Case: Savita W/O.Santram Awate Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry & Others

Oral Judgment: (R.V. Ghuge, J.)1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with consent of the parties.2. The petitioner is a hapless widow who has raised a short point for our consideration. Whether delay in filing a claim application under the Shetkari Janata Apghat Vima Yojana (meaning an Accident Insurance Scheme for agriculturists), can be condoned and whether such an application can be entertained by the concerned authorities 3. The petitioner married one Mr.Santram Awate, who was an owner of 3 acres of land out of Survey No.161 at Revenue village Ravalgaon in Tal.Sailu, Dist.Parbhani. The said Santram Awate shockingly died on 15/09/2009 due to a snake bite while working in his farm. The death certificate, police report and the inquest panchnama have been placed on record.4. The petitioner contends that she was in a state of shock, quite expectedly, owing to the death of her husband that took place within a period of less than 4 months from the date of her marriage. She was totally unaware about the existence of the Government Resolution dated 19/08/2004 in respect of the personal insurance policy referred above for the benefit of the farmers and their family members in the State of Maharashtra. It was only on 18/04/2011 that the petitioner was informed by one of her relatives about the existence of the said scheme. The circumstances of gathering knowledge of the said scheme are thus explained by the petitioner, who on the very next day, i.e. on 19/04/2011 approached the respondent No.3 Taluka Agricultural Officer, Sailu, Dist. Parbhani and submitted her claim in the prescribed manner. The said proposal was then forwarded by the respondent No.3 authority to the respondent No.5 United India Insurance Company Limited. However, on 01/07/2011, the respondent No.5 issued a communication to the petitioner and informed her that her claim had been rejected on the ground of delay. We find this reason to be the only reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioner.5. The concerned insurance scheme has been floated by way of financial assistance to the family members of the farmers in case of accidental death of farmers, obviously with the aim and object of reducing the rigours of the sudden loss of an earning hand and a person who indulged in cultivation of the land. The Government of Maharashtra, respondent No.1 herein, pays premium to the insurance company and the said insurance company, in turn, is to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the family member of farmers in Maharashtra in case of accidental death of the insured.6. It is the contention of the petitioner that she is an illiterate widow and was totally ignorant about such a scheme as well as the limitation period prescribed by the said scheme. We find that on 04/12/2009, the respondent No.1 State published guidelines for the effective implementation of the said insurance scheme. Our attention is drawn to the said scheme, especially to Clause 20 (E)(4) on page No.40 of the said petition, which clearly states that though an application for insurance claim ought to be filed within 90 days after the death of the farmer, such an application would even be entertainable beyond the said 90 days, if such delay has been properly explained and justified. Needless to state, we find that the provision to condone delay exists under the said scheme. We have also gone though the policy of the insurance company which defines a farmer to mean, a registered farmer in Maharashtra as evidenced by the 7/12 extract." It is not disputed before us that the deceased husband of the petitioner was a farmer who owned 3 acres of land as stated above. An accident has been explained in the said scheme and death occurring on account of snake bite, scorpion bite, animal bite, rabies, any injury by any animal resulting in death or loss of limbs are considered to be the circumstances entitling payment of insurance.7. The respondents No.3 and 4 i.e. Tahsildar and the Taluka Agricultural Officer have filed their affidavit in reply and have stated that the policy for the year 2009-10 was valid from 15/08/2009 to 14/08/2010. It has been categorically stated that the death of the husband of the petitioner occurred on 15/09/2009 and the petitioner obtained the death certificate on 17/04/2011. She received the heir-ship certificate on 18/04/2011 and the death certificate issued by the Professor and Head, Forensic Medicine Department, Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad on 11/04/2011. It emerges from the said affidavit that immediately thereafter the petitioner had filed an application for insurance on 19/04/2011. From these facts as they emerge before us, we find with circumspection that the delay caused on the part of the petitioner in filing the application for insurance, is well explained and justified and hence condoned. We are, therefore, convinced that the insurance company has adopted an insensitive and hyper technical approach in denying a hapless widow of the insurance amount which could be her lone source of solace in view of the death of her husband, which has occurred within 4 months of the marriage. Such an insensitive and technical approach would defeat the very purpose and object for which the State has introduced the said scheme. We, therefore, have no hesitation in concluding that the impugned order of rejection dated 01/07/2011 is unjustified and unsustainable.

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]4. The petitioner contends that she was in a state of shock, quite expectedly, owing to the death of her husband that took place within a period of less than 4 months from the date of her marriage. She was totally unaware about the existence of the Government Resolution dated 19/08/2004 in respect of the personal insurance policy referred above for the benefit of the farmers and their family members in the State of Maharashtra. It was only on 18/04/2011 that the petitioner was informed by one of her relatives about the existence of the said scheme. The circumstances of gathering knowledge of the said scheme are thus explained by the petitioner, who on the very next day, i.e. on 19/04/2011 approached the respondent No.3 Taluka Agricultural Officer, Sailu, Dist. Parbhani and submitted her claim in the prescribed manner. The said proposal was then forwarded by the respondent No.3 authority to the respondent No.5 United India Insurance Company Limited. However, on 01/07/2011, the respondent No.5 issued a communication to the petitioner and informed her that her claim had been rejected on the ground of delay.We find this reason to be the only reason for rejecting the claim of thefind that on 04/12/2009, the respondent No.1 State published guidelines for the effective implementation of the said insurance scheme. Our attention is drawn to the said scheme, especially to Clause 20 (E)(4) on page No.40 of the said petition, which clearly states that though an application for insurance claim ought to be filed within 90 days after the death of the farmer, such an application would even be entertainable beyond the said 90 days, if such delay has been properly explained and justified. Needless to state, we find that the provision to condone delay exists under the said scheme. We have also gone though the policy of the insurance company which defines a farmer to mean, a registered farmer in Maharashtra as evidenced by the 7/12 extract." It is not disputed before us that the deceased husband of the petitioner was a farmer who owned 3 acres of land as stated above. An accident has been explained in the said scheme and death occurring on account of snake bite, scorpion bite, animal bite, rabies, any injury by any animal resulting in death or loss of limbs are considered to be the circumstances entitling payment of insurance.From these facts as they emerge before us, we find with circumspection that the delay caused on the part of the petitioner in filing the application for insurance, is well explained and justified and hence condoned. We are, therefore, convinced that the insurance company has adopted an insensitive and hyper technical approach in denying a hapless widow of the insurance amount which could be her lone source of solace in view of the death of her husband, which has occurred within 4 months of the marriage. Such an insensitive and technical approach would defeat the very purpose and object for which the State has introduced the said scheme. We, therefore, have no hesitation in concluding that the impugned order of rejection dated 01/07/2011 is unjustified and unsustainable.