deceased Ramnath Chavanke.  After death of his father, he had filed claim for claiming insurance benefit before Tahsildar Sinnar.  The said claim form was forwarded by Tahsildar Sinnar to the opponent/present respondent insurance company.

(7)               Learned District Forum arrived at the conclusion that the District Forum has jurisdiction to try the complaint.  The delay in filing the complaint was condoned by the District Forum.  Post Mortem report and other documents are on record make it clear that late Ramnath Chavanke died due to homicidal death on 01/01/2006.  Inquest panchnama was also effected on 01/01/2006.  Death certificate shows that Ramnath Chavanke died on 01/01/2006.  Post mortem report was issued on 01/01/2006.  Report pertaining to the incident was filed by Dagu Baburao Chavanke.  It is clear that Ramnath Chavanke did not die due to natural death. 

(8)               Observation of the learned District Forum is that murder of Ramnath Baburao Chavanke was committed by his close relatives in incident of quarrel and that murder was committed by the beneficiary.  But this finding of the District Forum is totally baseless.  Nothing is on record to substantiate that the allegation of murder are leveled against the complainant/appellant.  Police neither registered offence against the complainant/appellant nor charged sheet was filed against him for offence of murder. 

(8)               Learned District Forum refused to grant benefit of insurance policy to the complainant incorporated in the notification of the Govt. of Maharashtra, supra.  We have perused the notification dated 5^th January, 2005 issued by Govt. of Maharashtra bearing No. NAIS 1204/Pra.no.166/11-A.  In annexure-D of the said notification, death by murder is covered for grant of benefit to the farmer under Shetkari Vyaktigat Agbhat Vima Yojana.  Only thing is that the farmer has to file FIR, Post mortem report and other relevant documents. Those documents were submitted and they are on record.  In view of govt. notification and circulars, it is clear that the complainant is entitled to get benefit under the policy known as Shetkari Vyaktigat Agbhat Vima Yojana.  The opponent/respondent failed to accept the proposal of the complainant, although he is entitled for benefit under Shetkari Vyaktigat Agbhat Vima Yojana.  Certainly, it is a deficiency in service.  In view of the above observations, order passed by the learned District Forum, Nashik cannot be said to be legal and sustainable under law.  It is required to be set aside and as a result, the appeal deserves to be allowed.  With this view, following order is passed. 

ORDER

1.     Appeal is allowed.

2.     The order passed by the District Forum in consumer complaint No.178/2008 dated 18/02/2011 is set aside and in the result the consumer complaint is allowed with costs.

3.     Respondent/opponent is directed to pay an amount `1 Lakh to the appellant/complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 01/07/2008 till its realisation.

4.     Respondent/opponent is further directed to pay `5,000/- to the appellant/complainant towards cost of litigation and to bear its own costs.

5.     Respondent/opponent is directed to pay the due amount to the appellant/complainant within a period of sixty days from the date of order, otherwise this amount will carry additional interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till the date of realization.

6.     Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

Pronounced on 22^nd August, 2013.