State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Universal Sompo General Insurance Co ... vs Anita Bhaskar Vyavhare on 6 June, 2024
1 A/1260/2022
Date of filing :13.10.2022
Date of order :06.06.2024
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 1260 OF 2022
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 252 OF 2021
DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION : JALNA.
UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL Appellant
INSURANCE CO.LTD,. (Adv.S.T.Agrawal)
Through its Aurhosised Signatory,
Anita w/o Krishnapal Raghuwanshi,
R/o Unit No. 601 & 602, 6th floor,
Reliable Tech Partk, Cloud City Campus,
Gate No.31, Mouje Eltham, Thane-Belapur road,
Airoli, New Mumbai 400 708
VERSUS
1. Anita Bhaskar Vyavhare, Respondent No.1&2
R/o Bharaj, Tq.Jaffrabad, (Adv.P.A.Kuber
Dist.Jalna.
2. Bhaskar Rangnath Vyavhare,
R/o Bharaj, Tq.Jaffrabad,
Dist.Jalna.
CORAM : Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon'ble Presiding Member.
Nagesh C.Kumbre, Hon'ble Member.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 06/06/2024) Per Nagesh C.Kumbre, Hon'ble Member..
The appellant has challenged in this appeal, Judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Commission, Jalna in C.C.No.252/2021 dated, 16.06.2022.
2 A/1260/2022 For the sake of brevity the 'appellant' is herein after referred as 'opponent' and 'respondent no.1 and 'respondent no.2' are herein after referred as 'complainant no.1 and complainant no.2' respectively as per their status in consumer complaint and District Consumer Commission, Jalna is hereinafter referred as District Commission.
2.- Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under :-
Complainant no.1 is mother and complainant no.2 is father of Umesh Bhaskar Vyavhare ( in short, deceased ) who was an agriculturist. On 16.07.2020 deceased met with an accident of electric shock and died. Accidental death No.18/2020 was registered at Jafarabad Police Station. Complainant no.2 having other two brothers. They are having agricultural land in Gut No.39 at Bharaj (Bk) Tq. Jafarabad Dist. Jalna. Said agricultural land is in the name of brother of complainant no.2, Rameshwar Rangnath Vyavhare, who is alleged to be Karta of their family. Since 10 to 12 years, complainant no.2 and his brothers cultivated their share in above land as per their family consent and oral partition. Rameshwar vyavhare submitted the written partition deed with revenue authority and on 24.07.2020 concern Talathi registered mutation entry no. 2274 in the name of complainant no.2 and his other brothers and same is approved on 09.08.2020. Thereafter separate share of agricultural land has been mentioned on 7/12 extract of gut no.39 in the name of complainant no.2 and his brothers.
Therefore, complainant submitted the claim proposal with opponent under the Insurance Scheme Known as Gopinath Mundhe Farmers Insurance Scheme with opponent for the period of 08.12.2019 to 07.12.2020 through Taluka Krishi 3 A/1260/2022 Adhikari, but on 09.05.2021 said claim was repudiated by opponent on the ground that complainant no.2 was not farmer at the time of inception of policy. As such complainant filed consumer complaint due to deficiency in service committed by opponent towards him, claiming Insurance amount Rs. 200,000/-along with interest and Rs. 20,000/-for physical and mental harassment and for cost of litigation. Complainant submitted copy of claim proposal along with all relevant police papers, revenue records, 7/12 extract of gut no. 39, copy of mutation entry no. 2274 etc, Government Resolution (in short G.R.) dated 19.09.2019 and dated 05.12.2019, and repudiation letter of opponent dated 09.05.2021,
3.- Opponent appeared before the District Commission and filed written statement, thereby resisted the complaint and denies the allegations. It is submitted by opponent that complainant no.2 had became farmer on 09.08.2020 i.e. after commencement of policy. Therefore complainant no.2 was not farmer on date of commencement of policy i.e. 10.12.2019 and which breach of term and condition of policy and tripartite agreement and therefore the legal hairs of deceased has no right to claim compensation. It is also submitted that, complaint is not maintainable due to non joinder of necessary parties and pray for dismissal of complaint.
4.- On hearing the counsel of both parties and considering the entire evidence on record, District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the opponent to pay to complainant insurance amount Rs. 2,00,000/- within 45 days 4 A/1260/2022 from receipt of order, Rs. 5000/-for physical and mental harassment and for cost of litigation.
5.- Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order, opponent came to this Commission in appeal. Adv.S.T.Agrawal for opponent and Adv.P.A.Kuber for both complainant were present. We heard both of the advocates.
6.- Adv. Agrawal for opponent argued and submitted by way of their written notes of arguments that, clause II of tripartite agreement 2019-20 provide eligibility criteria for farmer. As per eligibility farmer means, the farmer whose name should be mentioned in 7/12 extract on the date of issuance of policy. Same eligibility criteria for famer are also provided in G.R. dated 19.09.2019 and G.R. dated 05.12.2019. In present case policy was issued on 10.12.2019 and on this date the name of father of deceased, i.e. complainant no.2 was not recorded in the land revenue record, 7/12 extract but it is recorded after the commencement of policy. It is submitted by opponent that Govt. of Maharashtra has calculated total registered farmers and one family member of their family and accordingly paid the premium for 3.04 crore persons. It is argued by Adv. Agrawal that complainant no.2 who is father of deceased became farmer after commencement of insurance policy and therefore the legal hairs of deceased are not entitled for insurance claim. It is further submitted that the Commission below has not considered the above facts and passed the impugned judgment and order which is deserves to be quashed and set aside. Adv. Agrawal filed copy of tripartite agreement for the year 2019-20.
5 A/1260/2022
7.- Adv. kuber for both complainant argued and submitted by way of written notes of arguments that agricultural land gut no. 39 at Bharaj (Bk) is the ancestral and family property of complainant no.2 which is in the name of his brother Rameshwar Rangnath Vyavhare who is Karta of their family. Since 10 to 12 years complainant no.2 and his brothers cultivated their share in above land as per their family consent and oral partition. Rameshwar Vyavhare submitted the written partition deed with revenue authority and on 24.07.2020 concern Talahi registered mutation entry no. 2274 in the name of complainant no.2 and his other brothers and same is approved on 09.08.2020. Thereafter separate share of agricultural land has been recorded in 7/12 extract of gut no.39 in the name of complainant no.2 and his brothers. It is further submitted that complainant no.2 is farmer and therefore entitled for insurance claim. Opponent has wrongly repudiated the claim as there is no exclusion clause as per the ground of repudiation. It is also submitted that the District Commission has rightly adjudicated the matter and therefore there is no need to interfere in the impugned judgment and order. Adv. Kuber for complainant relied on judgments of
(i) Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2095/2015, Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. versus National Insurance Co. Ltd.
(ii) Hon'ble High Court, Aurangabad bench in Shakuntala w/o Dhondiram Mundhe versus State of Maharashtra 2010 (2) Mh.L.J.
(iii) Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.958/2016, Dwarka wd/o Bhiva Shendage versus State of Maharashtra.
6 A/1260/2022
(iv) Hon'ble National Commission in Rev. Petition No. 825/2016, National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Mata Naina Devi Ji Fuel Center
(v) Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6296/1995, B.V.Nagaraju versus M/S Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. etc. But it appears that fact and circumstances of these cases and case in hand is distinguishing. Adv.Kuber for complainant filed G.R. dated 10.08.2010, copy of mutation entry no.135 which is in the name of Rameshwar Rangnath Vyavhare.
8.- We have gone through the appeal compilation, impugned judgment and order, pleading and written notes of arguments on record and also thoughtfully consider the arguments of parties. It is not disputed that the death of deceased was accidental. The only point of controversy is that, weather at the time of commencement of policy complainant no.2, i.e. father of deceased was registered farmer and he was having agricultural land in his name or not. On perusing the mutation entry no.135 dated 26.08.86 filed by complainant on record, it appears that agricultural land gut no. 39 at Bharaj (bk) area 1 H. 77 R. had been purchased by brother of complainant no.2, Rameshwar Rangnath Vyvhare through sale deed from owner of said land namely, Kaduba, Dyaneshwar, Sanjay, Kalabai and Devidas and thereafter he is owner of said land as per mutation entry no.135. It is not the case of complainants that the above landed property was purchased in the name of Rameshwar Vyavhare from the income of joint family of complainant no.2 and his brothers or purchased by father of complainant no.2 in the name of Rameshwar Vyvahare. Also there is no revenue 7 A/1260/2022 record or evidence filed by complainant no.2 which shows that the land gut no. 39 is the joint family property or ancestral property of complainant no.2 and his other brothers. It is not proved by complainant no.2 that he has his right and share in the said landed property. Therefore it appears that the District Commission in the impugned judgment and order wrongly held that the landed property gut no. 39 is ancestral property of complainant no.2.
9.- It is submitted by complainants that Rameshwar Vyvhare submitted written partition deed with revenue authority on 24.07.2020 and the mutation entry no. 2274 recorded by concern Talathi and approved by concern circle inspector on 09.08.2020 and thereafter name of complainant no.2 had been registered as owner in 7/12 extract. On perusing mutation entry no. 2274 which is on record, it appears that on 24.07.2020 mutation entry was recorded in the name of complainant no.2 and his other brothers, on the basis of written partition deed filed by Rameshwar Vyvhare and it was approved on 09.08.2020. Thereafter complainant no.2 has became registered farmer as his name is shown in 7/12 extract.
10.- As per tripartite agreement clause I (C) farmer means person registered as farmer in Maharastra as evidenced by 7/12 extract. In clause II (1) of said agreement the eligibility criteria is the farmers name should be in the land record register i.e.7/12 extract on the date of issuance of policy and as per clause II (2), family member means, father/mother of the farmer, wife/husband of the farmer, son and unmarried daughter of the farmer, whose name is not mentioned in the 8 A/1260/2022 land record register or who do not possess 7/12 extract on the date of issuance of the policy. The same criteria for insurance claim also appear from G.R. dated 19.09.2019, in clause 2 and 5 and G.R. dated 05.12.2019. As per G.R. dated 05.12.2019 it appears that Government paid the premium to opponent for 3.04 crore registered farmers including their family members whose name were not mentioned in 7/12 extract. The accidental death of son of complainants was on 16.07.2020. Complainants submitted their claim with opponent for Gopinath Mundhe Farmers Insurance Scheme for the period 08.12.2019 to 07.12.2020 and for which the policy was issued on 10.12.2019. Therefore as per eligibility criteria provided in tripartite agreement, G.R. dated 19.09.2019 and G.R. dated 05.12.2019 the name of complainant no.2 should be in the land record on the date of issuance of policy i.e. on 10.12.2019, but it appears that the land transferred in the name of complainant no.2 was on 09.08.2020 i.e. after the date of commencement of policy i.e.10.12.2019.
11.- In Civil Appeal No. 6277/2004 United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus M/S Harchand Rai Chandan Lal 2004 CJ(SC) 1486 in para 6 it was observed that .....The policy is the contract between the parties and both parties are bound by the terms and contract....... and it is also observed that, the term of the policy have to be construed as it is and we cannot add or subtract something. Howsoever, liberally we may construe the policy but we cannot take liberalism to the extent of substituting the words which are not intended....... As per above observation we agree with the submission of opponent that as the complainant no.2 who is father of deceased, was not a 9 A/1260/2022 registered farmer at the date of policy inception and therefore the legal hairs of deceased is not entitled for insurance claim and there is no deficiency in service committed by opponent towards complainant on repudiating the claim on the said ground.
12. In view of aforesaid facts and discussion we are of the opinion that, the District Commission has committed an error in appreciating evidence on record. The District Commission in the impugned judgment and order ignored above important facts. Hence, the impugned judgment and order are liable to be quashed and set aside. In the fact and circumstances of the appeal there is no order as to cost. Hence, we pass the following order.
ORDER.
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The impugned judgment and order passed by the District Commission, Jalna in C.C.No.252/2021 dated 16.06.2022 is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently complaint is dismissed.
3. There is no order as to cost.
4. Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to both parties.
N.C.Kumbre M.S.Sonawane
Member Presiding Member
UNK