Date of filing :30.10.2019 Date of order :12.01.2026 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

FIRST APPEAL NO. : 1544 OF 2019 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 310 OF 2017 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : BEED

1. Savita W/o Kisan Dalve, ...Appellants R/o Kolwadi, Post Pali, ( Adv.S.P.Laghane)

Tq. & Dist.Beed.

2. Sachin Kisan Dalve, R/o As above.

3. Shamal D/o Kisan Dalve, R/o As above.

4. Nitin S/o Kisan Dalve, R/o As above.

U/g of appellant No.2 to 4 their Mother Appellant no.1.

VERSUS

1. The Manager, ...Resondent No.1 Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Co.Ltd. ( Adv.R.H.Dahat)

Claim Section, 501, 5th Floor, Building no.4, Imihity Park, Dindoshi, Malad, Mumbai 400 097.

2. Taluka Krushi Adhikari, Taluka Agri.Office, Dhanora Road, Beed, Tq. & Dist.Beed.

CORAM : Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

Nagesh.C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Member J U D G M E N T (Delivered on 12/01/2026)

Per Milind S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

This is an appeal challenging the correctness and legality of the judgment and order passed by the ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Beed (the ‘District Commission’ for short) in C.C.No.310/2017, whereby the District Commission dismissed the complaint filed by the appellants in default.

2. The appellants are the legal heirs of deceased Kisan Dalve, who was the agriculturist. He was given the insurance cover under the scheme of the Government of Maharashtra namely ‘Gopinath Mundhe Agricultural Insurance Scheme’. The sum insured was Rs.2 lakhs. On 26/06/2025 while he was driving motor cycle MH-23-G-4962, there occurred an accident with a tempo bearing No.UP-86H-9546. In that incident Kisan Dalve died. It is therefore the appellants preferred the insurance claim to respondent no.1 under the above mentioned scheme. Respondent no.2 forwarded the proposal form with all the particulars to respondent no.1 , but respondent no.1 not sanctioned that insurance claim. As such, the appellants preferred the above mentioned consumer complaint before the District Commission. On the admission of the complaint, notice was issued to respondent no.1 & 2. Respondent no.1 appeared and filed say before the District Commission in May 2019. Thereafter the matter was kept for evidence of the appellants.

(Here there is nothing on record which shows that respondent no.2 had also appeared and filed written version on record, the impugned order is silent on it). However, when the appellants not filed the same by 30/07/2019 the District Commission passed the impugned order of dismissing the complaint in default filed by the appellants. It is against this order the appellants are before us in this appeal.

3. We heard both learned Adv.Laghane S.P. for the appellants and Adv.R.H.Dahat for respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 forwarded his say by post which says that they have forwarded the relevant papers in a stipulated time to respondent no.1.

4. Adv.Dahat argued that the appellants have filed the present appeal instead of filing second complaint before the District Commission. They are taking the disadvantage of their own wrong. They are prolonging the matter, so as to earn interest on whatever the sum they would be receiving. On the other hand, Adv.Laghane for the appellants submitted that, the appellant no.1 is the labourer in sugar factory in Kolhapur District after the demise of her husband. Initially they were regularly pursuing the matter before the District Commission. But in June, 2019 the appellants went for labour in other district when the dismissal order was passed by the District Commission. The appellants are the poor and needy persons. As such, they may kindly be given an opportunity to lead the evidence before the District Commission in the interest of justice to decide the case on merit.

5. We perused the record and found that, there is substance in the above submissions of the appellants. The impugned order passed on EXH.1 by the District Commission is very cryptic. There is no mention, from which date