The state consumer disputes redressal commission (SCDRC) has upheld the order of a district forum stating that of an insurance scheme to protect a farmer's interest in case of accidental death continues be there even if 7/12 land records do not have the farmer name on it.
The state consumer disputes redressal commission (SCDRC) has upheld the order of a district forum stating that of an insurance scheme to protect a farmer's interest in case of accidental death continues be there even if 7/12 land records do not have the farmer name on it.
The commission, upholding the district forum order, said that if the farmer's name is on other village forms or land records or part of court proceedings, then the person can get those benefits. The order was given by Justice AP Bhangale, president and Dr. SK Kakade, member against M/s.Liberty Videocon General Insurance Co.Ltd. The order was pronounced on May 2.
The order was given when scheme benefits were not given. Wives of three farmers who died had sought scheme benefits that were rejected due to different reasons. The farmer's insurance policy was floated by Government of Maharashtra by entering into an agreement with the insurance company and farmers. The order said it is a welfare scheme intended to protect the farmers, who may die accidentally or suddenly while they were having their source of living as farmer only, to protect their dependents so that dependents shall not starve nor shall be deprived of their source of livelihood due to death of only earning member in their family.
The insurance company had challenged the district forum order stating that in the tri-partite insurance agreement, the essential condition to the insurance policy protecting the interest of farmers in case of their accidental death, etc. was that the name of the farmer shall appear in the land record register on the date of issuance of the policy. In the second case, the insurance company had rejected the claim as there was no proof in the post mortem that the farmer died due to a snake bite at his farm. The commission said though the viscera report did not establish poison, commission was from proof on record that death was due to animal bite and accidentally.
The commission then said that objective of the insurance scheme is benevolent with a social and general objective to protect dependents of the unfortunate farmers, and hence order of the district forum cannot be held wrong or illegal.
What Commission Concluded
- The order was given when scheme benefits were not given. Wives of three farmers who died had sought scheme benefits that were rejected due to different reasons
- The policy was floated by state by entering into an agreement with the insurance company and farmers
- The order said it is a welfare scheme intended to protect the farmers, who may die accidentally or suddenly while they were having their source of living as farmer only
- The order also said the scheme was started so that family members of farmers are not left starving
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Farmer")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}