Per Mr.Dhanraj Khamatkar, Hon’ble Member
This appeal takes an exception to an order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nasik dated 17/08/2010 in consumer complaint no.201/09. Facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under:-
The original complainant/respondent is wife of late Kondaji Mahadu Shelke. Late Kondaji Mahadu Shelke was an agriculturist. The Government of Maharashtra had taken Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy from the appellant company and the farmers from the State are covered by the said policy and the policy is valid for a period from 10/04/2005 to 09/04/2006. The Husband of the original complainant while traveling on the Motor cycle had died because of the lightening. As he was covered under the said policy being an agriculturist, the original complainant had filed a claim through the Tahsildar, Dindori on 27/08/2005 and the Tahsildar, Dindori had presented the claim to the appellant/original opponent on 05/09/2005.
The appellant/original opponent-Insurance company had repudiated the claim vide its letter dated 21/10/2005 on the ground that the claim is submitted after 84 days, which is contradictory to the company’s policy related to the terms and conditions. Hence the original complainant/respondent has filed the consumer complaint and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nasik after hearing both the parties has allowed the complaint directing the appellant/original opponent to pay `1 lakh along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 01/10/2005, `5,000/- for mental harassment and `1,000/- as cost. It is against this order that the present appeal is filed.
On behalf of the appellant Advocate Mr.Nikhil Mehta argued the case. He vehemently argued that there is delay in filing the complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has condoned the delay without hearing the appellant. Further, Ld.counsel had argued that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the claim is to be submitted within 60 days of the incidence, however, the present claim is submitted after 84 days.
We have perused the papers filed along with the appeal. Perusal of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum’s papers shows that the complainant has filed along with the complaint, a delay condonation application and after hearing the complainant, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has condoned the delay. Appellant has not challenged this order and hence the order has achieved finality.
Further, in written version filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, appellant/original opponent had contended that the complainant had not complied with all the papers required for processing the claim. Perusal of the record shows that the claim was submitted along with all the papers. Further appellant/original opponent has not stated which papers were wanting. In a repudiation letter, the appellant/original opponent had stated that they have received the claim after 84 days from the incidence and as per the terms and conditions, the complainant should have filed the claim within 60 days, unless a reasonable cause is shown. Here the incidence had taken place on 13/6/2005 and the complainant had submitted the claim to the Tahsildar on 27/8/2005, who is a Nodle officer for the implementation of the scheme. It is a scheme taken for the coverage of the farmers and hence it is a social welfare scheme of the Government of Maharashtra. Taking into consideration objective of the scheme, we hold that appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of any substance and merit. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
Order of the forum is hereby confirmed.
No order as to costs.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 13th June, 2011.
