IMPORTANT POINT
Farmers’ Insurance Policy must be construed liberally.

Anupam Dasgupta, Member—This revision petition challenges the order dated 10.03.2011 of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 295 of 2009. By this order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner was, in turn, against the order dated 30.07.2008 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhuj – Kachchh (in short, ‘the District Forum’) in complaint case no. 171 of 2004 filed by the respondents.

2. The respondents are the legal heirs of Late Hetubha Bharmalji Jadeja. Under an insurance scheme obtained by the Government of Gujarat from the petitioner, all registered farmers in the State were covered against accidental death and disability during the period 26.01.2002 – 25.01.2003. The amount assured was Rs. 1 lakh in case of accidental death. Hetubha Jadeja, a famer died of accidental electrocution on 13.05.2002. As the legal heirs and nominees of the deceased Hetubha, the respondents filed their insurance claim immediately thereafter with the designated officer of the State Government. According to them, the said officer (Assistant Director of Agriculture (Extension), Training and Visits Scheme, Sub Division Bhachau, Kachchh) examined the claim and forwarded it to the petitioner on 11.07.2002. However, despite regular follow-up on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner neither paid the sum insured nor informed them about the status of the claim. Finally, by letter dated 14.08.2003, the aforesaid Assistant Director of Agriculture informed the respondents that the petitioner had repudiated the claim on the ground that Hetubha was not a registered farmer on 25.01.2002, the date of commencement of the insurance policy.

3. Aggrieved by this decision of the petitioner, the legal representatives of Hetubha Jadeja (respondents here) filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner (which was opposite party – OP 3 - before the District Forum) and praying for directions to it to pay the amount insured (Rs.1 lakh) in addition to compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards costs.

4. After detailed appraisal of evidence brought on record, including the village records of rights and terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1 lakh (insured sum) with interest @ 12% per annum from 11.08.2002 till final payment and Rs.3,000/- towards cost to complainant 1 (respondent 1 – wife of deceased Hetubha Jadeja) within two months of the order.

5. It was against this order of the District Forum that the petitioner went up in appeal before the State Commission which, in turn, dismissed the appeal by its impugned order, as noticed above.

6 (i) We have heard Mr. Sameer Nandwani, learned counsel for the petitioner who, in compliance of an earlier direction of this Commission, has produced photocopies as well as English translation of the relevant village records of rights/register of mutation and other documents which were produced before the District Forum.

(ii) The relevant record shows that Hetubha Jadeja along with Nagubha, Makhubha and Veerubha, all sons of the deceased Bharmalji became co-owners of agricultural land standing in the name of their father as his legal representatives/heirs and thus, registered farmers themselves. The relevant record has an entry to the effect that Bharmalji Bapeeji Jadeja had died about five months ago. The only date recorded on this page of the record of rights/register of mutations is 12.04.2002. From this, it would appear that Bharmal ji Bapeeji Jadeja died sometime in December 2001. However, the entries do not reflect when the application for mutation in their names was submitted by the legal heirs of Bharmalji Bapeeji Jadeja. It would, however, appear that the petitioner repudiated the c