Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Smt. Vimalbai Dnyanoba Dnyaneshwar ... vs Chairman Vividh Karyakari Seva ... on 5 October, 2015

                                    1
                             FA/No.453/2014

     MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
     COMMISSION, MUMBAI CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
                                              Date of filing: 28/08/2014
                                              Date of order: 05/10/2015

FIRST APPEAL No : 453 of 2014
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO : 253 OF 2010
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: LATUR.

Smt.Vimalbai Dnyanoba @ Dnyaneshwar Waghmare
R/o.Village Wanwada Tq. Ausa,
Dist. Latur.                            APPELLANT

           VERSUS

1.    Chairmen
      Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahkari Society
      R/o.Wanwada Tq.Ausa,
      Dist. Latur.

2.    Branch Manager
      Latur Dist. Central Complaint-op Bank Ltd
      Branch Ausa Tq.Ausa,
      Dist. Latur.

3.    Chief Manager
      Latur Dist. Central Co-op. Bank Ltd
      Head office Seven Floor building,
      Main road Latur,
      Tq & Dist. Latur.

4.    Manager
      United India Insurance Company Ltd
      Near Hotel Anjani Ambajogai road,
      Latur Tq & Dist. Latur.                      RESPONDENTS

Coram : Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member.
        Mrs.Uma Bora, Hon'ble Member.
                                      2
                              FA/No.453/2014


                             JUDGMENT

( Delivered on 05th Oct. 2015 ) Per. Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16/07/2014 passed by the Dist. Consumer Forum Latur dismissing consumer complaint No. 253/2010.

{For the sake of brevity the appellant Vimalbai Waghmare is hereinafter referred as the complainant and respondents as the "Opponents" }

2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that :-

Late Dnyanoba Waghmare who was the husband of the complainant was a member of opponent No.1 Co-operative Society. Opponent No.1 society had obtained insurance policy i.e. Janta Personal Accident Policy from opponent No. 4 United India Insurance Company Ltd for its members. Thus late Dnyanoba Waghmare was insured. On 15/06/2009 insured Dnyanoba died by snake bite. Accidental case was registered with Police Station, Gandhi Chowk Latur. After his death his widow complainant Vimalbai submitted insurance claim along with requisite documents. It was submitted through opponent Nos. 1 to 3. However, opponent No.4 insurance company repudiated her claim on the ground that death of insured Dnyanoba was not accidental but by snake bite. Accordingly the complainant was informed.

Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opponent, insurance company, the complainant has filed consumer complaint claiming amount of insurance Rs 1,00,000/- with interest and further compensation Rs 10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs 5000/- towards cost of the proceeding.

3. The opponent Nos. 2 and 3 by their written version submitted that on receipt of the claim papers they have forwarded it to opponent insurance company and they have not committed deficiency in service. They have submitted to dismiss the complaint against them.

4. The opponent No. 4 insurance company by its separate written version resisted the complaint contending inter-alia that it has rightly repudiated the claim. It is submitted that complaint is prematured and not maintainable. It is further submitted that the complainant has not proved that death of her husband Dnyanoba is accidental i.e. by snake bite. It has denied all other adverse averments made by the complainant and submitted to dismiss the complaint.

5. On hearing both side and considering the evidence on record, the Dist. Consumer Forum held that opponent No. 4 insurance company has not committed any deficiency in service as death of Dnyanoba by snake bite is not proved. It is observed that no snake bite marks were found on the dead body of Dnyanoba and 4 FA/No.453/2014 accordingly it is shown in the P.M. notes. In keeping with these findings the Dist. Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the complainant came to this Commission in appeal.

7. We heard Ld. Counsel Shri.Jawalkar appearing for the appellant / complainant and perused impugned judgment and order, complaint notice, written version, P.M. report and other documents including inquest panchanama and case paper pertain to the accidental case registered with police station Gandhi Chowk Latur, so also the copy of final report and order of Special Magistrate accepting final report. However, we have had no opportunity to hear the opponents as they remained absent despite service of appeal notice and therefore the appeal came tobe proceeded ex-parte against them.

8. Almost all the facts except the contentions of the opponent insurance company that the death of insured Dnyanoba is not accidental, are not disputed. Therefore the crux in this matter is as to whether the death of Dnyanoba is accidental by snake bite or otherwise ?

9. Shri.Jawalkar Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant / complainant submitted that though the accidental case under U/Sec. 174 of CRPC was registered with Police Station Gandhi 5 FA/No.453/2014 Chowk Latur and after investigation A-summary report was submitted and the same is accepted by Executive Majistrate Ausa holding that the death of Dnyanoba is accidental by snake bite, the Dist. Consumer Forum without considering all these undisputed facts wrongly held that the complainant failed to prove that death of Dnyanoba is accidental by snake bite as no snake bite marks were found on the dead body.

10. On perusal of the record specifically case papers of the accidental case which was registered with Police Station Gandhi Chowk and the final report which is accepted by the Taluka Executive Magistrate vide it's order dated 03/09/2010 holding that death of Dnyanoba is accidental by snake bite, we find much force in the submission of Shri. Jawalkar Ld. Counsel for the complainant. When undisputedly accidental case was registered and on investigating the matter final report was submitted to the Taluka Executive Magistrate by the police and same report is accepted by the Taluka Executive Magistrate holding that death of Dnyanoba is accidental by snake bite itself sufficient to hold that death of Dnyanoba is accidental and therefore the complainant who is the widow of insured Dnyanoba is entitled to get the amount of insurance but on perusal of the copy of the impugned judgment and order it reveals that the Dist. Consumer Forum neglecting the final report of the accidental case and order of Executive Magistrate wrongly held that the complainant has failed prove that death of Dnyanoba is accidental as snake bite marks were not noticed.

11. Even otherwise it is not the contention of the opponent insurance company that death of Dnyanoba is natural or suicidal. It is also not its contention that on receiving the claim papers any enquiry or investigation was made and it was revealed that death of Dnyanoba is natural or suicidal and not accidental. Therefore mere contention of the opponent insurance company that death of Dnyanoba is not accidental is being unfouded, cannot be sustained. But the Dist. Consumer Forum wrongly held that death of Dnyanoba is not accidental etc. such finding is being erroneous, cannot be sustained.

13. In the result the appellant succeeds and appeal deserves tobe allowed. Hence, the following order.

ORDER

1. Appeal is allowed and impugned judgment and order dismissing the consumer complaint is set aside.

2. Consumer complaint No. 253/2010 is allowed as follows:

i. The respondent No. 4 United India Insurance Company Ltd is directed to pay to the complainant amount of insurance Rs 100,000/- with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 14/12/2009 within one month from the date of receipt of this copy of the impugned judgment and order, else the complainant will be entitled interest @ 12 % p.a. 7 FA/No.453/2014 ii. Further the opponent No. 4 insurance company is directed to pay to the complainant compensation Rs 5000/- towards mental agony and Rs 2000/- towards cost of the proceeding.

3. No order against opponent Nos. 1 to 3.

4. Copies of the judgment and order be sent to both the parties.

                   Sd/-                                  Sd/-
              Mrs.Uma Bora                           S.M.Shembole
               Member                          Presiding Judicial Member



A.H.Patil
Steno H.G.s
        8
FA/No.453/2014