Per Mr.H.K.Bhaise, Hon’ble Member
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 Late Mr.Krishna Rajaram Pednekar, Aged about 55 years, was an agriculturist holding agricultural land Survey No.15/4 at Mitkyachiwadi-Pavshi, Tulaka-Kudal, District-Sindhudurg. On 30th December, 2006, at about 03.00 P.M., her husband was cutting the woods. At that time, a group of pigs-boars came in the field. In order to protect the crop, the husband of the complainant and other villagers tried to hunt and during that one of the hunter shoot at the pig was missed and the bullet hit the husband of the complainant and he died on the spot. Matter was reported to police station. Inquest Panchanama, Post Mortem was conducted. Police made investigation. Her husband was agriculturist and she was depending on her. She is legal heir of her husband therefore she is entitled for the insurance claim of Rs.1 Lakh under the government scheme for Farmers Group Personal Accident Policy.
2) The complainant submitted all the relevant documents to the opponent through the Village Revenue Officer. However, no amount is paid to her therefore notice was issued through advocate on 18th February, 2012. The same was not complied therefore the complainant has filed this complaint for recovery insurance claim of Rs.1 Lakh with interest.
3) The opponent appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that the complainant has not furnished any claim document as per the scheme. Those are not filed along with the complaint. Claim is not covered under the Scheme. As per scheme, claim should submit within thirty days before Talathi and Talathi should submit the documents to Tahsildar for onward submission. There is nothing on record to show that complainant as well as other authorities have complied the terms and conditions of the scheme. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as claimed. It is further submitted that after receiving the late intimation from the complainant, the opponent was aware of the said incident in which the complainant’s husband died. As necessary documents were not received from the complainant within time, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent. There is no cause of action. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4) After hearing both the parties and after going through the record following points arise for our consideration
POINTS
Sr.No. | Points | Findings |
1) | Whether the complainant is entitled for the benefit under the Scheme of Farmers Group Personal Accident Policy ? | No |
2) | Whether there is deficiency in service ? | No |
3) | Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed ? | No |
4) | What Order ? | As per final order |
REASONS
5) As to Point No.1 :- It is not disputed that husband of the complainant i.e. deceased Krishna Rajaram Pednekar was agriculturist. As per complaint, her husband was cutting the woods. A group of pigs-boars came and in order to protect agriculture, her husband and other villagers tried to hunt the pigs-boars and during that process the bullet hit her husband thereby he died on the spot. Admittedly, the complainant was not present on the spot and therefore she is not expected to know the facts of the incident personally. In order to support her claim, she has produced copies of police investigation papers on record along with complaint. There is police complaint lodged by Anil Rajaram Pednekar-brother of the deceased. In his complaint, he has stated that the deceased and other villagers came to know about the presence pigs-boars in the forest. Therefore, they decided to go for hunting. They went in the forest for hunting purpose and while hunting one of the bullet missed the pig and hit against the deceased, thereby deceased died on the spot. From the complaint, it is clear that the accident took place while hunting the pigs-boars in the forest. The object of it was hunting and not to protect the crop as stated by the complainant in her complaint. The copy of complaint is produced by the complainant herself in support of her claim. Therefore, the contents of it are binding on the complainant. The person who lodged police complaint is brother of the deceased and was present on the spot at the time of incident. Therefore, his statement is material. According to the complainant, her husband was hunting pigs to protect the crop but the contents of complaint are otherwise. From the copy of police complaint, it is clear that they were hunting in the forest and not in the agriculture land. Therefore, there is no question of protecting crop. They went in the forest for hunting purpose. Thus, the object of the incident is of hunting of wild animal which is not permissible in law.
6) The complainant is claiming benefit under the government scheme for farmers i.e. Group Personal Accident Policy. In this scheme, there is Annexure-C showing the exclusion of beneficiary. As per Sr.No.3 of this Annexure, one is not entitled for the benefit under the scheme if the accident took place while doing the act against law. Hunting of wild animal is prohibited under law. As per evidence on record, the deceased went for hunting of pigs-boars i.e. wild animal. The alleged accident took place while doing the illegal act. The protection of the scheme is excluded if the accident took place while doing illegal act therefore the complainant can not take benefit of this scheme.
7) As to Point No.2 & 3 :- The O.P. has taken the defence of non submission of claim within time. In the written statement, para 4(a), the opponent has submitted that after receiving late intimation from the complainant the O.P. came to know about the incident in which complainant’s husband died. In the reply, filed by the O.P. to the application for delay condonation, the O.P. has stated that the claim of the complainant was repudiated on just and proper reason. It shows that claim was submitted to the O.P. Once the claim is submitted to the O.P., burden shift on the O.P. to prove that the claim was repudiated on just and proper ground. The complainant has already filed application for delay condonation and the delay was condoned vide order 28th August, 2013 after hearing both the parties. The said order is not challenged by the O.P. therefore it is binding on the O.P. Even if, it is presumed that claim was submitted late still the O.P. can not avoid its liability. As per Scheme, the beneficiary has to submit claim to the Talathi and the Talathi is bound to follow further procedure. It is the responsibility of the revenue authority and therefore merely because claim was submitted late to the O.P., it can not be repudiated.
8) The learned advocate for the complainant has submitted the citations on the point of limitation but as discussed above, delay is already condoned therefore those citations are not relevant at this stage.
9) Thus, as discussed above, the complainant is not entitled for the benefit under the Scheme as per the provision of Sr.No.3 of Annexure ‘C’ of the Government Resolution dated 7th July, 2006. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for relief as prayed. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
- Complaint stands dismissed.
- Parties are left to bear their own costs.
- Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced
Dated 30th May, 2014