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 deceased Sakharam Dhondu Marawade, was holding agricultural land bearing Gut No.239 at village Kumbharachi Talavali, Post-Devkanhe, Khamb, Taluka-Roha, District-Raigad.  On 9^th January, 2007, at about 01.30 P.M., her husband was working on electric pole at Handyachi Wadi.  At that time he came in contact with electric wire and received extensive electric shock and died on the spot.  Police prepared Inquest Panchanama. Post Mortem was conducted.  The complainant is the legal heir of deceased.  Therefore, she is entitled for insurance claim of Rs.1Lakh as per the Agriculturist Accident Insurance Policy (Shetkari Apaghat Vima Yojana). The papers were submitted to the Tahsildar but the complainant has not received the insurance claim.  Notice was issued on 28^th May, 2011. The claim was repudiated on the ground that the claim does not come under the policy.  Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint for insurance claim of Rs.1 Lakh with interest.

2)                The opponent appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that the deceased was working as M.S.E.B. Lineman therefore the complainant is not entitled for the insurance claim.  The claim is barred by limitation.  This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

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

POINTS

REASONS

4) As to Point No. 1 & 2 :- The opponent has disputed the claim of the complainant on the ground that the deceased was working as Lineman in M.S.E.B. and he died due to electric shock while on duty as Lineman of M.S.E.B.  It is submitted by the learned advocate for the opponent that the documents produced by the complainant i.e. police investigation papers shows that the deceased was working as M.S.E.B. Lineman.  He was working one electric pole.  At that time, he came into contact with live electricity wire thereby he sustained electric shock and died.  On perusal of the papers produced by the complainant it is clear that the deceased was working as Lineman in M.S.E.B. He received electric shock while working on electric pole as Lineman of M.S.E.B.  It shows that the deceased was on duty as Lineman of M.S.E.B.  He died on duty as Lineman of M.S.E.B.  Service as Lineman of M.S.E.B. can not be additional/supplementary business/work of the farmer.  Therefore, the government scheme for the farmers as Shetkari Apaghat Vima Yojana would not be applicable to the complainant.  It is not disputed by the complainant that her husband was working as Lineman of M.S.E.B. and he died while he was on duty as Lineman of M.S.E.B.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as claimed.

5)                The learned advocate for the complainant has cited some judgment in the written notes of argument but the copies of those citations are not produced for perusal. As discussed above, the deceased was working as Lineman of M.S.E.B. and died while he was on duty.  This fact is not challenged by the complainant.  Therefore, the above cited judgments are not relevant in this matter.

6)                The opponent has taken the defence of limitation but delay is already condoned vide order dated 21^st October, 2013 and the said order is not challenged by the opponent.         

7)                Thus, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as claimed.  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

Dated 5^th May, 2014