Bombay High Court
Shakuntala vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2009
Bench: S.B. Deshmukh, Shrihari P. Davare
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 519 OF 2008
Shakuntala w/o Dhondiram Mundhe,
age 46 years, occ. Household,
r/o Snehnagar, Parbhani,
Tq. and Dist. Parbhani ...Petitioner
VERSUS
1 The State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary,
Department of Agriculture,
Animal Husbandry, Dairy
Development and Department
of Fishery,Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32,
2 The Tahsildar,
Parbhani,Tq. & Dist. Parbhani,
3 The Commissioner of Agriculture,
Agriculture Commissioner,
Pune,
4 ICICI Lombard General
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
through its Managing Director,
Zenith House Keshevrao Khadya
Marg, Mahalaxmi,
Mumbai-400 034. ...Respondents
.....
Shri S.R.Bagal , advocate for the petitioner
Shri K.J.Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 3
Shri S.S.Patil, , advocate for respondent no. 4
.....
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:25:44 :::
2
CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH
AND
SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING
THE JUDGMENT : 07.12.2009
DATE OF PRONOUNCING
THE JUDGMENT : 16.12.2009
J U D G M E N T : (PER SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.)
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of
the learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing.
2 By the present petition, filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner prayed for issuance of writ of
mandamus directing the respondents to enforce and implement
the insurance policy adopted by them and to allow the valid
insurance claim of the petitioner by awarding Rs. One Lac to the
petitioner along with 18 per cent interest from due date and also
prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash and set aside
the letter dated 27.1.2006 issued by respondent no.4.
FACTUAL MATRIX :-
3 According to the petitioner, she is affected person
because of unexpected accidental death of her son, which took
place on 23.9.2005. Respondent no.1 is the Secretary of
Department of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry, which is 'the
State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India,
which issued the Government Resolution dated 5.1.2005 for the
benefit and safeguard of interests of family members of the
farmers. Respondent no.2 is the Tahsildar, Parbhani, Taluka and
District Parbhani, who is empowered to forward the claim to
respondent no.4. Respondent no.3 is the Commissioner of
Agriculture, Pune, who is having final authority for adjudication of
the claims of the claimants in case of dispute and respondent no.4
is the insurance company, to whom the State of Maharashtra has
paid the premium in connection with the personal insurance policy
made for the benefits of the farmers and their family members,
who reside in the State of Maharashtra.
4 Respondent no.1 issued Government Resolution dated
5.1.2005, which is produced at Exh.'A' (page 15) in respect of
personal insurance policy for the benefit of farmers and their
family members in the State of Maharashtra. Thereafter
respondent no.1 issued further Government Resolution on
31.3.2005 and thereby continued the afore said scheme of
personal accident insurance policy for the benefit of farmers and
their family members from 10.4.2005 to 9.4.2006, a copy of which
is annexed at Page 25. Since the petitioner's son met with the
accident and expired suddenly on 23.9.2005, she forwarded the
claim to respondent no. 4 on 17.11.2005 through respondent no.2
Tahsildar with all necessary documents. However, respondent no.
4 rejected the said claim of the petitioner vide communication
dated 27.1.2006, Exh. 'B' (page 35) on the ground that deceased
Nitin Dhondiram Mundhe was not a registered farmer.
5 The petitioner made representation to various
authorities, such as the Tahsildar, the Sub-Divisional Officer, the
Collector, the Divisional Commissioner, Lok Ayukta, etc. and
requested to redress her grievance and issued directions to
respondent no.4 to grant her claim. Pursuant to the said
representation, the Collector, Parbhani sent a letter to the
Tahsildar, Parbhani on 28.3.2006 and directed the Tahsildar to
forward the documents/record for necessary compliance to
respondent no.4 and a copy of the said letter is produced at Exh.
'C colly' (page 37). Moreover, the Tahsildar, Parbhani also issued a
letter dated 5.4.2006 to respondent no.4 Exh. 'C colly' (page 38)
stating that deceased Nitin Mundhe was a registered farmer and
also requested to allow the valid claim of the petitioner.
Moreover, the petitioner also sent a letter to respondent no.3
through advocate Shri Ghuge and apprised him about rejection of
her claim by respondent no.4 vide communication dated
27.1.2006 and requested him to do the needful, in pursuance of
Government Resolution dated 5.1.2005 and grant her amount of
Rs. One Lac towards compensation as the heir and legal
representative of her deceased son namely Nitin Mundhe, copy of
which is produced at Exh. 'C colly' (page 39).
6 A meeting was held under the chairmanship of
respondent no.3, which was attended by the representatives of
respondent no.4 insurance company and it was decided in the
said meeting that respondent no.2 Tahsildar was the competent
authority to decide whether the deceased was registered farmer
or not and it was a social welfare scheme for the benefit of family
members of deceased farmers and their names should be
sanctioned by respondent no.4 without entering into technicalities
and copy of the minutes of the said meeting is produced at page
68.
7 However, it is the grievance of the petitioner that in
spite of her representation to respondent no.3 through the
advocate Exh. 'D' (page 39) and in spite of policy decision taken in
the joint meeting held under the chairmanship of respondent no.3
along with the representatives of respondent no.4 company on
16.2.2006, respondent no.4 has not sanctioned the claim of the
petitioner.
SUBMISSIONS :-
8 Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the
Government of Maharashtra has issued Government Resolution
dated 5.1.2005 in respect of personal accident insurance scheme
for the benefit of about One Crore farmers and their family
members in the State of Maharashtra and has paid the premium
of Rs. 6/- per farmer to respondent no.4 insurance company and
respondent no.4 was to pay amount of Rs. One Lac to family
members of the farmers on account of his death and Rs. 50,000/-
to the farmer on account of sustaining disability and the said
scheme was to be effective for one year.
9 Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that
by subsequent Government Resolution dated 31.3.2005 the
period of said scheme was extended from 10.4.2005 to 9.4.2006.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the son of the
petitioner namely Nitin Mundhe succumbed to death on account
of accident on 23.9.2005 I.e. during the afore said period and
hence she is entitled for the claim of Rs. One Lac submitted by her
to respondent no.4.
10 However, in spite of said position, it is submitted by
learned counsel for the petitioner, that respondent no.4 insurance
company by communication dated 27.1.2006 rejected the claim of
the petitioner, contending that the son of the petitioner namely,
Nitin Mundhe was not a registered farmer and, therefore, her
claim was not admissible as per the terms and conditions of the
policy.
11 Learned counsel for the petitioner further canvassed
that a joint meeting was held under chairmanship of respondent
no.3 on 16.2.2006, which was attended by representatives of
respondent no.4 insurance company and policy decision was
taken during the said meeting, wherein it was decided that
respondent no.2 Tahsildar was the appropriate authority to decide
whether the deceased person was registered farmer or not and it
was also decided that the said scheme was a social welfare
scheme beneficial to the family members of the farmer and
respondent no.4 shall not enter into technicalities while granting
the claims of the claimants.
12 It is submitted that accordingly the respondent no.2
Tahsildar sent a letter to respondent no.4 insurance company on
5.4.2006 and communicated that the petitioner's son I.e.
Deceased Nitin Mundhe was a registered
ig farmer as per the
record of Tahsil office and instructed respondent no.4 to sanction
the insurance claim of the petitioner as the heir and legal
representative of deceased Nitin Mundhe. However, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the letter
dated 5.4.2006 sent by respondent no. 2 to respondent no.4,
respondent no.4 has not granted legitimate claim of the petitioner
and hence the petitioner was compelled to approach to this court
by filing present writ petition for the prayers as set out herein
above.
13 Respondent no.2 filed affidavit in reply, sworn in by Mr.
Khudabaksh Alekha Tadvi, working as the Tahsildar, Parbhani and
supported the claim of the petitioner herein and submitted that
the claim of the petitioner is based on the Government policy
issued by the Agriculture Department vide Government Resolution
dated 5.1.2005. He stated that son of the petitioner namely Nitin
Mundhe died in accident. Hence, respondent no.4 insurance
company is liable to pay compensation for the said accident as
per terms of Government Resolution dated 5.1.2005. Learned
A.G.P. for respondent no.2 submitted that the said Government
Resolution, more particularly annexure 'B' thereof, describes
necessary documents and conditions to become beneficiary of the
said scheme. According to the said scheme, Rs. One Lac
compensation is payable for death in accident, loss of both eyes
and two parts of body, loss/disability of one eye or one part, etc.
It is further submitted that the documents required are proof of
farmers having entries in revenue record from 15 to 70 years and
7/12 extract or holding certificate under form '8-A', which
indicates the name of the farmer and record in respect of entry in
form no.6 recorded by the Tahsildar as heir of farmer.
14 It was further canvassed by respondent no.2 that
according to the petitioner, her claim was forwarded to
respondent no.4 along with necessary documents as required
under the said scheme. It is further submitted that deceased Nitin
Mundhe purchased the land Gut No. 369 through registered sale
deed dated 14.7.2005. Entry of the said transaction was taken by
mutation entry no. 946 recorded by Talathi of concerned village
on 15.7.2005 and approved by Circle Inspector on 14.8.2005.
Hence, it is canvassed that deceased Nitin Mundhe was recorded
as farmer on 14.8.2005 and he died in accident on 23.9.2005 and
therefore, at the time of his death he was holding land vide
mutation entry no. 946 and, therefore, he is eligible and entitled
for the claim of compensation.
As regards the contention of respondent no.4 for denial
of the claim that deceased Nitin Mundhe was not registered
farmer, it is submitted by respondent no.2 that the policy
provides insurance cover to the farmers in the State of
Maharashtra and petitioner's claim is admissible as per the
terms and conditions of the said policy. It is also submitted that
the reasons stated by respondent no.4 in communication dated
27.1.2006 are incorrect and have no rational basis. Hence,
respondent no.2 submitted that the Tahsildar, Parbhani sent letter
on 5.4.2006 to respondent no.4 and conveyed to respondent no.4
that the assumption of insurance company about non-holding
certificate as registered farmer is incorrect. It is specifically
informed by the said letter that on recording name of farmer in
form no.8-A and 7/12 extract is admissible entry. Therefore, claim
of the petitioner was recommended by the Tahsildar, Parbhani
and respondent no.4 ought to have considered the same.
16 It is further submitted by respondent no.2 that the
insurance cover as claimed by the petitioner is in accordance with
the Government Resolution dated 5.1.2005 and term 'registered
farmer' used by respondent no.4 insurance company nowhere
appears in the scheme. Accordingly, it is submitted that since the
petitioner is eligible and entitled to claim compensation, her
claim is required to be sanctioned by respondent no.4 insurance
company.
17 Respondent no.4 filed affidavit in reply, sworn in by Shri
Nilesh B. Ramchandani, Legal Manager of respondent no.4
company and opposed the present petition. It is submitted by
respondent no.4 that the petitioner's son namely Nitin Mundhe
was not covered under Janata Personal Accident Insurance
Scheme which is meant for the farmers in the State of
Maharashtra, as late Shri Nitin was not a registered farmer on the
date of commencement of above said insurance policy. Hence, it
is submitted that the petitioner's claim is not admissible and
therefore respondent no.4 declined the same.
18 It is canvassed that late Nitin purchased agricultural
land on 22.6.2005 and the insurance policy commenced on
10.1.2005. Hence, on the date of commencement I.e. 10.1.2005
late Nitin was not a farmer. It is also submitted that as per
Government Resolution dated 5.1.2005 and clause no.2.4, it is
made clear that One Crore registered farmers, whose names have
been registered have been covered under the policy for the
registered One Crore farmers registered till the date of
commencement of policy of insurance, the State of Maharashtra
has paid the insurance premium of Rs.6/- per farmer. Hence, it is
submitted that late Nitin Mundhe was not covered under the
policy, as no premium was paid for him, as he was not registered
farmer at the date of commencement of the policy, since he
became farmer by purchasing agricultural land after the
commencement of said insurance policy. Accordingly, learned
counsel for respondent no.4 submitted that present petition bears
no substance and is devoid of any merits and same be rejected.
19 We have perused the contents of the petition and also
perused the above referred annexures annexed therewith, as well
as perused the impugned communication issued by respondent
no.4 on 27.1.2006 and heard the submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the parties anxiously.
20 The basis and foundation of the very scheme of
personal accident insurance for farmers is the Government
Resolution dated 5.1.2005 and annexure thereof and the aims
and objects of the said scheme have been spelt out in the said
Government Resolution and the said scheme is meant for benefits
of the farmers and their family members in the event of
occurrence of accident and acquisition of disability to the farmers,
which were estimated about One crore in the State of
Maharashtra. As per clause 2.4 of the said Government
Resolution, the compensation of Rs. One Lac has to be awarded
on account of death of a farmer due to accident and
compensation of Rs.50,000/- is to be awarded on account of
acquisition of disability by farmer.
21 Moreover, as per clause no.14 of the said Government
Resolution, it was contemplated that in the event of any dispute in
respect of awarding the compensation, a committee shall be
appointed under the Chairmanship of respondent no.3 i.e.
Commissioner of Agriculture, Maharashtra State, Pune and the
said committee shall comprise of the representative of respondent
no.4 insurance company and two Additional Commissioners of
Revenue Department. By annexure 'A' of the said Government
Resolution, compensation amount of Rs. One Lac was prescribed
for the accidental death; by annexure 'B' thereof, terms and
conditions of the beneficiaries have been prescribed; by annexure
'C' the eventualities which were not covered by the said scheme
were detailed; by annexure 'D' various accidents were prescribed
and the necessary documents to be annexed along with the claim
were also prescribed; by annexure 'E' documents to be produced
in case of disability were detailed; as well as annexure 'E' the
procedure to be adopted by revenue department was prescribed;
annexure 'F' the procedure
ig for granting compensation by the
insurance company respondent no.4 was prescribed and by
annexure 'M' by Part I proforma of claim form was prescribed
and by part II proforma of certified to be issued by Talathi was
prescribed and by parts III and IV certificate to be issued by the
Tahsildar was prescribed.
22 By issuance of further Government Resolution dated
31.3.2005, the said scheme was extended from 10.4.2005 to
9.4.2006. The accidental death of petitioner's son namely Nitin
Mundhe occurred on 23.9.2005 and therefore, the said accidental
death of the petitioner's son is very well covered under the afore
said scheme.
23 Keeping in mind the afore said aspects and coming to
the impugned communication dated 27.1.2006 issued by
respondent no.4, in which respondent no.4 has taken the stand
that late Nitin Mundhe was not registered farmer as per Tahsil
record and therefore, declined to grant the claim of the petitioner
for the compensation. However, it is significant to note that the
Government Resolutions dated 5.1.2005 and 31.3.2005, from
where the said scheme of personal accident insurance emanates,
nowhere whispers about the term, "registered farmer" and hence,
the stand taken by respondent no.4. In communication dated
27.1.2006 is out of place and same is unwarranted, and therefore,
the said communication dated 27.1.2006 issued by respondent
no.4 insurance company deserves to be quashed and set aside.
24 Apart from that, as per clause 14 of the above referred
Government Resolution dated 5.1.2005, a committee, under the
chairmanship of respondent no.3 i.e. the Commissioner,
Agriculture, Maharashtra State, Pune, was constituted, wherein
the representatives of respondent no.4 insurance company were
also members and meeting of the said committee was conducted
on 16.2.2006 and the minutes of the said meeting have been
annexed at page no.68 along with the present petition. The
minutes of the said meeting dated 16.2.2006 are elaborate and
are self-explicit, which reflect that the afore said scheme of
personal accident insurance is a social welfare scheme and the
said scheme is beneficial to the family members of the farmers in
the event Karta of the family meets with an accident, resulting
into stoppage of the income of the family. The said minutes
further disclosed that the said scheme is not for the deceased
farmer, but it is meant for the family members of the farmer and
technical approach of respondent no.4 while granting the
compensation and claim of the family members depriving them
from it, is wrong and incorrect.
ig It is further prescribed in the
said minutes that as per Land Revenue Regulations of 1950,
Tahsildar is the authority to issue certificate whether a person is
farmer or not and officers of respondent no.4 insurance company
shall not decide the said aspect.
25 Hence, in pursuance of the representation made by the
petitioner to the Collector and further in pursuance of the letter
issued by the Collector to the Tahsildar, Parbhani on 28.3.2006
Exh. 'C page 37 and the said minutes of the meeting dated
16.2.2006, the Tahsildar, Parbhani issued a letter to respondent
no.4 insurance company on 5.4.2006 page 38 and communicated
to respondent no.4 insurance company that as per the record of
Tahsil office, deceased Nitin Mundhe i.e. the son of the petitioner
was a registered farmer and therefore, the Tahsildar
recommended to respondent no.4 company to grant the claim
of the petitioner for the compensation as the heir and legal
representative of said deceased. However, it is apparent that
respondent no.4 insurance company has not responded to the
said letter positively, which exhibits the callous and perverse
attitude of respondent no.4 insurance company.
26 Moreover, respondent no. 2 Tahsildar has pointed out
through his affidavit in reply that deceased Nitin Mundhe had
purchased land Gut No. 369 through registered sale deed dated
14.7.2005 and entry of the said transaction was taken by
mutation entry no. 946 recorded by Talathi of concerned village
on 15.7.2005 and same was approved by Circle Inspector on
14.8.2005. Hence, it is crystal clear that deceased Nitin Mundhe
was recorded as farmer on 14.8.2005 before his death on
23.9.2005 and even from the said angle also the objection raised
by respondent no.4 insurance company by the impugned
communication dated 27.1.2006 bears no substance.
27 Besides, it is to be borne in mind that as per the
Government Resolution dated 5.1.2005 as well as minutes of the
meeting dated 16.2.2006 that the said scheme is social welfare
scheme and it is beneficial to the family members of the farmers
who expire in accidental death and respondent no.4 insurance
company should not have adopted the technical approach while
granting the claims of the family members of the deceased farmer
for compensation, but still respondent no.4 insurance company
has adopted obstructive attitude and deprived the petitioner from
the claim of compensation, although, as stated herein above, the
petitioner completed the necessary formalities and submitted the
claim along with the necessary documents. Hence present petition
deserves to be allowed in terms of prayer clauses 'C' with
modification regarding the interest and 'E' thereof. Since due to
obstructive attitude of respondent no.4, the petitioner was
required to approach to this court, the compensatory costs are
required to be saddled upon respondent no.4 insurance company.
28 Hence, we are of the considered view that this is a fit
case to exercise the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India and, therefore, present petition
succeeds.
29 In the result, present petition is allowed in terms of
prayer clauses 'C' thereof with modification in respect of interest,
which is awarded at the rate of 12 per cent from the due date.
Moreover, present petition is also allowed in terms of prayer
clause 'E' thereof. However, considering the negative and
obstructive attitude of respondent no.4 insurance company and
relying upon the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association vs Union of India,
reported at (2005) 6 S.C.C. 344, the compensatory costs of Rs.
10,000/- are imposed upon respondent no.4 to be paid to the
petitioner along with claim amount within six weeks.
(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (S.B.DESHMUKH, J.)
dbm/wp519.08
