Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. , vs Lalitabai W/O Prabhakar Dagade, on 28 September, 2011

                                   1                 F.A.No.:330/2011




                                Date of filing :29.06.2011
                                Date of order :28.09.2011
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

FIRST APPEAL NO. :330 OF 2011
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 24 OF 2011
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : NANDED.

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. ,
Through its Deputy Manager,
Aurangabad Division,
Osmanpura Circle,
Station Road,
Aurangabad.                                     ...APPELLANT
                                                (Org.Opp.No.1)

VERSUS


1.   Lalitabai W/o Prabhakar Dagade,
     R/o Lambgaon, Tq.Nanded,
     Dist.Nanded.

2.   Kabal Insurance Broking Services Pvt.Ltd.,
     Shop No.2, Disha Alankar Complex,
     Town Centre, Cannaught Place,
     CIDCO, Aurangabad.                         ...RESPONDENTS
                                            (No.1-Org.Complainant,
                                             No.2-Org.Opp.No.2)

           CORAM :     Mr.D.N.Admane, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial
                       Member.

Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.

Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.

Present : Adv.Shri.S.S.Rathi for appellant, Adv.Shri.B.V.Bhure for respondent No.1.

                       O R A L         O R D E R

Per Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.

1.     United India Insurance Co.Ltd.       through its Dy.Manager,

Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad preferred this appeal against judgment and order passed by Dist.Forum, Nanded on 12.5.2011 in complaint case No.24/11.

2. The facts of the complaint are as under.

Complainant Lalitabai Prabhakar Dagade, resident of Limbgaon, Dist.Nanded is wife of deceased Prabhakar Rustum Dagade. Prabhakar was farmer in the State of Maharashtra. The State Government obtained Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojana for the farmers in the Maharashtra. Deceased was the owner of Gut No.228,229,283 & 286 admeasuring 1 Hector 72 R situated at Limbgaon. In the currency of the policy on 14.3.2010 policy holder was going on motor-cycle from Nanded to Limbgaon. At that time truck bearing No.MH-26/H-7032 dashed him. In that accident policy holder died on spot. Complainant preferred the claim with required documents i.e. death certificate, post-mortem report, inquest panchanama, 7/12 extract but her claim was not decided. Therefore she approached to Taluka Krishi Adhikari. It is informed that her claim was forwarded to Insurance Company. She issued illegal notice on 6.1.2011 even then her claim was not settled. Therefore she approached to Forum.

4. Opponent appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. It is submitted by opponent/appellant that documents which are required to settle the claim were not submitted by the complainant. Therefore for want of documents claim could not settle. It is further submitted by appellant that there is no evidence to show that policy holder was farmer. Therefore claim was not settled.

5. After hearing both the parties Dist.Forum allowed the complaint and directed appellant to pay Rs.1,00,000/- within 30 days. Dist.Forum also directed appellant to Rs.5000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2000/- towards cost.

6. Adv.Shri.S.S.Rathi appeared for appellant, Adv.Shri.B.V.Bhure appeared for respondent. We heard both the counsels at admission stage. Appeal filed with application for condonation of delay. Delay 3 F.A.No.:330/2011 caused is shown as 4 days. Delay properly explained by appellant. We condoned the delay.

7. We decided to dispose the appeal with consent of both the parties at admission stage. It is submitted by Adv.Rathi that as there was no proof about the policy holder being land owner claim was repudiated. Complainant did not supply all the require documents and proof about ownership of the land of the deceased at the time of obtaining policy. There is no deficiency in service committed by appellant.

8. Adv.Shri.Bhure submitted that all the required documents were supplied to the Insurance Company even mutation entry, Fer-Far, 7/12 extract were also supplied. As per said 7/12 extract deceased was owner of Gut No.228,229, 283 since 2003. Even after submission of required documents claim was not settled. Dist.Forum rightly considered all the facts and record while allowing the complaint.

9. We heard both the counsels and perused the record. 7/12 extract produced on record shows that deceased Prabhakar was owner of the land since 2003. Therefore contention of the Insurance Company that deceased was not owning any land at the time of obtaining policy is falsified. Dist.Forum after considering all the facts and record rightly allowed the complaint. We do not want to interfere the order passed by the Forum. Hence, O R D E R

1. Appeal is dismissed summarily.

2. Appellant to pay cost of Rs.1000/- to respondent No.1 in appeal.

3. Rest of the order is maintained as it is.

4. Pronounced and dictated in the open court.

5. Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties.

K.B.Gawali,          Mrs.Uma S.Bora                D.N.Admane
 Member                 Member               Presiding Judicial Member


Mane