Per Shri B.A.Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member.
Common Order/Judgment
1. Both these two appeals are being disposed of by this common order as common questions of law and facts are involved in them. These two appeals are filed by the common opposite party (for short O.P.) No.1 namely TATA AIG General Insurance Co.Ltd, feeling aggrieved by two identical impugned orders passed by the District Consumer Forum, Bhandara, by which the two consumer complaint Nos.CC/17/2015 and CC/60/2015 have been partly allowed.
2. The common case of the original complainants/respondent No.1 in these two appeals as set out by them in their respective complaints in brief is as under.
a) The deceased husbands of the complainants were farmers and they died in two different accidents. They were covered under the scheme called as “Farmers Janata Accident Insurance Scheme” under which sum assured was of Rs.1,00,000/- for each of the farmer. Therefore the complainants submitted claims alongwith documents to the O.P.No.1 through O.P.No.2. But their claims were not considered. Hence they filed aforesaid consumer complaints bearing Nos.CC/17/2015 and CC/60/2015 before the District Consumer Forum of Bhandara claiming sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/- in each of the complaint with interest, compensation and cost, from the O.P.Nos.1 and 2/appellant and respondent No.2, in these appeals.
3. Both the said complaints were resisted by O.P.No.1/appellant by filing reply. Its main submission in brief was that the deceased husbands of the complainants were not registered farmer on the date of commencement of the scheme which was commenced on 01/11/2013 and hence the claims of the complainants have been repudiated on that ground. Secondly the claims were not submitted within a period of 90 days from the expiry of the period of the scheme which was expired on 31/10/2014. Therefore it was requested by the O.P.No.1/appellant that both the complaints may be dismissed.
4. The O.P.No.2 also filed reply to both the complainants and denied its liability. The O.P.No.3 also filed reply to the complaints and its also denied its liability.
5. The District Consumer Forum of Bhandara after hearing both parties and considering evidence brought on record, partly allowed both the complaints by passing two identical impugned orders and thereby directed the O.P.No.1/appellant to pay each of the complainant/respondent No.1 in these appeals sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of the respective complaint till full realisation of the said amount by each of complainant and also to pay to each of them compensation of Rs.5,000/- for physical and mental harassment and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-. Both the said complaints as against the O.P.Nos.2 and 3 were dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, the original O.P.No.1 has filed these two appeals.
6. We have heard advocate Mr.H.N.Verma appearing for the appellant and advocate Mr.U.P.Kshirsagar appearing for respondent No.1 in both appeals. No one appeared for respondent No.2 and 3 in both the appeals for final hearing. We have also perused the record and proceedings of both appeals.
7. The common submission made by the learned advocate of the appellant in both the appeals is that Forum below did not consider the material condition of the scheme that the deceased husbands of the complainants were not registered farmers on the commencement of the scheme i.e. on 01/11/2013 and that therefore they were not covered under the said scheme. He has referred to the said scheme particularly its eligibility clause which is to the effect that the farmers name should be in the record of register i.e. 7/12 extract on the date of issuance of the policy. He also submitted that as the names of the respective husbands of the complainants were not registered in the land record on the date of commencement of the scheme i.e. on 01/11/2013, the complainants are not entitled to make any claim under the scheme. Hence he requested that the impugned orders may be set aside and both the complaints may be dismissed.
8. On the other hand, the learned advocate of the respondent No.1 submitted that though the period of the scheme was from 01/11/2013 to 30/10/2014, but admittedly the names of the respective husbands of the complainants were registered as the farmer during the period of the said policy and therefore they were covered under the policy. In support of said submission, the learned advocate of the respondent No.1 relied on the decision in the following two cases.
- Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd…….V/s…..Sakorba Hetuba Jadeja and others, reported in IV (2012) CPJ 51 (NC). The observations made in the said case are that, we have perused the conditions laid down by the Government in which it is mentioned that age of an agriculturist must be between 12 and 70 years. The registered farmer who is less than 12 years will be automatically covered in future from the date he completes 12 years and will be covered under the scheme till he attains the age of 70 years till the end of the financial year. Considering this provision of resolution of Government we can safely conclude that it was the intention of the Government to extend the benefits of thee scheme to those farmers who acquire eligibility criteria even after the commencement of the policy. And accordingly, since the deceased had become registered farmer after the inception of policy, he was deemed to have been covered under the insurance scheme. It the Government wanted to exclude the farmer who had become registered farmer after the inception of policy then in that case the Government would have made specific reference in the GR for exclusion of benefits to those farmers who have acquired land after the inception of policy. No such exclusion clause is found in the resolution. We are of the opinion that it was he intention of the Government to extend the benefits of the scheme automatically to those farmers who became registered farmer after the inception of the policy. Farmers who completes the age of 12 years are automatically covered under the scheme and therefore, by necessary implication it can be inferred that the farmers who acquire the land or who become the registered farmers after the commencement of policy are also deemed to have been covered under the scheme automatically. Therefore, the heirs of the deceased are also entitled to get the benefits under the scheme.
- United India Insurance Co.Ltd…….V/s……Smt. Indubai Namdeo Waghmare, decided by this Commission as per order dated 03/02/2017 in appeal No.A/14/219. In the said case Mutation abstract was filed before the Forum showing that deceased Namdeo Krishna Waghmare was the farmer. The original opposite party did not place any documents before the Forum to show that on the date of commencement of policy there should have been recorded the name of deceased farmer in the record of rights. Therefore this Commission held that the Forum has rightly come to the conclusion that as the name of the deceased was recorded in the record of rights, during the period of policy, he was covered under the policy.
9. Thus the learned advocate of the respondent No.1 requested that both the appeals may be dismissed.
10. Admittedly the period of the scheme was from 01/11/2013 to 31/10/2014. As per the scheme the risk of the farmers was covered and the sum issued for each of the farmer was Rs.1,00,000/-. The respective husband of the complainants admittedly died in accidents on 12/09/2014 and 30/12/2013 respectively. As per Mutation abstract, the name of the deceased husband of the complainant in complaint No.CC/17/2015 was recorded in record of rights on 10/09/2014 and the name of the deceased husband of the complainant in consumer complaint No.CC/60/2015 was recorded in the record of rights on 23/06/2014.
11. The Hon’ble National Commission in the aforesaid case of Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd…….V/s…..Sakorba Hetuba Jadeja and others, reported in IV (2012) CPJ 51 (NC) specifically observed that the government intended to extend the benefit of the said scheme to those farmers also who acquired eligible criteria even after the commencement of the policy and since the deceased had become registered farmer after inception of the policy, he was deemed to have been covered under the insurance scheme.
12. The scheme of the present cases do not show any such exclusion clause that the farmers whose names are registered in the land record after the inception of the scheme, will not be covered under the said scheme. The exclusion clause of the said scheme shows fifteen sub-clauses specifying cases which are not covered under the said scheme. None of the fifteen sub-clauses of exclusion clause shows that the farmer which is registered after inception of the policy in the record of the rights will not be covered under the said scheme.
13. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd…….V/s…..Sakorba Hetuba Jadeja and others, is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of present both cases. Both the impugned orders are therefore legal, correct and proper and need no interference in both these appeals. Thus both these appeals deserve to be dismissed.
// ORDER //
- Both these appeals bearing Nos. A/16/149 and A/16/150 are hereby dismissed.
- No order as to cost in both these appeals.
- The copy of this order be furnished to both parties free of cost.
