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 maintainabl