Bombay High Court
Kadubai Laxman Sonawane vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 22 July, 2021
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge, S. G. Mehare
1 906-WP.8449-20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
906 WRIT PETITION NO.8449 OF 2020
KADUBAI LAXMAN SONAWANE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Pramod C. Mayure.
AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 3-State : Mr. S. R. Yadav-Lonikar.
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. A. B. Kadethankar.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, AND
S. G. MEHARE, JJ.
DATE : 22.07.2021
PER COURT :-
1. Leave to add the District Collector, Jalna as respondent
No.3. Addition be carried out forthwith. Issue notice to
respondent No.3. The learned AGP waives service of notice
and causes his appearance on his behalf.
2. The petitioner can be represented either by her son or
through a legal representative keeping in view that she is a
widow and is deaf and dumb due to a congenital defect.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
sides, we have perused the Agriculture Accident Insurance
2 906-WP.8449-20.odt
Company Guidelines vide Government Resolution dated
04.12.2009. Clause 14 of the said Government Resolution
indicates that if there is any dispute as regards the claims or
between the claimants and the insurance company or even
with the establishment, a Committee comprising of the District
Collector, CEO, Zilla Parishad of the District, Resident Deputy
Collector, the head of the insurance broker, an authorized
representative of the insurance company and the District
Agriculture Superintendent / Officer, would resolve the said
dispute. Such Committee is to hold it's meeting in case there
are any disputes pending before it, in each month and dispose
off the pending claims expeditiously. The decision of the
Committee to implement the terms of the insurance policy,
would be binding upon the insurance company.
4. The petitioner has relied upon a judgment delivered by
this Court dated 03.02.2016 in Writ Petition No.9090 of 2015
filed by Sunita Haribhau Ughade and another Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and another. In the said case, the claim was
refused by the insurance company, as there was a delay of
about 13 months in lodging the claims. Admittedly, in the
instant case, the delay is of about 36 months.
3 906-WP.8449-20.odt
5. In view of the above, this petition is disposed off with
the following directions :
(A) The petitioner shall tender a copy of his
claim application along with an application
for condonation of delay, on or before
02.08.2021, before the District Collector,
Jalna - respondent No.3.
(B) Respondent No.3 shall hold a meeting of the
Committee as prescribed in Clause 14 of the
Insurance Guidelines / Government
Resolution dated 04.12.2019, on or before
31.08.2021 by giving advance notice to the
petitioner as well as to the members of the
said Committee.
(C) A reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be
given to the petitioner by the said
Committee, which shall take a decision
supported with reasons, on or before
30.09.2021.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
...
vmk/-
