(Delivered on  04/02/2021)

PER SHRI A. Z. KHWAJA, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.

1.         Appellant-  Smt. Sunita Katre has preferred  the present  appeal under section 15 of  Consumer Protection Act, 1986, challenging the order dated 30/07/2016 passed by the  learned District Consumer Forum, Gondia in consumer complaint No. 81/2015  by which   the consumer  complaint filed by the  present  appellant /complainant  came to be dismissed. (Appellant hereinafter shall be referred as complainant and respondents  as  O.P. for the sake of convenience )

2.         Short facts leading  to the  filing  of the present  appeal  may be narrated as under:-

            Appellant – Smt. Sunita Katre claims to be  the widow of Suresh Isaram Katre who was an agriculturist   of  agricultural  field at Mauza Kanhartola, Tah. Sadak Arjuni, District Gondia. The entire family of Surresh Katre was depending upon the  income from the  agricultural  field. The husband  of the  complainant  namely  Suresh Katre was insured  under the Farmers Janta Personal Insurance  Policy  for the year 2009-2010 by the government  of Maharashtra for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- through  the  O.P.No. 1- United  India  Insurance  Company Limited. O.P. No. 2- Taluka Agriculture Officer was appointed by the government  of Maharashtra for receiving  the  claim  of the farmers. On 01/08/2010 Mr. Suresh Isaram Katre met with an accident  when he was  travelling as a pillion rider on a motor cycle  and  when  unknown vehicle  dashed  to the said motor cycle  and  due to accident  Mr. Suresh Katre succumbed to the  injuries. The complainant has contended that she submitted the claim to the O.P.No. 2 on 04/02/2015 being  a  legal heir of  her husband  and since  the  accident  had taken  place during the  period of the insurance  policy. Complainant  also provided  all necessary  and relevant  documents  for settlement  of the  claim but did not   receive any compensation  nor she received  any information  from the O.P.Nos. 1 as well as O.P.No. 2- Taluka Agriculture Officer regarding the status of her claim. Complainant – Smt. Sunita Katre was then left with no other option but to file  the present  complaint alleging  deficiency  in service on the part of the O.P.No. 1 and also  for  compensation  for  the mental  harassment  caused to her and  for seeking litigation  expenses.

3.         O.P. No. 1 has filed her written statement denying all the allegations. At the out set the O.P.No. 1 has taken  a plea that  the  complaint  is barred by  non joinder of necessary party  since  Cabal Insurance Service Private Limited  was  necessary party  but they were not  added as a party. There is no previty of contract between the complainant and O.P. The O.P. No. 1 has taken  a specific plea that  the present  complaint  is barred by limitation  as the death  of  deceased – Mr. Suresh  Katre had taken  place  on 01/08/2010 and  the claim  was filed  on 14/10/2014. The O. P. No. 1 has also taken  a plea that   no compensation  can be granted  by way of  insurance  as the accident  had  not taken  place during  the period of the  insurance  policy. For the foregoing  reasons  the  O.P. has contended  that the  complaint  is not  tenable  in  law and deserves to be  dismissed.

4.         The learned District Consumer Forum, Gondia thereafter went through the evidence affidavit of the complainant as well as documents on record filed by both the parties. The learned District Consumer Forum, Gondia also went through the written notes of argument filed by both parties. After going through    entire  record  and  considering  all documents  as well as written notes of argument, the learned District Consumer Forum, Gondia gave a finding  that  the  death of the deceased  had taken  place  on 01/08/2010 whereas  the claim came to be preferred on 14/10/2014 and so the complaint was  barred by limitation. The  learned District Consumer Forum, Gondia therefore dismissed the  complaint  by judgment  and order dated 30/07/2016, Against  this judgment  and order dated 30/07/2016 passed by the  learned District Consumer Forum, Gondia,  the present  appellant  has come up in appeal.

5.         Mr. U.P. Kshirsagar, learned advocate for the appellant/complainant has challenged the impugned order dated 30/07/2016 on several counts. Firstly,  Mr. U.P. Kshirsagar, learned advocate  has submitted that  the learned District Consumer Forum, Gondia has  committed a grave error  in giving a  finding  that  the complaint was barred by  limitation. In this respect  it is firstly  argued  by Mr. U.P. Kshirsagar, learned advocate  for the complainant  that  the complainant  never received  the repudiation letter nor received  any communication  from the O.P.No. 1- United India Insurance Co. Ltd.  or from  the O.P.No. 2- Taluka Agriculture Officer.  Mr. U.P. Kshirsagar, learned advocate   has drawn our attention  to various  documents  filed  on  record so as to  establish  that  her husband  namely Mr. Suresh  Katre was an agriculturist.  On this  aspect  the  complainant has placed  on record  not only a copy of claim form required to be submitted  under the Farmers Personal Accident  Policy  but the complainant  has also placed on record  one 7/12 extract of  Gat No. 208 wherein  the name of the  Mr. Suresh Katre is recorded  as owner. Further the complainant has placed on record the copy of Mutation Entry No. 67 which shows that  the name of the  complainant  along  with  others came to be recorded as legal heirs  of  deceased  Mr. Suresh  Katre. All these documents placed on record by the complainant – Smt. Sunita Katre   unequivocally   go to point out that the deceased  Suresh Katre was an agriculturist and farmer   and was cultivating  Gat No. 208. The complainant has also placed on record  one copy of  Post Mortem Report  as well as  Spot Panchanama.  Bare perusal  of the Spot Panchanama shows  that  the husband  of the complainant  died in a road accident  while he was proceeding  on Suzuki Motor Cycle  bearing  No. MH-35/E-5888.  Even  the copy  of the post  mortem  report  reveals  that  deceased  Suresh  Katre died due to  Head  Injury  and Hemorrhagic  Shock. Apart from this Mr. U.P. Kshirsagar, learned advocate   has also drawn our attention to the copy of death extract which shows  that  husband  of the  complainant  died on 01/08/2010.  The learned advocate for the O. P. No.1- United India Insurance Co. Ltd.  has also not seriously  disputed  the fact that  the  deceased  had died  in a road  accident but  has taken  a plea  that  the  deceased  was not covered  by  provision  of  Farmers Insurance  Policy,  but we have  already  pointed out from the documents  on record that  the deceased  Suresh  Katre was the farmer and had  also died  in the personal accident  and so this  contention of the learned advocate  for the  O.P.No. 1 that the deceased was not covered by the  Insurance Policy must fall to the ground.

6.         Coming  now to the main ground  and  contention  raised  in the  written  statement  relating to the  limitation,  it is submitted by learned advocate for the O. P. No. 1 Mr. Chatterji that  the  accident  had taken  place  on 01/08/2010 whereas  the Consumer Complaint came to  be filed  on 14/10/2014. According to the learned advocate for the O.P. No. 1 the cause of action had  arisen  on 01/08/2010. Mr. U.P. Kshirsagar, learned advocate   for the  complainant  has strongly  rebutted  this contention  and has submitted  before us  that  the cause of action  was continues  and further  the same  would  also  arise  only  when the claim of the complainant  came to be repudiated  by the O.P. No. 1. Mr. U.P. Kshirsagar, learned advocate  for the complainant  has submitted that  the complainant  never  receive  any letter  or communication  either from  the O.P.No.2-Taluka Agriculture Officer, Sadak  Arjuni or  from O.P. No. 1- United India Insurance Co. Ltd.  despite the fact that  they were  under bounden duty   to do so. Mr. U.P. Kshirsagar, learned advocate   has submitted that the complainant had submitted all the necessary documents along with   the claim, which was tendered on 14/10/2014. We do find considerable force in this contention, since the O. P. No. 1- United India Insurance Co. Ltd.  as well as  O.P. No. 2- Taluka Agriculture Officer both have not placed  on record any documents  which  could  go to show that  any letter or  communication  much less the letter of  Repudiation  was sent  to the complainant.  The O. P. No. 1 has merely contended  that  the  complainant  had not  filed  any documents to show  that  her husband  was  driving  motor cycle  or was having  a driver licence . However,  the  copy of the spot panchanama  along with  copy of post mortem report  falsifies   this contention  as the copy of  spot panchanama clearly  mentions  that  the accident  took place  when  deceased was proceeding  on motor cycle  and  offence  was also  registered  by  Goregaon Police Station  vide Crime No. 52/2010 and same cannot be ignored.  

7.         So far as the aspect of limitation  is concerned,  it is now  well settled  that  the cause of action  was continues  in nature  and would  arise  when the  letter  of Repudiation  is received  by the complainant. As such  the contention of the  learned advocate for the O.P. No. 1 that the cause of  action  had arisen  on 01/08/2010 on the death  of deceased  cannot be accepted  in the light  of the fact that  no letter  of repudiation  was received by the  complainant.   It is also pertinent  to note that  complainant- Smt. Sunita Katre has filed  an affidavit  on 18/12/2015 that  she never received  any  letter of repudiation  or rejection  of  claim  and this  affidavit  cannot be ignored. It must be further pointed out that the Consumer Protection Act,1986 is a beneficial legislation and  the provisions of Consumer Protection Act,1986 are  for benefits of Consumer. During  the course of  argument Mr. U.P. Kshirsagar, learned advocate  has also  heavily relied  upon one  judgment  of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of  National  Insurance  Company Vs. Hukumbai Meena, (Revision  Petition  No. 3216/2016). In that case  also the claim  was to be  submitted  between 30 days  or within  45  days from the death  of  the depositor and  reliance  was placed  upon  one Circular  dated 20/09/2011 issued by  Insurance  Regulatory  and Development  Authority  (IRDA). In the  said Circular  it was  mentioned  that  the  decision of the  insurer to reject  a claim shall be based on sound logic and valid grounds. It is further  stated that rejection  of claims on purely technical  grounds in a mechanical  fashion will  result in policy  holders losing  confidence  in the  insurance industry.  Here in the present  case  also  though  the claim was submitted on 14/10/2014 explanation  was provided by the complainant  regarding  non receipt  of communication  from the  O.P. and same  appears to be satisfactory  and  reasonable.  One can  also  not forget the fact   that  the present  complainant  was  widow of farmer and was   a beneficiary  under  the Insurance  Policy and therefore, this fact cannot be ignored  by adopting  hyper  technical approach.

8.         Mr. U.P. Kshirsagar, learned advocate for the complainant has also relied upon   series of authorities, which are as under:-

i.          I (2006) CPJ 53 (NC) Pravin Sheikh Vs. LIC & anr.

ii.          II (2008) CPJ 403 (MAH) ICICI Lombard General  Insurance  Co. Ltd. Vs. Sindhubai  Khairnar.

iii.         III (2013) CPJ 346 (NC) Nisha Mishra Vs. Standard Chartered Bank.

iv.        Judgment  of State  Commission, Nagpur  in the case of  National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jyoti Gopal Khudaniya in  First Appeal No. A/09/452, order dated 21/04/2014.

9.         We have  carefully gone through  these authorities on which reliance  has been  placed  and  in all these authorities  it has been  observed that  the  clause  regarding time  limit  for  submission  of claim shall not be mandatory  and cannot be  used to defeat  the genuine  claim of claimant . Here in the  preset  case  also  the present complainant  has  given plausible and   satisfactory  explanation  regarding  the delay  in  lodging  the claim and so aforesaid  authorities squarely  apply  to the facts of the present  case.  We are  therefore, of the view that the learned District Consumer Forum, Gondia  has  not properly  appreciated  these aspects  and has given  findings  which  cannot be sustained in law. In the light of aforesaid discussion, we feel that findings given by the learned District Consumer Forum, Gondia will have to be set aside. We also  hold that the  complainant- Smt. Sunita Katre is entitled  for  compensation as prayed  along with  cost of litigation  as  the  O.P. has indulged  in deficiency  in service . We therefore, proceed to pass the following order.  

ORDER

i.          Appeal is hereby partly allowed.

ii.          Order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Gondia dated 30/07/2016 is hereby  set aside.  Complaint filed by the complainant is hereby  partly allowed. 

iii.         The O.P. Nos. 1&2 shall jointly  and severally  pay compensation  of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with interest  at the rate of 10% from 14/10/2014 till  its realisation . 

iv.        O. P. Nos. 1&2 shall also jointly and severally  pay  sum   of Rs. 15,000/- towards   physical and mental   harassment  and  Rs. 10,000/-  by way of   litigation costs.

v.         Copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.