State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Vitthal Shankar Rodge vs 1. Chief Manager, on 8 April, 2013
1 F.A.No.:36-12
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MUMBAI.
CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
First Appeal No. FA/36/2012
(Arisen out of Order Dated 15.11.2011 in Case No.16/2009 of District Forum, Latur)
1. Vitthal Shankar Rodge
R/O.Tavshitad,Tq.Ausa,Dist.Latur .....Appellant
Versus
1. Chief Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd Mumbai
Office No.9, Commercial Union House,
Behind Excelseear Cinema, 9 wali street,
Fort, Mumbai 400 001.
2. Kabal Insurance Private Ltd.,
Vineet Athalle Bhaskarayan
H.D.F.C. Loan Building,
Plot No. 7, Town Center, Sector E,
Cidco, Aurangabad.
3. Collector,
Collector's office, Latur.
4. Tahasildar,
Tahasil Office, Ausa,
Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur.
5. Talathi,
Talathi Sajja Karyalaya, Belkund,
R/o.Belkund, Tq. Ausa,
Dist. Latur.
6. Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Main Road, Opp. Bus Stand,
Latur.
.....Respondents
BEFORE:
HON'ABLE MR. B.A.SHAIKH PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'ABLE MRS. UMA BORA MEMBER
HON'ABLE MR. K.B.GAWALI MEMBER
PRESENT:A.K.Jawalkar, Advocate for the Appellant 1
2 F.A.No.:36-12
ORDER
(Date : 08.04.2013) PER HON'ABLE MRS. UMA BORA MEMBER
1. Vithal Shankar Rodge appellant herein/original complainant challenges in this appeal dismissal of complaint case No.16/2009 by District Forum, Latur on 15.11.2011.
2. Facts in nutshell are as under:
Complainant is father of deceased Samadhan Rodge, who was agriculturist and policy holder of "Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojna". Complainant is resident of Tavshitad, Tq. Ausa Dist. Latur. It is alleged by complainant that on 01.06.2007 said Samdhan Rodge died in the field due to snake bite. Accordingly FIR was lodged by Cr. No.21/2007 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. As the deceased was policy holder claim was preferred with Tahsildar for the insurance amount. It is further alleged by complainant that he did neither receive any answer nor his claim was sanctioned by the Insurance Company. Therefore he approached to Forum. Opponent No.2 submitted that said claim was received by Kabal Insurance on 17.11.2007. Said claim was returned to Tahsildar as the policy period was 15.07.2006 to 14.07.2007 thus claim was received after limitation period.
3. Opponent No.4, 5 appeared before Forum and denied the claim.
4. Opponent No.6 Insurance Company appeared before Forum and resisted the claim on the ground that claim for insurance was not filed within stipulated period i.e. within 90 days after the expiry of policy. Therefore claim was rightly repudiated.
5. After hearing all the parties District Forum held that Kabal Insurance Company itself returned the claim of the complainant as it was not within limitation or within prescribed period. Therefore Insurance Company did not receive the claim. Therefore District Forum dismissed the complaint.
6. Dissatisfied with the said judgment and order original complainant came in appeal. Adv. Shri. A. K. Jawalkar appeared for appellant. Adv. Shri. S. V. Kulkarni appeared for respondent National Insurance Company. None appeared for other respondent. It is submitted by Adv. Jawalkar that policy holder Samadhan Rodge died on 01.06.2007. Post Mortem 3 F.A.No.:36-12 report conducted on his body which clearly mentioned that death due to "unknown bite". Therefore it can be held that policy holder died due to snake bite. It is further submitted by Adv. Jawalkar that FIR was lodged under section 174 Cr.P.C. i.e. accidental death. This itself proves that policy holder died due to accidental death. Adv. Jawalkar stated that filing the claim within 90 days after expiry period is directory and not mandatory. Policy period expired on 14.07.2007 and claim was preferred on 28.09.2007. Therefore there is no abnormal delay such as to reject the claim.
Adv. Jawalkar relied on the judgment of Maharashtra State Commission, Mumbai in case of Kamlabai Chavan Vs. ICICI Lombard. It is held by State Commission that claim was preferred after 106 days from the death of deceased. Respondent ought not to have returned the claim only because it was delayed by 106 days.
7. Adv. Shri. S. V. Kulkarni submitted that claim was received by the Kabal after 90 days of the expiry of policy. Therefore her claim could not be considered. He submitted that District Forum rightly considered the facts and record while dismissing the complaint hence appeal be dismissed.
8. We heard both the counsels finally at admission stage and decide the appeal with their consent. Policy holder Samadhan Rodge died on 01.07.2007. Thereafter clam was preferred with Tahsildar on 28.09.2007 i.e. near about 90 days after the period of limitation. In our view condition regarding preferring the claim within stipulated period is directory and not mandatory. In the present case policy holder was an agriculturist. He was insured through 'Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojna' by State Government. It is proved by Post Mortem report that he died due to snake bite and snake bite is an accident.
9. In our view condition regarding intimation of the accident within a prescribed period is directory and not mandatory. District Forum did not consider the facts and record while dismissing the complaint. We therefore inclined to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order. Hence, the following order.
-:: ORDER ::-
4 F.A.No.:36-121. The appeal is allowed.
2. Respondent is directed to pay policy amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim till realization.
3. No order as to cost.
Pronounced on 08.04.2013.
[HON'ABLE MR. B.A.SHAIKH] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'ABLE MRS. UMA BORA] MEMBER [HON'ABLE MR. K.B.GAWALI] MEMBER Kalyankar