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 Sayaji Hilal @ Hiralal Pawar was the farmer residing at NevarGaon-Haibatpur, Taluka-Gangapur, District-Aurangabad.  He was holding agricultural land. His name is mentioned in 7/12 extract.  He died on 18^th October, 2007 accidentally due to snake bite while watering the cotton crop in agricultural land. The accident was reported to the Police Station. The police made investigation. The copies of investigation papers are produced alongwith the complaint.  The complainant is the widow of deceased Sayaji.  The complainant states that on this sad incident she received information that there was insurance policy which is started by the Government of Maharashtra for the period from 15^th August, 2007 to 14^th August, 2008, for family members if head of a family is injured or died because of accident. The farmers personal accident insurance in which government had paid premium on behalf of all the farmers in the Maharashtra State to the O.P. and  accepted this premium on behalf of all the farmers whose name is in the 7/12 extract and agreement made accordingly. 

2)                The complainant filed the claim form with all required documents to Village Revenue Officer (Talathi) within a month.  The claim form was submitted to the Tahsildar and Tahsildar sent claim form to the M/s. Cabal Insurance Company Limited. The Cabal Insurance Company Limited after verification sent claim form to the O.P. but the O.P. had not satisfied her claim till today. The complainant further states that she sent advocate notice dated 15^th March, 2011 to the O.P. but the O.P. has not replied the same. The O.P. has made mistake to provide service and accepted unfair trade practice. Therefore, the complainant has filed this complainant for insurance claim of Rs.1 Lakh with interest.  The complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.20,000/-. She has also claimed cost of this proceeding Rs.5,000/-.

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. The O.P. party states that as per the provision of under section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complaint is not filed within a period of two years from the date on which the cause of action has arises.  The complaint is not well within the limitation. Therefore, the complaint is required to be dismissed on this point only.  The O.P. states that the complainant had made the claim with the O.P. stating that the mother of the complainant who was farmer died on 18^th October, 2007 due to snake bite. The complainant failed to provide any solid evidence or any document to prove the accident in question or genuinety of claim till today. As the complainant, failed to provide other necessary documents, like F.I.R., Post Mortem Report, Chemical Analysis Report, Police Patil Report, Ferfar Extract required as per the accidental clause at the time of intimation of the claim. The O.P. states that the complainant has only made stray statements in the entire body of the complaint to support the otherwise untenable claim. The complainant failed to act according to the terms and conditions of the policy.  The complainant has also failed to prove that deceased was registered farmer before the tenure of subject policy.  In this case, the complainant has contended that the deceased had a piece of land which was an agricultural land but the complainant failed to bring forward any solid evidence which shows that the deceased was an active farmer and he registered as a farmer with the government record before the tenure of the policy.  The O.P. states that the claim of the complainant ought to be rejected and there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on behalf of the O.P. as the O.P. has acted according to the terms and condition of the said policy only. The O.P. further states that the complainant is trying to extort illegal and illegitimate amount of money which is not due to her.  The O.P. submits that the complaint is devoid of any merits and substance and not maintainable under the law and thus the same deserves to be dismissed on the threshold itself with exemplary costs.

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

POINTS

REASONS

5) As to Point No.1 to 2 :-  The complainant Smt.Annapurni Sayaji Pawar and her deceased husband Sayaji Hilal @ Hiralal Pawar are/were residents of NevarGaon-Haibatpur, Taluka-Gangapur, District-Aurangabad.  The complainant’s husband was a farmer and her whole family depends on the earning of the farming.  Her husband was a farmer as shown in 7/12 extract.  But, the 7/12 extract submitted alongwith complaint does not shows Sayaji Hiralal Pawar was farmer in the year 2007-2008. The complainant has provided two 7/12 extracts. First copy is for the period of 1974 to 1987 in the name of Sayaji Hilal Pawar where name of village written as Khadkisim, Taluka-Chalisgaon, District-Jalgaon. It does not tally with the residential address of the deceased.  Moreover, the period shown in 7/12 extract is not of the period of death of deceased i.e. 2007-2008.  The complainant has also submitted the Namuna No.8 for the period 2009-2010 in the name of the deceased which is issued on 22^nd October, 2010 which shows that Sayaji Hiralal Pawar has sold his field.   According to this Namuna No.8, property is building. This Namuna No.8 is also issued on 22^nd October, 2010 by Gramsevak, Gram Panchayat Dhamangaon, Taluka-Chalisgaon, District-Jalgaon.

6)                The second 7/12 extract produced by the complainant is of village Khadkisim, Taluka-Chalisgaon, District-Jalgaon is of year 2009-2010 wherein it shows that Sayaji Hilal Pawar has sold his agricultural land.  This was issued on 29^th October, 2010.  From both these 7/12 extracts submitted by the complainant proves that it is not of deceased who is resident of NevarGaon-Haibatpur, Taluka-Gangapur, District-Aurangabad. Nor it is related to the date of accident i.e. 18^th October, 2007. 

7)                Thus, the complainant has failed to prove that deceased was the genuine farmer and is eligible for Farmers Accident Insurance Policy.  There is no proof that the genuine claim was submitted to Talathi or Tahsildar.  The claim form which complainant says has submitted to the Insurance Company does not give the details such as 7/12 extract of deceased, F.R.I., Post Mortem Report, etc. Thus, it can not be assumed that the said claim form is of the same deceased person. 

The complainant failed to make the proper submission of the documents like 7/12 extract, F.I.R., Post Mortem Report, Chemical Analysis Report, Police Patil Report, Ferfar Extract which is required as per the claim and condition of the said insurance policy.  Thus, the complainant has failed to act according to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 

8)                Thus, the complainant failed to prove his identity in proper way and his genuineness of complaint and documents in favour of that.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for insurance claim of Rs.1 Lakhs as prayed.    Moreover, the complainant has not fulfilled any procedure required to claim the insurance.  There is no proof that the claim form is proper way along with the necessary documents submitted to the O.P.  Hence, the O.P. can not be blamed for deficiency in service.  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 22^nd May, 2014