Per Mr.B.S.Wasekar, Hon’ble President
1) The present complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, her husband Ramalu Dharmanna Avadhutwarwas the farmer residing at Palaj, Taluka-Bhokar, District-Nanded. He was holding agricultural land bearing Gut No.271. His name is mentioned in 7/12 extract and 8-A record of the village Palaj. He died on 28th June, 2008 accidentally due to electric shock while ploughing his agricultural land. He came into contact with live electric wire accidentally in his field. The accident was reported to the Police Station, Bhokar vide F.I.R. No.26 of 2008. The police made investigation. The copies of investigation papers are produced alongwith the complaint. The complainant is the widow of deceased Ramalu. Therefore, she has filed this complaint.
2) The government has taken insurance policy for the farmers under Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy for the period from 15th August, 2007 to 14th August, 2008and paid the insurance premium to the O.P. The claim was submitted to the O.P. by the Tahsildar. The complainant received letter dated 21st March, 2009 from Cabal Insurance Broking Services Private Limited on behalf of the O.P. demanding certain documents. Those documents were submitted to the Tahsildar. Again, the complainant received letter dated 23rd June, 2010 from the O.P. The documents were already submitted still the O.P. failed to satisfy the claim of the complainant. The complainant is entitled for the insurance claim of Rs.1 Lakhs under the policy. Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint for recovery of claim of Rs.1 Lakh with interest.
3) The O.P. appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that the claim is barred by limitation. This is personal accident insurance policy introduced as a result of the joint effort of the Government of Maharashtra and Reliance General Insurance Company Limited which covers only the farmers’. The insurance premium is paid by the Government of Maharashtra and the beneficiaries are genuine farmers’. This is welfare policy for the farmers. The complainant is not a consumer within the Consumer Protection Act therefore she is not entitled to file this complaint. This Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2010(2) Mh L.J. 520. As per this judgment, the expression branch office in Section 17(2) (b) means the branch office where the cause of action has arisen and the cause of action means that the bundle of fact which give rise to a right or liability. The complainant can not file complaint any where. The complainant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the policy. There is no proof to show that her deceased husband was farmer and depending on agricultural income. There is no M.S.E.B. Panchanama, Police Patil Report, F.I.R., Chargesheet or Police Final Investigation Report. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the claim as prayed.
4) The complainant has filed application for delay condonation. It was opposed by the opponent. After hearing both the parties this Forum passed the order dated 14th February, 2012 and condoned the delay. This order was not challenged by the O.P. However, in the written statement, the defence of limitation is taken. Once the limitation point is decided and the delay is condoned, again, the opponent can not raise the defence of limitation. Therefore, the point of limitation is not taken into consideration in this judgment.
5) After hearing both the parties and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.
POINTS
Sr. No. | Points | Findings |
1. | Whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint ? | Yes |
2. | Whether there is deficiency in service ? | Yes |
3. | Whether the complainant is entitled for the insurance claim of Rs.1 Lakh as prayed ? | Yes |
4. | What order ? | As per final order |
REASONS
6) As to Point No.1 :- In the written statement, the O.P. has taken the defence that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction. The opponent has placed the reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonic Surgical –Versus- National Insurance Company Limited in Civil Appeal No.1560 of 2004 decided on 20th October, 2009, reported in 2010(2) Mh L.J. 520. In the last para of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :-
In our opinion, the expression 'branch office' in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2)(b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.
In view of this judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the complaint is to be filed within the jurisdiction where the branch office of the O.P. situates. As per the Government Resolution dated 10th August, 2007 r/w G.R. dated 24th August, 2007, premium for Aurangabad Region is paid to the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and accordingly tripartite agreement dated 29th August, 2007 was executed in between the Government of Maharashtra, M/s.Cabal Insurance Services Private Limited and the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, a Private Sector Company registered under the Company’s act and having its Registered office at 19, Ralliance Centre, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 038 through its Business Manager-Corporate (West Zone) Mr.Sandeep Verma-3rd Floor, Palai Plaza, Opp.Pritam Hotel, Dadar TT, Mumbai-400 014. As per the agreement, office of the business manager of the O.P. is situated at Dadar TT, Mumbai which comes within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Therefore, in view of the abovecited judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint.
7) As to Point No.2 &3 :- According to the complainant, her husband was holding agricultural land Gut No.271 at village Palaj, Taluka-Bhokar, District-Nanded. She has produced copy of 7/12 extract and 8-A showing the name of her husband as the owner and cultivator of Gut No.271 & 263. The complainant has also produced copies of police investigation papers including inquest Panchanama and Post Mortem Report showing the accidental death of Ramalu husband of the complainant. Being the widow, the complainant is entitled for the claim as per the government G.R. The O.P. received the premium from the government on behalf of the farmers including the deceased Ramalu. Therefore, the O.P. is responsible to satisfy the claim of the complainant. The claim was submitted to the O.P. but the O.P. failed to satisfy the claim of the complainant therefore the complainant has filed this complaint. As the O.P. failed to satisfy the claim, the O.P. is liable to pay interest. Thus, there is deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed i.e. Rs.1 Lakh with interest. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.
O R D E R
1) Complaint is allowed.
2) The O.P. is directed to pay Rs.1 Lakh (Rs. One Lakh Only) to the complainant towards the insurance claim with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 22nd July, 2011 till its realization.
3) The O.P. is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five Thousand Only) to the complainant towards the cost of the proceeding.
4) Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.
Pronounced dated 11th February, 2014
