A-17-1381

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI

Appeal No.A/17/1381

Liberty General Insurance Ltd.

10^th floor, Tower A

Peninsula Business Park

Ganpatrao Kadam Marg

Lower Parel (west)

Mumbai 400 013 ...........Appellant

Versus

Mr.Ramdas Shripati Dafal

R/o.Village Dhamari

Taluka Shirur, District Pune ............Respondent

BEFORE:

Justice S.P.Tavade President

Smt.S.T.Barne, Judicial Member

PRESENT: Mr.D.S.Joshi –Advocate for appellant

Mr.Vikas Shinde-Advocate for respondent

ORDER

(29^th July, 2022)

Per Hon’ble Justice S.P.Tavade, President

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the

Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Central Mumbai in

consumer complaint no.CC/16/290 dated 20/11/2017, the original opponent-

M/s.Liberty General Insurance Ltd. has preferred this appeal.

2. It was contended that there was tri-partite agreement of insurance for the benefit

of farmers. The said agreement was executed on 04/12/2014 between the

A-17-1381

Commissioner (Agriculture) and M/s.Deccan Insurance and Reinsurance Brokers

Pvt.Ltd. and M/s.Liberty Videocon General Insurance Co.Ltd. It was contended that

the common documents to all the claims were as under:-

i) Proof of age : School Leaving Certificate/Election Card/School Head

Master’s Certificate/Gram Panchayat Certificate (any one of the

aforementioned).

ii) 7/12 Extract

iii) Village Annexure No.6C

iv) Village Annexure No.6D (Fer Far)

v) Death/Disabiliy Certificate

vi) Copy of Bank Pass book for bank name & Account no.of the

beneficiary as stated in Point no.X.

3. It was contended by the respondent, that he is legal heir of deceased –

Smt.Rohini Ramdas Dafal who died on 12/08/2015 due to snake bite while working

in the field that she was beneficiary under the above mentioned agreement. She was

taken to the hospital and she died during the treatment. Hence, said fact was reported

to the police. Accordingly, police visited the spot. They prepared scene panchanama,

inquest panchanama and the body was sent to the Government Hospital for the post

mortem examination. After post mortem, the death certificate was issued but the

cause of death was reserved till the receipt of report of Chemical Analyser (C.A.). It

was contended that on the basis of the said documents, the claim was put forth before

the Insurance company, but it was repudiated on the ground that there is no opinion

that the death of deceased was caused due to the snake bite. Hence, the complaint

came to be filed against the opponent/ present appellant.

4. On the basis of documents on record, the District Commission has allowed the

claim. Hence, opponent/Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal.

5. Heard learned counsel Mr.D.S.Joshi for appellant and learned counsel Mr.Vikas

Shinde for respondent.

A-17-1381

6. It is admitted fact that the deceased- Smt.Rohini Ramdas Dafal was member of

the tri-partite agreement. The respondent produced on record the documents to prove

that he was an agriculturist on the date of the agreement. Appellant has denied the

accidental death of deceased-Smt.Rohini Ramdas Dafal. The respondent has

produced on record the spot panchanama, inquest panchanama, Post Mortem report,

Death certificate. On the basis of the same, it is vehemently submitted on behalf of

appellant that death of deceased is not due to the snake bite. In the C.A. report it is

mentioned that no poisonous substance was found in the viscera. On the basis of said

fact, advocate for appellant submitted that the medical officer did not opine that the

cause of death was due to snake bite. It is true that C.A. report does not show that the

viscera was having poisonous substance but at the same time, there is specific

observation of medical officer that deceased had snake bite. But

Click Here to Read the rest of this document