Case: Shakuntala W/O Dhondiram Mundhe Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through The Secretary Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Department of Fishery,

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 petitioners 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, theOfficer, 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.

Reasoning: 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 annexureof the said Government Resolution, compensation amount of Rs. One Lac was prescribed for the accidental death; by annexurethereof, terms and conditions of the beneficiaries have been prescribed; by annexurethe eventualities which were not covered by the said scheme were detailed; by annexurevarious accidents were prescribed and the necessary documents to be annexed along with the claim were also prescribed; by annexuredocuments to be produced in case of disability were detailed; as well as annexurethe procedure to be adopted by revenue department was prescribed; annexurethe procedure for granting compensation by the insurance company respondent no.4 was prescribed and by annexureby 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 petitioners son namely Nitin Mundhe occurred on 23.9.2005 and therefore, the said accidental death of the petitioners 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 arewhich 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. 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.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 clauseswith modification regarding the interest andthereof. 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.