State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Company Ltd, vs Renuka Anandrao Jogdana on 12 August, 2011
1 FA-234-2011
Date of filing:30.04.2011
Date of order:12.08.2011
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
F.A. NO.:234 OF 2007
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. : 322 OF 2010
DISTRICT FORUM : NANDED.
United India Insurance Company Ltd,
Through its Divisional Manager,
Aurngbnad Division having office at,
Osmanpura Circle Station road,
Aurangabad. ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
Renuka Anandrao Jogdana
R/o Dapka (Raja) Tq.Mukhed,
Dist.Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS
Coram : Adv.Shri.D.N.Admane, Presiding Judicial Member.
Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Shri.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Shri.Sunil Thite for Adv.Rathi for appellant.
Adv.Shri Bhure for respondent.
O R A L O R D E R Per Shri.D.N.Admane Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. Heard Adv.Shri Sunil Thite for appellant and Adv.Shri Bhure for respondent.
2. Opponent Insurance Conpany preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 22/03/2011 in complaint case No.322/2010 passed by District Forum, Nanded. By the said order the complaint was partly allowed and Insurance Company appellant has been directed to pay Rs 1,00,000/- with interest on @ 9 % p.a. from 02/08/2010 and 2 FA-234-2011 compensation and mental agony for Rs 5000/- and Rs 2000/- towards cost of proceeding.
3. However appeal has been filed on 30/04/2011 there is a delay of 5 days in filing the appeal. Delay has been opposed for the opposite side. Dist.Forum has decided the matter on 22/03/2011 and dispatched the free copy on 23/03/2011 and it was received by respondent/appellant by its office at Nanded on 25/03/2011. The appeal ought to have been filed on 25/04/2011 but it was filed on 30/04/2011 and there was delay on 5 days. Grounds for delay condonation are that after receipt of the copy of the judgment by the appellant on 25/03/2011, opinion of the dealing advocate was called. That opinion was given on 30/03/2011 and file was forwarded to Regional Office at Nagpur for approval of filing the appeal. The opinion of legal retainer was obtained at Nagpur and he opined that this is fit case for appeal. File was returned back to Nanded Divisional Office for filing appeal and thereafter said file was forwarded to Aurangbad Divisional Office and appeal was filed on 30/04/2011. We found that the ground stated in the application are justifiable. In the fact and circumstances of the case the cause for condonation of delay is made out. Therefore misc.application for condonation of delay is allowed. Delay stands condoned.
4. Heard with consent of both the advocate since they have expressed that they are ready to go with the matter after the for disposal on delay condonation application.
5. The brief fact as contended by the complainant before the Forum is as under:
3 FA-234-2011 Anandrao Jogdand husband of the complainant had been to one Shankaranand Pawar on 11/12/2009 for his opinion to give up habits about consumption of liquor. Shankaranand Pawar however had given some herbal which caused poison, Anandrao died thereby. Accident death was reported at Police Station Bhokar vide crime No. 191/2009 and offence was registered against Shankaranand under section 304 of Indian Penal Code and section 7 under the provisions of Drugs and cosmetic Act 1954.
6. According to applicant her husband Anandrao is cultivator and holding agricultural land bearing G.No. 689 area 1 H. at village Dapaka ( Raja ) tq. Mukhed Dist.Nanded. The 7/12 extract No. 8 and 6-K are filed on record. The Government of Maharashtra paid premium for insurance of the cultivator with the opponent No.1 and for policy period from August 2009 to August 2010. Death being accidental on 11/12/2009 is within the period of policy opponent are liable for compensation as per Government G.R. The claim was submitted by this applicant to Taluka Krushi Adhikari Mukhed On 02/08/2011 but said claim was repudiated stating that the death was by poison herbal given by magician and not accidental. According to the complainant the death was due to poison but it was accidental and therefore she is entitled to get compensation.
7. The opponent No. 1 and 2 filed their written version in the Forum and denied the claim of the complainant contending that the death is not accidental. The applicant not produced the evidence to show that, she is widow of Anandrao, and the papers showing that Anandrao was holding agricultural land and about cause of death It is submitted that the claim be dismissed.
4 FA-234-2011
8. After hearing both the parties Dist. Forum allowed the complaint.
9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the District Forum, Nanded, Insurance Company came in appeal.
10. We have perused copy of the complaint. The copy of the reply 02/08/2010 by the Insurance Company to the application by complainant reveals that it was informed that the death of Anandrao is because of poisonoous herbal given by magician and death was not accidental and therefore claim can not be granted.
11. We have also perused the copy of the P.M. report it clearly reveals that the cause of death is unknown poison. It is appeared from the material of record that the death of Anandrao was because of consumption of some unknown poison. The copy of the P.M. report shows that the death was registered with the police station Mukhed. It appears that the offence was registered against Shankaranand Pawar. There is no material no record to show that Anandrao himself with intention to commit suicide has consumed the herbal medicine. nowing that it is poison and going to cause his death . There is also no record to show that Shankaranand Pawar had given that herbal medicine to Anandrao with intention to cause of his death. There is no primae facie material on record to show that Shankaranand Pawar was aware that the consumption of herbal will result to death. It appears that giving herbal to Anandrao was with a view to give up his habits of drinking. under all these material and facts and record we are of the opinion that the death of Anandrao is accidental death and not intentional death or suicide. The applicant has specifically stated that she is widow of Anandrao and entitled to get the compensation and there is no evidence by the opponent/ appellant to rebutt her claim that she is widow of 5 FA-234-2011 Anandrao. Therefore, the Forum has rightly come to conclusion that the death of Anandrao is accidental death and that he is cultivator and there is a deficiency in service of opponent and allowed the claim. Under this circumstance we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Dist.Consumer Forum. Appeal is without any merit. Hence we pass the following order.
O R D E R
1. Appeal stands dismissed.
2. No order as to cost.
3. Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties.
K.B.Gawali, Mrs.Uma S.Bora Mr.D.N.Admane
Member Member Presiding Judicial Member
A.H.Patil
Steno H.G.
6 FA-234-2011
K