PER MR.B.S.WASEKAR, HON’BLE PRESIDENT

1)                The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  According to the complainant, her husband Shri Kernath alias Kerba Narsing Bharti was an agriculturist, holding Gut No.46, 47 and 48 at village Vilaspur, Taluka-Lohara, District-Osmanabad. He died accidentally on 4^th February, 2013 due to fall into the well. She submitted insurance claim under the Government Scheme of Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojana.  Her claim was not satisfied therefore she has filed this complaint for insurance claim of Rs.1 Lakh with interest. 

2)                The opponent/Insurance Company appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that the claim was repudiated by letter dated 27^th April, 2013 as the deceased committed suicide. Therefore, she can not file claim before this Forum. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

3)                After hearing both the parties and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.

POINTS

REASONS

4) As to Point No.1 & 2 :- There is no dispute that the deceased was farmer and he died on 4^th February, 2013 due to drowning. The dispute is about as to whether the death was suicidal or accidental.  According to the complainant, her husband died due to fall into the well.  On the other hand, it is the case of the opponent that the deceased committed suicide.  Both the parties are placing reliance on the police investigation papers produced by the complainant on record.  It is pointed out by the learned advocate for the opponent that as per police complaint given by Shri Mahadev Bharti, cousin brother of the deceased, the deceased was suffering from paralysis and he was fade up with his disease and the expenses of medical treatment.  Therefore, he committed suicide.  This police complaint is the first document.  On that basis, the death was registered under section 174 of Cr.P.C.  It is submitted by the learned advocate for the complainant that it was accidental death therefore, police recorded the death under section 174 of Cr.P.C.  This submission of the learned advocate for the complainant can not be accepted as it is not as per the provision under section 174 of Cr.P.C.  As per the provision under section 174 of Cr.P.C., if police receives information that a person has committed suicide or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident or has died under suspicious circumstances, the police officer has to give intimation to the nearest Executive Magistrate and the Executive Magistrate has to make enquiry about the cause of death under section 176 of Cr.P.C.  There is nothing on record to show that intimation was given to the Executive Magistrate and the Executive Magistrate made enquiry under section 176 of Cr.P.C.  The evidence on record shows that the deceased was suffering from paralysis and he was fade up with his disease and the expenses of medical treatment.  Therefore, he committed suicide.  If, the death is suicidal, the Scheme is not applicable.  Hence, the legal heirs of the deceased are not entitled to file any claim under the Scheme. 

5)                The learned advocate for the complainant has placed reliance on the judgments of our State Commission, Aurangabad Circuit Bench in First Appeal No.88 of 2009, in the case of New India Insurance Company Limited –Versus- Smt.Kaushalyabai Uttamrao More & Ors., decided on 30^th August, 2011 and in First Appeal No.427 of 2011, in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited –Versus- Sumanbai Rangrao Mugal & Ors., decided on 21^st November, 2011.  In those judgments, there was no evidence about the cause of death.  But, in the instant complaint before us, both the parties are placing reliance on the police investigation papers and the police investigation papers show that the deceased committed suicide. Therefore, the abovecited judgments are not applicable. The judgments in First Appeal No.A/11/544 and A/12/177 are not relevant in this matter. The complainant has also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.471 of 2006, in the case of National Insurance Company Limited –Versus- Shri Madhusudan Das, decided on 25^th May, 2011. The facts before us totally different. Therefore, it is not applicable. 

6)                Thus, the Scheme is not applicable to the deceased as he committed suicide. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the relied as prayed.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Complaint stands dismissed.
2. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
3. Inform the parties accordingly.

Pronounced on 2^nd December, 2015