PER SHRI. S. G. CHABUKSWAR – HON’BLE  MEMBER

1)      This is a consumer complaint for the reliefs of compensation Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 27/05/2012 till realization of the amount, Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and cost of the complaint.  

2)        The case of the Complainant in short is as under –

         The Complainant is the widow of deceased Ramada Chavan. Deceased Ramada S/o. Manik Chavan was the resident of Village Jadhavwadi, Tal. Akolner, Dist. Ahmednagar.  Ramdas Chavan was the agriculturist and he was the owner of agricultural land gat no.143 at Jadhavwadi.

3)        The further case of the Complainant is that, on 27/05/2012 at about 12.45 p.m. Ramdas Chavan was riding his motorcycle, bearing Registration No.MH-16 S-3747 with due care and caution with two pillion riders namely Prasad Ghorpade and Vivek Kusekar, both aged 12 years towards Tarakpur S.T. Stand at Ahmednagar.  When the motorcycle of Ramdas Chavan reached near Akbar Nagar in front of Sunny Place Hotel on Aurangabad–Nagar Road at that time one Tempo truck came in a very high speed from the back side and gave forceful dash to the motorcycle which was riding by Ramdas Chavan.  Due to said heavy dash, Ramdas Chavan, Prasad Ghorpade and Vivek Kusekar were thrown off and fell down on the road.  Due to the said impact both children sustained serious injuries and Ramdas Chavan died on the spot. The Post Mortem has been carried out on the dead body of Ramdas Chavan by the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital at Ahmednagar.  The first Information Report was lodged in Tofakhana Police Station, Ahmednagar. The said police registered the crime on the basis of said report.  The Complainant is one of the legal heir of deceased Ramdas Chavan.  

4)        The further case of the Complainant is that, she is illiterate and poor widow of the deceased agriculturist.  She was unaware of the legal rights and remedies available to her.  One of the good smartian gave information her about the agriculturist accident insurance policy known as Shetkari Janta Apghat Vima Yojana.  The Complainant submitted all relevant documents in respect of her claim to the Opposite Party through Tahasildar (Krushi Officer) of the jurisdiction of the area within the time prescribed under the above scheme.  Thereafter, the Complainant was constantly in touch with the Office of Tahasildar (Krushi Officer) to persuade her claim from time to time. The Complainant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation from the Opposite Party under Agriculturist Personal Accident Insurance Scheme. The Opposite Party has not paid any heed to the claim of the Complainant with some ulterior motive to defeat the legitimate claim of the Complainant.  The Complainant come to know about the rejection of her claim only through her advocate who received the rejection list of the claim of the agriculturist through RTI from Krushi Ayuktalaya, Pune.  Thereafter, the Complainant collected the documents as per the advice given to her by the advocate. The Complainant had issued notice dtd.25/01/2014 through her advocate to the Opposite Party and called upon to pay the amount of compensation.  Opposite Party served with the said notice. Opposite Party neither paid the compensation amount nor replied the notice.  Hence, this complaint for the reliefs mentioned in above para no.1.

5)        Opposite  Party  has  resisted  the  claim  by  filing  the  written  statement.  The contention of Opposite Party is that , the State Government of Maharashtra desired to insure the farmers in Maharashtra by giving them personal accident policy for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- hence, a tripartite agreement was entered into between Government of Maharashtra on behalf of the individual farmers who are actually insured through the Commissioner (Agriculture) and M/s. Cabal Insurance Broking Service Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. insuring the farmers to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- as per the terms and conditions contained in the said agreement.  

6)        The further contentions of the Opposite Party is that, the papers and documents of the said accident was scrutinized by the Opposite Party and it was found that, the deceased was riding the motorcycle when the accident occurred and the deceased was carrying of vehicle.  As per the terms and conditions of the policy there are exclusion clause with respect to the payment of personal accident to farmer in road accident and as per exclusion clause VI (A), road accident (i) accidents occurring due to carrying where the driver does not have a valid of passenger in excess of the capacity of vehicle.  The Opposite Party is not liable to pay the amount.  Hence, Opposite Party has repudiated the claim of the Complainant by the letter dtd.01/11/2012. Opposite Party has denied that as per Agriculturist Accident Insurance Policy the Complainant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.  Opposite Party has denied the service of notice dtd.25/01/2014.  Opposite Party has denied all rival contentions of the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

7)        The Complainant has filed her affidavit of evidence.  The Opposite Party has also filed affidavit of evidence of Shri. Mohan Limaya, Divisional Manager of the Opposite Party.  Both the parties have submitted their respective written notes of arguments.  We have perused the documents placed on record.  We heard oral argument of Shri. Vikas Shinde, Ld.Advocate for the Complainant and Shri. Herbert Noronha, Ld.Advocate for Opposite Party. 

8)        The Complainant has filed alongwith the complaint at page no.18 copy of mutation entry no.7 by which the name of Ramdas Chavan entered in the revenue record of gat no.143 of Village Jadhavwadi on 10/02/1989.  The said mutation entry has been come in to existence on the basis of application submitted by Manikrao Bajirao Chavan, father of Ramdas Chavan.  The Complainant has also produced  at the page no.14, 15 & 17 of the complaint 7/12 extract and copy of Namuna No.8A of agriculture land gat no.143 admeasuring 1 Hector 67 R, situated at Jadhavwadi, Tal. Akolner. The name of Ramdas Manikrao Chavan has been shown as owner and possessor of the said land in the ownership and cultivation columns of the said 7/12 extract and copy of Namuna 8A for the year 2011-2012. The above entries show that Ramdas Chavan was the owner and cultivator of the land gat no.143 of Village Jadhavwadi. The 7/12 extract and copy of Naumna No.8A proves that Ramdas Chavan was the agriculturist and his residence was Jadhavwadi, Tal. Akolner, Dist. Ahmednagar.  The copy of mutation entry filed with complaint at page no.16 shows that after the death of Ramdas Chavan the names of his wife/present Complainant and son Tejesh, daughter Tejshri have been entered by the mutation entry No.809 in the revenue record of gat no.143 of Village Jadhavwadi as the legal heirs of deceased Ramdas Chavan. The copy of above mutation entry shows that the Complainant is one of the legal heir of deceased Ramdas Chavan. 

9)        The copy of the first information report has been filed at page no.19 with the Complainant.  One Shahaji Ghorpade father of injured Prasad Ghorpade lodged the report of accident in the police station Tofakhana, Dist. Ahmednagar.  The said police on the basis of above report registered Crime No.188/12 under Section 304A, 279, 337, 338, 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 84, 177 of the Motor Vehicle Act.  It has been contended in the said FIR that, on 27/05/2012 at 12.45 p.m. Ramdas Chavan was riding his motorcycle No.MH-16-S-3747 with two pillion riders namely Prasad Ghorpade and Vivek Kusekar, both aged. 12 yrs. and when Ramdas Chavan reached near Sunny Palace Hotel on Aurangabad – Ahmednagar road one tempo bearing No.MH-16-AE-2319 gave dash from back side to the motorcycle of Ramdas Chavan due to which Prasad, Vivek sustained injuries and Ramdas Chavan died on the spot.  The police prepared the Inquest Panchanama of the dead body of Ramdas Chavan. It is filed with complaint at page no.26, copy of FIR is at page nos.19 to 25 and police statements at page nos.30 & 31. On 27/05/2012 at 6.00 Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar carried out the post mortem on the dead body of Ramdas Chavan and it is alongwith the complaint at page nos.33 to 38, cause of death certificate and death extract of Ramdas are also at page nos.39 & 42. As per said documents Ramdas Chavan died due to hemorrhage shock and head injury.  All the above documents shows that Ramdas Chavan died in the road accident on 27/05/2012.

10)      The  Complainant  has  produced  the  copies  of  Maharashtra  Government Resolutions dtd.04/12/2009 and 08/11/2011. The terms and conditions of the Agriculturist Personal Accident Insurance Scheme are laid down in the Government Resolution dtd.04/12/2009. As per Government Resolution dtd.08/11/2011 the Government of Maharashtra obtained insurance of 137 lacs agriculturist of Maharashtra  from two Insurance Companies including the Opposite Party and paid premium Rs.1,918/- Lacs to the said Insurance Companies for the period 15/08/2011 to 14/08/2012. The evidence available on record shows that, deceased Ramdas Chavan was agriculturists and he was covered under the above insurance policy.  Ramdas Chavan died in the road accident on 27/05/2012.  The Complainant has produced alongwith complaint at page no.40 a copy of driving license issued by the Maharashtra RTO Office in the name of Ramdas M. Chavan.  On perusal of said license it is clear that Ramdas Manikram Chavan, resident of Jadhawadi was holding driving license No.MH-6-20090010869 valid till 22/09/2022 of the Tractor.    

11)      Opposite Party has produced alongwith affidavit of evidence of witness Shri. Mohan Limaya, a copy of agreement. The said agreement took place between the Government of Maharashtra, M/s. Cabal Insurance Broking Services Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd., Opposite Party in respect of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The agreement shows that, Opposite Party entered into agreement with the Government of Maharashtra for providing compensation to the farmers as defined in the policy who sustains any bodily injury, death, permanent disability or loss of limb as per the terms and conditions laid down in the said agreement.           

12)      Shri. Herbert Noronha, Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party has argued that as per exclusion clause no.VI (a) of the agreement/policy the Complainant is not entitle to the compensation regarding death of her husband Ramdas Chavan. The Advocate for the Opposite Party in support of his argument relied on the judgment reported in (2010) 10 SCC 567 Surjamal Ram Niwas Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. V/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that – it needs little emphasis that in construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount importance, and it is not open for the court to add, delete or substitute any words.

13)      Shri. Vikas  Shinde, Ld.Advocate  for  the  Complainant  has  argued  that,  two piller rider named Vivek and Prasad were aged only 12 years and their weight would not have made the vehicle unstable therefore, exclusion clause of the policy is not applicable to the present case.  The advocate for the Complainant in support of his argument relied on the judgement delivered by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in MACA No.612 of 2006, Pornima wife of Dilip Kumar V/s. Sandhya Sudhir Sougandhikam & 2 Ors, decided on 25/11/2008.  In the said case the husband and wife i.e. appellants alongwith their two children aged 4 years and 2 years were traveling by a motorcycle and they met with an accident. The husband, wife i.e. both appellants and one child sustained injuries and the other child escaped on her.  The Insurance Company had offered compensation and settled the liability.  However when the husband and wife filed separate claim Petitions the same were resisted by the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle among other things on the ground that the accident is on account of contributory negligence of the rider of the bike by taking more than one pillor rider in the bike in violation of Sec.128 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that, the children traveling alongwith the parent in the bike were of tender age and their weight would not have made the vehicle unstable and therefore, contributory negligence held at 25% and appellant are entitled to 75% of the compensation.  In the said case the claim petition was filed under the provision of Motor Vehicle Act.  The present complaint has been filed under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1988. The question of contributory negligence does not arise in the present complaint, hence said citation does not support the case of the Complainant. 

14)      Shri.Vikas Sinde, Ld.Advocate for the Complainant has relied on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.1503/2004,  G. Kothainachari V/s. The Branch Manager, United India, decided on 29/10/2007.  In the said case the insured vehicle met with an accident on 20/06/1995.  The Insured was having fitness certificate till 30/05/1995. It was contended that as there was violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act which requires that the vehicle cannot be used without having fitness certificate, the Insured is not entitle to have reimbursement from the Insurance Company.  In the said case the Hon’ble National Commission observed that – the alleged breach is with regard to the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the question would be whether the Insurance Company can repudiate the claim on the alleged ground of breach of some provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act or some other Act.  It is not the case of the Insurance Company that the policy is a statutory policy. In our view, the Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim when there is no breach of terms of the policy, because insurance is a matter of contract between the parties.      

15)      Shri. Vikas Shinde, Ld.Advocate for the Complainant has also relied on the judgement delivered by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in First Appeal No.1236 of 2008, Life Insurance Corporation of India V/s. Sukhdeep Kaur, decided on 29/10/2007.  In the said case Sukhdev Singh husband of Complainant had obtained Insurance Policy from the LIC.  On 16/06/2006 Sukhdev Singh died in a motor vehicle accident. He was coming on his scooter alongwith one Jang Singh and Janapat Singh from Village Baghore to Khatra. The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh observed that - the term and condition of breach of law raised by the counsel for the appellant, is also not available because no specific law has been mentioned and the term ‘breach of law’ is very vague and even considering the present case in relation with the breach of law, then also the triple riding on a scooter was breach of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules and Regulations made there under and not the violation of any policy.  

            On careful reading of above two cited cases it is clear that, the Hon’ble National Commission and the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh have observed that if the condition of insurance policy are violated, repudiation would be legal and valid, but if the statutory provision of the Motor Vehicle Act are violated, the authority under that Act has the right to punish the violator, but the Insurer has no right to repudiate the claim.  In the present case the Opposite Party comes with the case that there is breach of condition of the policy.  The terms and conditions regarding road accident have been laid down in clause VI of the agreement which took place between the Government of Maharashtra and M/s. Cabal Insurers Broking Service Pvt. Ltd. Co. and the Opposite Party. Clause No.VI (A)(1) of the policy/agreement says that - accidents occurring due to carrying of passenger in excess of the capacity of vehicles.  All farmers except the one who is  driving should be eligible for the claim.

       In the present case Ramdas Chavan the rider of the motorcycle died in the accident.  As per the clause 6(A)(1) of the policy/agreement all farmers/rider are eligible for the claim except one person who is driving the vehicle.  Ramdas Chavan was driving the motorcycle therefore, the claim in respect of compensation of his death is not payable to the Complainant. 

16)      Shri. Vikas Sinnde, Ld.Advocate for the Complainant has further argued that the Opposite Party has not provided the terms and conditions of the policy in question to the Complainant therefore, those terms and conditions are not binding to the Complainant.  The Government of Maharashtra has obtained the insurance of all eligible farmers of the State of Maharashtra under the scheme formulated for the benefits of the agriculturist.  The State Government of Maharashtra is one of the party to the agreement which took place between the Government of Maharashtra, Cabal Insurance, Broking Services, M/s. Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Opposite Party. The terms and conditions have been laid down in the said agreement with the consent of insured/State Government of Maharashtra.  Therefore, now it cannot be come in the mouth of the Complainant that the terms and conditions of the policy have not been provided to the agriculturist Ramdas. The copies of above agreement/policy cannot be provided to each and every agriculturist of Maharashtra State under these circumstances the argument advanced by the Complainant cannot be accepted. In view of the observation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surajmal Ram Niwas Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. V/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. this Forum has no power to go beyond the terms and conditions of the agreement/policy which took place between the parties.  In view of the above discussion we fined that the Complainant is not entitled to the compensation as claimed by her.  In the result complaint deserves to be dismissed.  Considering the nature of complaint both parties have to bear their own cost.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following order –

O R D E R

                   i.      Complaint No.54/2014 is dismissed.

                  ii.      Both parties shall bear their own cost    

          iii.      Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.