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

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.

Reasoning:
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.