AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Vishal Meghwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
This revision petition has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan dated 01.11.2019 passed in First Appeal No.1040 of 2019 (arising out of the order of District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Jhunjhunu dated 21.08.2019 passed in Complaint Case No.285 of 2016), whereby District Forum, has allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.2 Lakhs under Rajeev Gandhi Krishak Sathi Yojna to the complainant who is widow of Ram Ji Lal along with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from 21.06.2016 till the date of payment, Rs.30,000/- for mental agony and Rs.3,300/- as cost of litigation.
Anu Devi, the complainant filed a consumer complaint No.285 of 2016 claiming Rs.2 Lakhs under Rajiv Gandhi Krishak Sathi Yojna along with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum and Rs.30,000/- for mental agony and Rs.3,300/- as cost of litigation. It has been alleged in the complaint that Ram Ji Lal, her husband, was working in his field as an agriculturist. He died on 16.09.2015 due to electric shock in his field, which was flowing in the wire connected to the electricity transformer, installed in his field. Government of Rajasthan provides financial assistance to the heirs of an agriculturist who die due to some accident in the scheme of "Rajiv Gandhi Krishak Sathi Yojna". The complainant applied for financial assistance under "Rajiv Gandhi Krishak Sathi Yojna" before the Secretary Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Chirawa, which was rejected by letter dated 08.06.2016 on the ground that along with claim post- mortem report of the deceased was not filed. It has been stated that after death of Ram Ji Lal due to electric shock, the matter was reported to Police Station Chirawa by Patwari Halka. The Police came on spot and was satisfied that the death has occurred due to electric shock. A panchnama was executed in this respect by Sub-Divisional Officer and the police and dead body was not sent for post-mortem due to which she did not have the post-mortem report and the panchanama which was executed by Sub-Divisional Officer and the Police on the spot has been attached along with claim, but it has not been considered. On these allegations, the claim petition has been filed.
The petitioner contested the claim and filed written version in which again the objection was raised that under the government scheme the copy of the FIR and post-mortem report was required to be attached along with claim petition but, post-mortem report has not been attached. So far as FIR is concerned, it was lodged after 22 days as such the claim petition was not in accordance with the scheme and accordingly it was rejected. The preliminary objection has been raised as it was a beneficial scheme and the claimant has not paid any amount for this, therefore, he was not a consumer and the scheme cannot be considered as service, as such the complaint was not maintainable.
The District Forum by the impugned order dated 21.08.2019 found that the scheme has been circulated by the Government for the benefit of the agriculturist, therefore, beneficiaries are consumers as held by National Commission, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. Sarbati Devi, III (2013) CPJ 642 (NC) and the complaint was maintainable. On the death of Ram Ji Lal, information regarding his death was given by Halka Patwari to the Police Station. The Police of the jurisdictional Police Station along with Sub-Divisional Officer came on the spot and panchnama was executed on 16.09.2015. The dead body was not send for post-mortem, therefore, the post-mortem report was not available rather, the panchnama was signed by competent authorities from which it was approved that the death was accidental and had occurred due to electric shock. The complainant was entitled for benefit under "Rajiv Gandhi Krishak Sathi Yojna" as the deceased was an agriculturist and was within the ambit of the scheme. On these findings the complaint was allowed. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in appeal i.e. FA No.1040 of 2019, which has been dismissed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Bench No.01, Rajasthan, Jaipur by Judgment dated 01.11.2019. Hence, this revision has been filed.
We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner. So far as the question, as to whether the complainant was a consumer or not, the District Consumer Forum had relied upon the judgment of this Commission in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. Sarbati Devi, III (2013) CPJ 642 (NC) in which it has been held that beneficiaries of the Government scheme are consumers, therefore, we do not find foras below have committed any illegality in this respect.
So far as the question that the post-mortem repot has not been filed, which was necessary document to be filed in the format prescribed for the claim petition under the "Rajiv Gandhi Krishak Sathi Yojna" is concerned, in the present case, the death was duly informed to the Police Station immediately on 16.09.2015. On which the Police came on the spot, the Police have also called Sub-Divisional Magistrate who executed panchnama on the same day. It has been stated that after panchnama, the dead body was not sent to post-mortem and was handed over for cremation, therefore, there is no post-mortem report. If the authorities were satisfied that the death was accidental and has occurred due to electric shock and panchnama has been executed in this respect, there is no reason to doubt about the cause of death. The foras below have not committed any illegality in accepting the panchnama in place of post-mortem report.
ORDER
The revision has no merit and it is dismissed.