J U D G M E N T

(Delivered on 14/03/2024)

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.229/2021 dated, 05.05.2022.

For the sake of brevity the appellant is herein after referred as opponent and respondent as complainant as per their status in consumer complaint and District Consumer Commission, Jalna is herein after referred as District commission.

2.-Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under :-

The husband of complainant, Rameshwar Babulal Lone (hereinafter referred as deceased ) was an agriculturist at the time of inception of policy as well as at the time of accident, having agricultural land in Gut No.148 at Charmapuri Tq. Ambad. On 15.08.2020 deceased while proceeding on the motorcycle met with an accident with Pick Up and sustained grievous injury to his head and died. The incident was reported to Pachod Police Station where the offence Cr.No.281/2020 has been registered against the driver of offending Pick Up. On the relevant date he was covering under the Insurance Scheme Known as Gopinath Mundhe Farmers Insurance Scheme with opponent for the period of 08.12.2019 to 07.12.2020. Therefore, the complainant submitted the claim proposal with opponent through Taluka Krishi Adhikari. The opponent on 10.04.2021 repudiate the claim of complainant on the ground that the complainant has not produced the effective and valid driving license of deceased. As such the complainant filed consumer complaint due to deficiency in service committed by opponent towards her, claiming Insurance amount Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest and Rs.50,000/-for physical and mental harassment and cost of complaint. The complainant submitted copy of F.I.R with all police papers, Government Resolution (in short G.R.) dated 19.09.2019 and dated 05.12.2019, copy of claim proposal, copies of relevant revenue records and repudiation letter of opponent dated 10.04.2021

3. The opponent appeared before the District Commission and filed written statement, thereby resisted the complaint and denies the allegations. It is submitted by opponent that the deceased at the time of accident was riding the motor cycle without holding valid license which is breach of policy terms and conditions. It is also submitted that, the 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 record ,the District commission held that opponent is liable and partly allowed the complaint and directed the opponent to pay Rs. 200,000/- as insurance amount with interest and Rs.3,000/-

for physical and mental harassment and cost of litigation.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order, the opponent came to this Commission in appeal. Adv.S.T.Agrawal for opponent and Adv.P.A.Kuber for complainant were present. We heard both of the advocates.

6. Adv. Agrawal for opponent argued and submitted by way of their pleading and written notes of arguments that, the District Commission has failed to consider clause 20 of G.R. dated 19.09.2019 that if the farmer met with an accident while driving the vehicle himself, must to produce driving license. It is submitted that the commission below wrongly held that in the accident deceased was not at fault when the offence is registered against the driver of offending vehicle and therefore the driving license is not necessary if the accident takes place due to rash and negligence driving of offending vehicle. It is further submitted by opponent that the commission below has not considered that at the time of accident the deceased driving the motor cycle without valid and effective driving license is breach of law and as per tripartite agreement clause III (12) repudiation of insurance claim on the ground of absence of valid and effective driving license which is breach of law, was just and legal. It is also submitted by op