Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 455
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
C. Viswanath, PM, Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya, M
SECRETARY, KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI – Appellant
Versus
ANU DEVI – Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 89 OF 2020
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vishal Meghwal, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Beneficiaries of government schemes, such as financial assistance for deceased agriculturists, qualify as consumers, and absence of a post-mortem report does not invalidate claims if sufficient evidence supports the cause of death.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Beneficiary schemes - The scheme under 'Rajiv Gandhi Krishak Sathi Yojna' provides financial assistance to heirs of deceased agriculturists due to accidents. The entitlement under the scheme was upheld despite the absence of a post-mortem report, considering the executed panchnama as sufficient evidence of the cause of death. (Paras 2, 5, 7)
(B) Consumer Status - Beneficiaries of government schemes are considered consumers under the Act, as confirmed in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. Sarbati Devi. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The complainant's husband died due to electric shock in the field, and the claim for assistance under the scheme was rejected based on the absence of a post-mortem report despite police acknowledgment of the incident.
Findings of Court:
The absence of a post-mortem report was not a disqualifying factor since the cause of death was confirmed by police action and documentation. Therefore, the claim was deemed valid.
Issues: Whether the complainant qualifies as a consumer and the necessity of a post-mortem report for processing the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the necessity of relying on the evidence available (panchnama) over technical requirements of documentation that did not affect the substantive fairness of the claim process. The decisions of the lower foras were upheld.
Result: The revision is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eligibility for financial assistance under a government scheme. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. recognition of beneficiaries as consumers under the consumer protection act. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. acceptance of alternative evidence in place of post-mortem report. (Para 7) |
1. Heard Mr. Vishal Meghwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
2. This revision petition has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan dated 01.11.2019 passed in First Appeal No.1040 of 2019 (arising out of the order of District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Jhunjhunu dated 21.08.2019 passed in Complaint Case No.285 of 2016), whereby District Forum, has allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.2 Lakhs under Rajeev Gandhi Krishak Sathi Yojna to the complainant who is widow of Ram Ji Lal along with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from 21.06.2016 till the date of payment, Rs.30,000/- for mental agony and Rs.3,300/- as cost of litigation.
3. Anu Devi, the complainant filed a consumer complaint No.285 of 2016 claiming Rs.2 Lakhs under Rajiv Gandhi Krishak Sathi Yojna along with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum and Rs.30,000/- for mental agony and Rs.3,300/- as cost of litigation. It has been alleged in the complaint that Ram Ji Lal, her husband, was working in his field as an agriculturist. He died on 16.09.2015 due to electric shock in his field, which was flowing in the wire connected to the electricity transformer, installed in his field. Government of Rajasthan provides financial assistance to the heirs of an agriculturist who die due to some accident in the scheme of “Rajiv Gandhi Krishak Sathi Yojna”. The complainant applied for financial assistance under “Rajiv Gandhi Krishak Sathi Yojna” before the Secretary Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Chirawa, which was rejected by letter dated 08.06.2016 on the ground that along with claim post- mortem report of the deceased was not filed. It has been stated that after death of Ram Ji Lal due to electric shock, the matter was reported to Police Station Chirawa by Patwari Halka. The Police came on spot and was satisfied that the death has occurred due to electric shock. A panchnama was executed in this respect by Sub-Divisional Officer and the police and dead body was not sent for post-mortem due to which she did not have the post-mortem report and the panchanama which was executed by Sub-Divisional Officer and the Police on the spot has been attached along with claim, but it has not been considered. On these allegations, the claim petition has been filed.
4. The petitioner contested the claim and filed written version in which again the objection was raised that under the government scheme the copy of the FIR and post-mortem report was required to be attached along with claim petition but, post-mortem report has not been attached. So far as FIR is concerned, it was lodged after 22 days as such the claim petition was not in accordance with the scheme and accordingly it was rejected. The preliminary objection has been raised as it was a beneficial scheme and the claimant has not paid any amount for this, therefore, he was not a consumer and the scheme cannot be considered as service, as such the complaint was not maintainable.
5. The District Forum by the impugned order dated 21.08.2019 found that the scheme has been circulated by the Government for the benefit of the agriculturist, therefore, beneficiaries are consumers as held by National Commission, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. Sarbati Devi , III (2013) CPJ 642 (NC) and the complaint was maintainable. On the death of Ram Ji Lal, information regarding his death was given by Halka Patwari to the Police Station. The Police of the jurisdictional Police Station along with Sub-Divisional Officer came on the spot and panchnama was executed on 16.09.2015. The dead body was not send for post-mortem, therefore, the post-mortem report was not available rather, the panchnama was signed by competent aut
