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 husband Shri Bhausaheb Baburao Mandve was an agriculturist holding Gut No.373 at village Kumthe, Taluka-Khatav, District-Satara. He died accidentally on 15^th October, 2011 due to fall from the height. 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 O.P. No.1 appeared and filed written statement.  It is submitted that the claim was not submitted within time limit with required documents 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)                The O.P.No.2 appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that the claim of the complainant was not received therefore the complainant can not file this complaint.

4)                The O.P.No.3 failed to appear though duly served therefore the O.P.No.3 proceeded exparte.

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

POINTS

REASONS

6) As to Point No.1 & 2 :- According to the complainant, her husband was holding agricultural land bearing Gut No.373 at village Kumthe.  He died accidentally by fall from the height. According to the O.P.No.1 & 2, no claim was received from the complainant therefore there was no question of deciding the claim.  In the written statement and in affidavit of evidence also, both the opponents have specifically stated that no claim was submitted by the complainant.  In spite of this defence, the complainant has not produced any evidence on record to show that  the claim was submitted but it was not decided by the opponents.   The submission of the complainant is vague about the claim.  It was necessary for the complainant to produce the proof of submitting claim before any authority as per Tripartite Agreement and Government Resolution.  As per Tripartite Agreement and Government Resolution, it is necessary to submit claim within time limit before the authority.  In this complaint, there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that any claim was submitted to any of the authority as per Tripartite Agreement and Government Resolution.  As there was no claim submitted by the complainant to the concern authority, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable.  In order to claim benefit under the scheme of Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojana, it is necessary for the complainant to follow the procedure as required under Tripartite Agreement and Government Resolution. 

7)                As per Tripartite Agreement, it is necessary for the complainant to submit the claim along with document i.e. F.I.R., Police Patil Report, Spot Panchanama, Inquest Panchanama and Post Mortem Report.  Before this Forum, the complainant has produced copies of Spot Panchanama, Inquest Panchanama and Post Mortem Report.  She has not produced copy of F.I.R./Police Patil Report.  Thus, there is no compliance of the requirement of Tripartite Agreement and Government Resolution.

8)                Thus, there is no evidence on record to show that any claim was submitted by the complainant along with required documents.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the benefit under the scheme of Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojana.  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 on 18^th October, 2014