State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gayabai Wd/O Bapurao Pathak vs Taluka Agricultural Officer, Pathri on 1 July, 2015
1 F.A.No.:98/2014
Date of filing :17.02.2014
Date of order :01.07.2015
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. :98 OF 2014
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 128 OF 2012
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM :PARBHANI.
Gayabai Wd/o Bapurao Pathak,
R/o Mahipal Galli, Pathri,
Tq.Pathri, Dist.Parbhani 431 401. ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Taluka Agriculture Officer, Pathri,
Tq.Pathri, Dist.Parbhani 431 401.
2. Cabal Insurance Services Pvt.Ltd.,
Raj Apartment, Plot NO.2, G-Sector,
Behind Reliance Fresh, Town Centre,
Canaught, CIDCO, Aurangabad 431003.
3. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. ,
Divisional Office - II, Ambika House,
Shankar Nagar Square,
Nagpur 440010. ...RESPONDENTS.
CORAM : Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial
Member.
Smt.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Shri.M.P.Bhaskar for appellant, Adv.Shri.S.V.Kulkarni for respondent No.3.
O R A L JUDGMENT (Delivered on 1st July 2015) Per Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.12.2013 passed by District Consumer Forum,Parbhani dismissing consumer complaint No.128/2012.
2 F.A.No.:98/2014(For the sake of brevity appellant is hereinafter referred as complainant and respondent No.3 as opponent insurance company and respondents 1 & 2 as opponents)
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:-
Late Bapurao Pathak who was husband of complainant Gayabai was a farmer. For the year 2009-2010 Government of Maharashtra had obtained insurance policy from opponent No.3 insurance company for the farmers from State of Maharashtra. Thus according to complainant, her husband Bapurao was insured. On 25.11.2009 insured Bapurao died in motor-accident. Accidental case was registered with the police.
3. After the death of Bapurao his widow complainant Smt.Gayabai submitted insurance claim with opponent No.1 Taluka Agriculture Officer, Pathri, Dist.Parbhani who forwarded the claim papers to opponent No.3 insurance company through opponent No.2 Kabal Insurance Broking Service Pvt.Ltd. However, opponent insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that on the date of inception of the insurance policy Late Bapurao was not farmer as no agriculture land was standing in his name etc. Accordingly by letter dated 12.8.2010 complainant was informed. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponent insurance company complainant has filed consumer complaint claiming amount of insurance Rs.1 lakh and further compensation Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5000/- more towards cost of the proceedings.
4. In response to the complaint notice opponent insurance company appeared before the Forum and resisted the complaint contending inter alia that it has rightly repudiated the claim on the ground that on date of obtaining policy Late Bapurao was not farmer 3 F.A.No.:98/2014 etc. It has denied all other adverse averments made by complainant and submitted to dismiss the complaint .
5. On hearing both side and considering evidence on record District Consumer Forum held that on the date of inception of policy no agriculture land was standing in the name of Late Bapurao. Therefore he was not being a farmer, opponent insurance company has rightly repudiated the complainant's claim. In keeping with these findings Dist.Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint .
6. Feeling aggrieved by that judgment and order complainant came to this Commission in appeal.
7. We heard learned counsel for the appellant and opponent insurance company and perused the written notes of argument submitted by them. We have perused the copy of impugned judgment and order, copies of complaint , written version, and other documents including 7/12 extract and repudiation letter. However, we have had no opportunity to hear opponents 1 & 2 as despite service of appeal notice they remained absent and appeal is proceeded exparte.
8. Almost all the facts except the contention of opponent insurance company that Late Bapurao was not farmer on the date of inception of the insurance policy are not disputed. Therefore the crux in this matter is as to whether Late Bapurao was a farmer on the date of inception of policy or not?
9. It is submitted by Shri.M.P.Bhaskar learned counsel for the complainant that originally the field survey No.320 of village Devnandra was owned by Late Bapura but it was transferred in the name of his son Prakash. Therefore on the date of inception of insurance policy same field Gut No.320 was standing in the name of Prakash who is son of insured Bapurao. However, subsequently vide 4 F.A.No.:98/2014 mutation dated 18.9.2009 the some portion of the same land is transferred in the name of insured Late Bapurao but the opponent insurance company without considering this fact wrongly repudiated the complainant's claim.
10. Moreover it is submitted that another field bearing Gut No.38 of village Pohetakali of Tq.Pathri was owned by insured Late Bapurao. But opponent insurance company without making any enquiry wrongly repudiated the claim on the ground that insured Bapurao was not having agriculture land on the date of inception of insurance policy. In support of this submission complainant has also produced 7/12 extract of field Gut No.38 of village Pohetakali for the year 1994- 95, which reflects that agriculture field bearing Gut No.38 of village Pohetakali was standing in the name of insured Late Bapurao. Therefore we have no hesitation to accept the argument advanced by Shri.M.P.Bhaskar learned counsel for the complainant.
11. However, Shri.S.V.Kulkarni learned counsel for the opponent insurance company submitted that even if land Gut No.38 of Pohetakali was owned by insured Late Bapurao, 7/12 extract of same field was not produced by the complainant along with claim papers. But no explanation is given as to why appellant insurance company has not made any enquiry. Therefore the submission of Adv.S.V.Kulkarni for the opponent insurance company cannot be sustained.
12. For the foregoing reasons it is obvious that opponent insurance company wrongly repudiated the complainant's claim and further District Consumer Forum also wrongly dismissed the complaint relying on the repudiation letter of the opponent insurance company. Such erroneous findings cannot be sustained.
5 F.A.No.:98/201413. In the result, appellant succeeds and appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence the following order.
O R D E R
1. Appeal is allowed and impugned judgment and order dismissing consumer complaint No.128/2012 is set aside.
2. Consumer complaint No.128/2012 is allowed as follows.
3. Opponent insurance company shall pay to the complainant amount of insurance Rs.1 lakh with interest @ 12% p.a. with effect from the date of repudiation letter i.e. 12.8.2010.
4. No order as to cost.
5. Copies of the judgment be supplied to both the parties.
Sd/- Sd/- Uma S.Bora, S.M.Shembole, Member Presiding Judicial Member Mane