Mumbai: A district consumer commission has directed the Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited to pay ₹1 lakh each to the families of two deceased farmers and ₹50,000 to a farmer who became handicapped.
The commission further directed the company to give families of victims ₹20,000 for the mental agony and litigation cost in case of death, and ₹10,000 in case of disability due to accident or other incidents. In each of the three orders, 9% interest per annum will have to be paid from the date of rejection and in one case, from the date of filing the complaint if the amount directed to be not given is not paid within 45 days of the order.
The claims of the families and the farmer were rejected for different reasons that ranged from farmers not being registered, documents not being provided, claim not filed on time and details not provided, insurance firm not accepting the accident claim among others. The families of the deceased farmer and the injured farmer in the four cases had approached the consumer commission after the family member or the farmer himself died or became handicapped either because of an accident or drowning.
The four orders uploaded recently were all passed by SS Mhatre, president and MP Kasar, member of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Central Mumbai. The orders were passed on complaints made by Surekha Jhagde, Ladubai Ghagre and Bhimrao Jadhav against Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited. The claims were filed on schemes for farmers.
Insurance company obliged to depute an employee to scrutinise the claim
The Commission stated that post-mortem reports of death due to accident and drowning and pictures of fracture and later disability certificate prove the case of complainants. Citing case law, it said that the Insurance company was obliged to depute an employee in the Tehsil office to scrutinise the claim immediately and cannot blame farmer or family for delay or not receiving the documents on time. In case of farmers not being registered, it said that the government resolution did not state that a person needed to be a farmer even before the scheme came into existence.
