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 Gundu @ Gunda Rama Kamble was an agriculturist holding Gut No.733 at village-Aanur, Taluka-Kagal, District-Kolhapur. He died accidentally on 13^th February, 2011 in motor vehicle accident.  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. appeared and filed written statement.  It is submitted that the deceased was aged about 81 years old at the time of death therefore the scheme Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojana is not applicable.  The claim was already rejected vide letter dated 25^th November, 2011.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

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

POINTS

REASONS

4) As to Point No.1 & 2 :- The complainant has produced revenue record, showing that her husband was holding agricultural land and he was farmer. The complainant also produced copies of Police Complaint, Spot Panchanama, Inquest Panchanama, Post Mortem Report. On going through all these papers, it is clear that the husband of the complainant died in the motor vehicle accident.

5)                According to the opponent, the deceased was aged about 81 years at the time of death therefore the scheme of Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojana is not applicable. As per Tripartite Agreement, the deceased should be aged about 10 to 75 years.  If, the deceased is more than 75 years old, the scheme will not be applicable. In this complaint, the deceased was illiterate. As per the Tripartite Agreement, the claimant has to produce age proof i.e. School Leaving Certificate/Ration Card/Election Card/Gram Panchayat Certificate. In this complaint, the opponent has placed reliance on the Election Card of the deceased and Form No.6D of revenue record.  As per Election Card, the deceased was aged about 72 years as on 1^st January, 2006. He died on 13^th February, 2011. It means that as per Election Card, he was aged about 77 years.  As per Form No.6D of revenue record, the deceased was aged about 55 years as on 16^th July, 1985. It means he was aged about 81 years at the time of death.  On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned advocate for the complainant that the deceased was illiterate therefore he could not say about his age. The age written in Election Card and in Form No.6D must have been written by the concern officer. Therefore, it should not be accepted. According to him, in the post mortem report, age is written by the Medical Officer who is supposed to be an expert person. In post mortem report, age is written 60 years. The deceased was illiterate villager therefore he was not expected to know his age. The possibility can not be ruled out that the age in Election Card as well as in Form No.6D must have been written by the concern officer approximately. Medical Officer is supposed to be an expert person who has calculated age at the time of conducting post mortem and disclosed it in his report.  Therefore, we are accepting the age written by the Medical Officer in the post mortem report.  As per post mortem report, deceased was aged about 60 years therefore the scheme of Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojana is applicable.

6)                The opponent has repudiated the claim on the ground of over age only.  As discussed above, the deceased was not over aged therefore the claim was wrongly repudiated.  The complainant has produced all the required documents.  The deceased died in motor vehicle accident.  Thus, there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the deceased was the farmer holding agricultural land. He died accidentally in the motor vehicle accident.  The complainant is a widow therefore, as per he agreement, the opponent is liable to satisfy the claim of the complainant. The complainant has complied all the formalities as required under the agreement and Government Resolution. 

         As discussed above, the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Complaint is allowed.
2. The Opponent/Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.One Lakh Only) to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of death of the insured i.e. 13^th February, 2011  till its realization.
3. The Opponent/Insurance Company is further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rs.Three Thousand Only) to the complainant as cost of this proceeding.
4. The above order shall be complied with within a period of one month from today.
5. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.

Pronounced on 18^th October, 2014