AS PER HON'BLE MR. DR. S.K. KAKADE PRESIDING MEMBER

       Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandrapur, in Consumer complaint No.CC/64/2018 by which the complaint was dismissed, this appeal is filed by Smt.Kanta Bandu Dhavas, original complainant against the Oriental Insurance Company LTD, Chandrapur, M/s Cabal Insurance Broking Services Ltd, Mumbai, and Taluka Krishi Adhikari, Bhadravati, Dist.Chandrapur, original opposite parties.

2. Brief facts of this appeal are as follows:

     The son of the appellant, deceased Arvind Bandhu Dhavas met with an accident on 16^th November 2008 as he was dashed by a speeding vehicle coming from the opposite side and subsequently died. The claim under Farmers Janata Personal Insurance policy was submitted by the appellant to respondent no. 3, Taluka Krishi Adhikari, being the lone legal heir as the deceased was unmarried. In spite of filing an application along with documents with respondent no. 3, the said claim was not settled and the appellant, the original complainant did not receive the compensation though she was covered by this insurance, being a farmer. Aggrieved by inaction on the part of respondents, the appellant had filed a complaint case no. CC/64/2018, before learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum of Chandrapur.

1. 3.    The complaint case no. 64 of 2018 filed by Srimati Kanta Bandhu Dhavas against the original opposite party the Oriental Insurance Company Limited was decided by the learned forum on 10^thOctober 2019 after following a judicial proceeding. District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complaint was barred by limitation and that it was the complainant who did not file complete documentation along with the application of claim. Aggrieved by this judgment and order the original complainant has filed this appeal before this Commission.

4.      We heard the rival submissions and arguments advanced by learned advocates of both parties and perused the record. Learned Advocate for the appellant Shri. Kshirsagar submitted that the appellant is an agriculturist, and so was her son. The scheme of farmers’ Janata personal insurance policy was floated by the State Government and the very purpose of this insurance is to provide financial support to the immediate legal heir of farmers who die due to some accident. In the year 2007 – 2008, according to the GR issued by the State Government farmers across state of Maharashtra were covered under this policy and insurance companies were duty bound to provide this support as per the tripartite agreement between the farmers, State Government, and the Insurance companies. When the son of the appellant died on 16^thNovember 2008, as he met with an accident, the application for the claim under this insurance policy was sent to Taluka Krishi Adhikari and further, she waited for a long time to get her claim sanctioned. Because of her poor condition, she could not consistently follow the said application. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that Taluka Krishi Adhikari sent the application along with the necessary documents on 8^thDecember 2008, but the insurance company did not receive the same as per the statement by it in its written statement. Reference page number 61. Learned Advocate invited the attention of the bench to the government regulation dated 6^thSeptember 2008.

5. According to the learned advocate for the appellant, the order was passed by the learned District Consumer Forum on the ground that, the complaint is barred by limitation since it was filed after a period of almost 10 years. But the forum has failed to recognize that, since there was no formal repudiation by the insurance company, the cause of action is continuous. Hence the order is not just and legal, prayed for setting aside the impugned order and passing necessary orders meeting the end of justice.
6. Learned advocate for the respondent Insurance Company, Adv. Godbole opposed the contention of the appellant and submitted that the complaint is barred by limitation as it was filed 10 years after the actual accidental death took place. Since the claim was not submitted in time, but rather was not filed at all, there was no question of repudiation of the claim. According to him, the learned district forum was right in considering the point of limitation and hence rightly dismissed the complaint.
7. Both the learned advocates referred to rulings of the Hon’ble National Commission and Supreme Court of India in support of their contentions.

Rulings by Appellant

1. I (2006) CPJ 53 (NC) Praveen Sheikh Vs.LIC & Anr.
2. III (2011)CPJ 507 Laxmibai Vs.I.C.I.C.I.Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd.(NC)

3. I (2013) CPJ 115 (MAH) Bhagabai Vs.I.C.I.C.I.Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd.

Rulings by Respondent

1. (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 768: (Kandimala Raghavaiah & Co. Vs.National Insurance Co.Ltd. and another) on the point of Limitation as per Section 24 A of the Act.

8. We have gone through the Government Regulation dated 6^th September 2008. It has laid down the procedural requirement for submitting a claim. It has given more responsibility to Taluka Krishi Adhikari, District Superintendents, and the Commissioner in the Agriculture department. Ref. Para 23. Further para no. 14 says it is not necessary to submit documents separately to the Insurance Company. All the paras in the GR cast responsibility on the Krishi Adhikari and the insurance company, and the claims are to be sanctioned by the insurance company within one month from receipt of the documents. The State Government has paid a huge premium to the insurance companies, in order to prevent the financial suffering of those, who suffer due to the death of farmer inmates. It has also spelled every option to help the inmates of the deceased and cast responsibility on government employees of the agriculture department.
9. While looking into the case before us, the documents support that, the claim was filed with Taluka Krishi Adhikari in April 2009. The communication from the Commissioner’s office directs Taluka Krishi Adhikari to collect the documents necessary, which he complied in December 2009. Further, from December 2009, the claim was not traced by Taluka Krishi Adhikari nor it was referred to the committee specifically constituted as per GR for further decision. It is clear from the communication from the Commissioner’s office, that the Insurance Company had received the documents but asked for more documents. Hence it is crystal clear that the insurance company had received the claim form submitted by the appellant.
10. We agree with the contention of the learned advocate for the appellant, which has been clearly stated in the judgment of Pravin Shaikh versus LIC, Hon’ble National Commission has taken view that unless and until there is a receipt of repudiation letter by the claimant the cause of action is continuous. Again in another case, Bhagabai versus ICICI Lombard general insurance Hon’ble National Commission has observed that once the claim is submitted to Nodal Officer and if it remains undecided, then the cause of action is continuous. These ratios are necessarily applicable to the instant case and hence, we are of the opinion that the complaint filed by the appellant, the original complainant before the district consumer Commission was not time-barred. In view of this judgment, the order passed by the district consumer forum is not legal. And needs to be set aside.
11. In case of the death of farmers, due to mainly accidental reasons, the State Government of Maharashtra has covered the relatives of such farmers with the Farmers Personal Accident Insurance Scheme. The basic social purpose of this scheme is to provide immediate financial support to the near relatives of the deceased farmer. The government regulation dated 6th September 2008, does not mention any reason that can be used to repudiate this Insurance claim. Further, the very purpose of this scheme is defeated when the insurance company refuses to pay the claim and then approaches the consumer court for defending its position. In the instant case appellant, a poor lady should have received the Insurance claim amount Rs. 1, 00,000/- within one month of receipt of the documents. Rather than having a social view accepting the social perspective of the state government, the insurance company is involved in court matters and makes all possible efforts to repudiate such claims. We think that this stand of an insurance company is antisocial.
12. Since learned district consumer forum has not considered the point of the continuous cause of action and that the communication from the commissioner's office to Taluka Krishi Adhikari mentions that the insurance company after going through the documents is asking for more documents. Clearly, this claim is not time-barred and hence payable by the insurance company to the appellant. As per the GR, the insurance company is also liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% on the claim amount for the first 3 months and then interest at the rate of 15% per annum. We think it is proper to award interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipt of documentation till realization. Both the insurance company and the broker, M/s Cabal Insurance Broking Services Ltd, Mumbai are liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental and physical harassment. Here Taluka Krishi Adhikari was duty-bound to follow the claim submitted but failed to follow as well as file the necessary documents with the insurance company. Hence, though Taluka Krishi Adhikari is a government employee, he has failed in his duty. Unless he is fined, he will not understand his fault. So we think it proper to direct Taluka Krishi Adhikari to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the appellant in his personal capacity. The attention of the Agricultural department of the State Government of Maharashtra also need to be drawn to the role of the insurance company in refusing claim, hence we also direct the department of agriculture, the State Government of Maharashtra to look into this matter very seriously.

ORDER

1. The appeal is partly allowed with a cost quantified to Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally to the appellant within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
2. The order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandrapur in consumer complaint no. CC / 64 / 2018 is hereby set aside.
3. The respondent / original opposite party no.1, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. is hereby directed to pay Rs. 1, 00, 000/- ( Rs. One Lakh only)with interest at the rate of 9 % per annum for 3 months from 8^th December 2009 till realization, failing which amount will carry interest @15 % per annum.
4. Respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant jointly and severally as compensation for mental and physical agony she had to suffer, within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount will carry interest @ 15 % per annum till realization.
5. Respondent no.3 is directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the appellant within 2 weeks’ time from receipt of the order for not following the claim proposal with the insurance company as per the GR dated 6^th September 2008.
6. Copy of this order is to be given to all the parties free of cost.
7. This order is to be communicated to the Chief Secretary, Agriculture Department of State Government of Maharashtra for information and to take suitable action against the erring employees under the department all over State of Maharashtra responsible for monitoring the Farmer Personal Accident Insurance Scheme.