-- JUDGEMENT --
( Delivered on 30th day of April, 2011)
( As per A.A.Jain,, Honorable Member)
Complainant filed this complaint against opposite parties for seeking various relief as per prayer clause.
1 The complainant No. 1st (one’s) husband and father of complainant No.2 namely Mangru Bhivram Mende, R/o. Borkanhar village , Taluka- Amgaon, district- Gondia, was a cultivator and he was agriculturist. Hence he was insured under the Former Personal Accident Insurance Scheme through Revenue Department i.e. Tahsildar Amagaon with O.P.No.1 during the year 2008-2009.
2 On dt. 19-8-2008 while the deceased Mangru Bhimrav Mende was sitting in front of his house one Gyaniram S/o. Bhivram Mende killed the deceased. That, the P.S.O. Amgaon Police Station registered an offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. against the accused bearing F.I.R. No. 103/08. The complainant submitted that necessary case papers along with claim form including the police papers pertaining to the death of her insured husband to Tahsildar Amgaon. But till the filling of this complaint O.P’s neither settled the claim nor paid the claim amount to the complainant . The O.P.No.1 issued a letter dt. 21-1-2010 to complainant and closed the case of complainant on the ground of non-submission of required documents.
3 Complainant prayed to direct the O.P. to pay the insurance claim Rs.1,00,000/- to complainant with interest @12% per annum from the date of accident to till actual realization and O.P. should also direct to pay Rs.5000/- from O.P. towards mental agony physical harassment in the interest of justice.
4 In response to the notice under Section 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 O.P. appeared and filed his reply (Exh.14). O.P. has denied all allegations of complainant. Complainant has not submitted claim form including the police papers pertaining to the death of her husband to Tahsildar Amgaon. O.P. also denied that he has not disclosed about the documents which are required. O.P. submitted that the incident alleged by the complainant is not covered under the policy as claimed by complainant and complaint is also barred by limitation so this complaint be dismissed with costs.
5 On verifying all the record and hearing argument of both the parties only point arose for our consideration whether the complainant is entitled for relief as per prayer clause and our finding is in Positive due to following reasons:-
REASONS
6 As per the notification of Government of Maharashtra resolution from Agriculture Department No. शे.अ.वि.2008/प्र.क्र.187/11A/Mantralaya Extension, Mumbai 400 032 dated 6.9.2008 Government of Maharashtra decided that if murder of any agriculturist was committed then Government will pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh) to the legal heirs of the deceased, as per directive of Government Resolution and above resolution prapatra “D” No. 6 “murder” also include in this list.
7 For Nagpur, Pune, Nasik, Amravati regions about 70 lakhs formers were insured by O.P.No.1 and Government of Maharashtra paid Rs.6,29,21,600/- so all cultivators of above area including complainant, were beneficiary of this Scheme. Hence complainant is entitled for claim under the scheme.
8 O.P.No.1 repudiated claim of complainant on dt. 21-1-2010 by his letter No. Repudiation/closed Claim No. 18/200/48/2010/1925 by submitting that “the above mentioned claim is closed for non submission of required documents by the claimant as per policy condition/ MOV . But in this letter it was not disclosed that which document were not submitted by complainant and no any opportunity was given to complainant to submit extra documents. Complainant filed her claim before Tahsildar Amgaon and Revenue Authority Tahsildar has submitted the claim to O.P.No.1 . O.P.No.1 has repudiated her claim on 21-1-2010. So cause of action start from 21-1-2010 and Section 24 (A) limitation period is tow years. Hence this complaint is within the limitation period.
9 O.P.No.2 has filed his reply (Exh.12). O.P.No.2 submit that he is only consultant of Govt. of Maharashtra and Government has paid premium of Insurance to O.P.No.1. Hence complainant is consumer of O.P.No.1.
10 Thus complainant has proved negligence and deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Parties and O.P.No.1 is liable to pay the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant . Hence we proceed to pass following order :-
ORDER
1 Complaint is allowed.
2 O.P.No.1 is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac) compensation to complainants within one month from the date of this order unless O.P.No.1
is liable to pay simple interest @ 9% per annum on this amount.
3 O.P.No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.1000/- as cost of this complaint case.
