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 son Shri Ahmed Mehboobsaab Pathan was an agriculturist. Her husband is owner of agricultural field  Gut No.60/6 at village Ravangaon, Taluka-Bhokar, District-Nanded. Her son died accidentally on 14^th October, 2008 due to snake bite.  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 Opponent appeared and filed written statement.  It is submitted that no intimation was received by this opponent from the complainant therefore, she can not file claim before this Forum. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

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

POINTS

REASONS

4) As to Point No.1 & 2 :- The complainant has produced 7/12 extract of Gut No.60/6.  It is in the name of Alikhan Lalmiya and Mehboobsaab Miya Loolo Miya.  The name of the deceased is not on this record.  According to the complainant, the agricultural land is in the name of the father of the deceased.  The complainant has produced one xerox copy of the certificate issued by the Talathi dated 17^th November, 2008.  As per this certificate copy, there was no land in the name of the deceased and land is in the name of the father of deceased.  It is only xerox copy of the certificate issued by the Talathi.  It clearly shows that there is no land in the name of the deceased.  The scheme of Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojana is applicable to the farmers’ holding agricultural land.  As per the Government Resolution and Tripartite Agreement, the complainant has to produce the documents showing the name of the deceased in 7/12 extract or 8A extract.  As per Clause 8) (II), the name of the deceased should be in the land record register.  Admittedly, in the instant complaint, name of the deceased is not on land record.  According to the complainant, land is in the name of the father of deceased.  As per Tripartite Agreement, the land should be in the name of the deceased.  Therefore, merely because father of the deceased is holding agricultural land, the scheme of the Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojana is not applicable. As the scheme is not applicable, the complainant is not entitled for any benefit under the scheme.

5)                The learned advocate for the complainant has submitted the minutes of meeting of Commissioner of Agriculture dated 16^th February, 2006.  In this minutes of meeting, it was resolved that whether the deceased was agriculturist or not is to be decided by Tahsildar and not by the insurance company.  This resolution is not binding on the parties.  Even if it is presumed that this resolution is binding on the insurance company still the Tahsildar has to issue certificate as to whether the deceased was an agriculturist and holding agricultural land.  The complainant has not produced such certificate from the Tahsildar.  The complainant has merely produced one Xerox copy of certificate issued by the Talathi showing that the deceased was not holding any agricultural land.  His father is holding agricultural land.  Thus, there is no merit in the complaint and it deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the following order.

ORDER

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

Pronounced on 18^th October, 2014