State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt.Usharani Bhimrao Pakhare vs Liberty Videocon Genaeral ... on 20 September, 2024
1 (A/17/534)
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
FIRST APPEAL NO. A/17/534
Smt. Usharani Bhimrao Pakhare
Widow of deceased farmer
Resident of
Village Visapur,
Tal. Tasgaon,
Dist. Sangli. Appellant
Versus
Liberty Videocon General Ins. Col Ltd.
Through its Manager
10th Floor, Tower A,
Peninsula Business Park,
Ganpatrao Kadam Marg,
Lower Parel,
Mumbai 400 013. Respondent
BEFORE :
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.P.Tavade, President
Hon'ble Vijay C. Premchandani, Member
PRESENT:
For the
Appellants :
For the
Respondents: Advocate Joshi
2 (A/17/534)
:- ORDER :-
(Dated: 20th September, 2024)
Per: Hon'ble Mr. Vijay C. Premchandani, Member
1] The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant u/s of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order dated 19/01/2017 passed by the Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in complaint No.CC/16/104.
2] The Appellant has submitted that the Complainant- deceased husband of the appellant was an agriculturist, who died an accidental death on 10/01/2015 due to injury suffered in motor accident. Agriculturist in the State of Maharashtra are covered under the 'Shetkari Janta Apghat Vima Yojana' under the Government Resolution. The Appellant submitted that the relevant document, 7 / 12 extract, police statement, Panchanama, Post Mortem Report, copy of Driving License etc. were submitted to the respondent through Tahasildar (Krushi Officer) of the jurisdiction of the area within the time prescribed under the aforesaid scheme for grant of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the Scheme. It is further submitted by the Appellant that the respondent rejected the claim by letter dated 19/08/2015 on the alleged ground that the deceased was riding motor cycle without holding valid driving license. The deceased husband of the appellant filed consumer complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Central Mumbai District. The Appellant has submitted that the consumer complaint was dismissed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, 3 (A/17/534) Central Mumbai District on the ground that the deceased died due to his fault and he was not holding valid driving license on the day of accident i.e. on 10/01/2015. Being aggrieved by the Order dated 19/01/2017 passed by the Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, appellant has preferred this appeal before this Commission.
3] The Appellant has prayed that the impugned Judgment and Order dated 19/01/2017 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Central Mumbai District in consumer complaint No.CC/16/104 be set aside and respondent/ opponent may be directed to pay sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation alongwith interest w.e.f. 10/01/2015 till realization of amount and compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation.
4] The Appeal was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared and argued the present appeal. The opposite party has referred Notification dated 04/12/2019 clause 21 wherein it has been stated that if the farmer is driving vehicle then he should have valid and proper license for getting the Insurance Claim under the Farmer Accident Policy. The District Consumer Commission has rightly passed order by rejecting the consumer complaint of the appellant/ complainant. There is no interference required. Hence, appeal may be dismissed with cost.
5] Perused the appeal, list of documents and impugned Order passed by the District Consumer Commission. Heard the counsel for the opponent. The Advocate for the opponent/ respondent argued that the Respondent company rightly repudiated the 4 (A/17/534) complainant's claims in view of the terms and conditions of the policy.
1. After hearing and submissions, the issue comes for our determination that, whether there is necessity of submission of valid and effective driving license of the deceased while filing of the insurance claim under Farmers Accident Insurance claim.
2. The Advocate for respondent referred citations in support of his contention:
a. Liberty General Insurance Ltd. Vs Pranali Popat.
(NATIONAL CONSUMER COMMISSION) Decided on 10/04/2019.
b. Chaitrali C Rajwade Vs Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd.
State Consumer Commission Mumbai Decided on 16/04/2019.
c. Liberty General Insurance Ltd. Vs.Renuka Santosh Waghmare.(State Commission Mumbai ) d. Bajaj Allianz general Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Smt. R. Suguna ( NC) e. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Zaharulnisha (SC) f. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Laxmi Narain Dhut (SC) g. Ravneet Singh Bagga vs KLM Royal Dutech Airlines (SC) h. R. Muthukkrishnan Vs. Manager, ( NC).
3. We would like to discuss the provisions in the GR dated 04/12/2009. It stated the guidelines and instructions to various agencies involved in implementation of the scheme in 5 (A/17/534) details. The condition of necessity of valid driving license is also discussed in the said GR. Amongst the clause/instruction No.21 in the said GR states the necessity of having valid and effective and valid driving license of the person who is dead, if he was driving the vehicle. However, the Clause No.6 of the Part E in the GR states that in case of accidents, all the farmers should be held eligible except the driver who is at fault. Therefore, it can be safely interpreted that, in case of accident occurred not because of fault of the driver, such driver cannot be deprived from the benefit of the scheme. Also, there is one annexure/praptra D, which prescribes for the submission of documents to be submitted for insurance claim which include FIR, spot panchanama, PM report. It does not include valid and effective driving license of the deceased driver.
4. There is also an exclusion clause, provided in part C in the GR dated 04/12/2009, which is also not stating the provision for rejection/dismissal of the Insurance claim on the ground of non-submission of valid and effective licence of the driver in the road/Railway accident cases.
5. Also, from the GR dated 04/12/2009, it is sufficiently clear that the scheme is for protecting the farmer/farmers and their families in case of accidents. Thus, the scheme is basically benevolent in nature.
6. To support our discussion in aforesaid para, we would to rely upon the judgements in the above context.
(i) The Hon. High Court, Bombay Bench at Aurangbad in Bhagyashri Dhage -Vs- State of Maharashtra & 6 (A/17/534) Ors. W.P.No.9650/2014 wherein it is held that, prima facie, clause 21 contained in the Government Resolution cannot be considered to be mandatory and the benefits of the scheme framed for social advancement cannot be denied to the heirs of the deceased.
(ii) In Shakuntala W/o Dhonddiram Mundhe -Vs- State of Maharashtra [2010(2)Mh.L.J] wherein it is held that "Personal accident insurance policy for benefit of farmers-said scheme is social welfare scheme and is beneficial to the family members of farmers who expire in accidental death-Farmer having died in accident, Insurance company declined to grant the claim for compensation on ground that deceased was not registered farmer-Insurance company adopted obstructive attitude and deprived the petitioner from the claim of compensation-Government Resolution dated 5- 1-2005 & 31- 3-2005, from where the said scheme of personal accident insurance emanates, nowhere whispers about the term, "registered farmer".
(iii) In United India Insurance Co.Ltd. -Vs- Gajpal Singh Rawat, reported in 2009 STPL 8188 NC while deciding the said matter, the Hon'ble National Commission relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. -Vs- Swaran Singh wherein it is held that "In each case, on evidence led before the Claims Tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of 7 (A/17/534) vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that accident, was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening cause like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with driver not possessing requisite types of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability, merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence".
7. Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, there reveals deficiency on the part of insurance company towards the complainant in repudiating the Insurance claim.
8. In view of the above, we hold that the District Commission has erred while passing the impugned order. Therefore, we are inclined to pass the following order:
:-ORDER:-
1] The Appeal is hereby partly allowed.
2] The impugned Order dated 19/01/2017 passed by the Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in complaint No.CC/16/104 is set aside and modified as under-
a) The Consumer complaint No.CC/16/104 is partly allowed.
b) The Opposite Party is directed to pay the insurance claim amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the present appellant i.e. the wife of the deceased 8 (A/17/534) complainant alongwith interest @12% p.a. w.e.f.
10/01/2015 till realization of entire amount.
c) The Opposite Party is directed to pay sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental and physical agony.
d) The Opposite Party is directed to pay sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost of litigation.
2] The Opposite party is directed to comply the aforesaid order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
3] The copy of Order be provided free of cost to both the parties.
[JUSTICE S. P. TAVADE] PRESIDENT [VIJAY C. PREMCHANDANI] MEMBER