Noida: Nine years on, when a consumer panel ordered an insurance compensation to a Badaun farmer, two words became his saviour — bread earner.Kailash Chandra, whose earning wife died in an accident in 2017, ran from pillar to post to claim the insurance compensation of Rs 5 lakh, as promised under a govt scheme, before he got justice from State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), Lucknow, last Friday.It was those two words — ‘roti arjak (bread earner)’ — which were entered as an alternative to ‘mukhiya’ (family head) in the Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvahit Beema Yojna that helped bring respite to him. The state commission held that the policy’s coverage in the event of the family head’s accidental death suggests that all earning members of the family are covered by the policy, regardless of whether they contribute partially or fully to the family.Commission president Justice Ajay Kumar Srivastava and member Sudha Upadhyay dismissed the appeal filed by Oriental Insurance Company and upheld the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Badaun, passed on June 27, 2024, under which the applicant, Chandra, was allowed the amount as per govt policy. “The bench is of the considered opinion that the deceased, Tara Devi, was the bread earner of her family, due to which the complainant is entitled to receive the insurance amount,” the commission ruled.Chandra approached the DCRDC in 2018, informing it that he was suffering from asthma and respiratory disease for many years and hence was not capable of farming or doing manual labour, due to which his wife was supporting the family by farming and animal husbandry, and she was the head of the family.SCDRC, while citing an order of Allahabad high court (Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt. Kuntesh & 2 Others of 2022), said, “If the intent of the govt policy and, therefore, if the coverage under the insurance policy were to be confined to the ‘mukhiya’ only, there would have arisen no need to mention ‘roti arjak (bread earner)’. The fact that such terms were used by adding ‘/’ (stroke) after the word ‘mukhiya’ indicates the intent to cover either the head of the family or its breadwinner, during the term of the insurance policy. In the present case, the deceased, Tara Devi, worked as a farmer with her family and died on Feb 26, 2017, after getting entangled in a fodder machine while cutting fodder. The deceased’s ration card lists her at serial number 1 in the list of members, showing her income as Rs 20,000 per annum. In light of the above, it is established that she was the breadwinner of her family.”Chandra filed the insurance claim with the insurance company after his wife died, but the latter rejected the same. Chandra then approached the DM office, forwarding all necessary documents on July 17, the same year. On instruction of the DM, on Aug 5, two persons from the insurance company came for inspection and collected the documents, but when nothing happened, Chandra once again approached the DM office and the assistant director, savings, informed him that the insurance claim of the complainant submitted after the death of his wife was rejected as she was not the head of the family.Chandra then moved the DCDRC, Badaun, which ruled in favour of the plaintiff and ordered Oriental Insurance to pay Rs 5,00,000 within 45 days with a condition that if payment is not made within 45 days, interest at the rate of 6% will be payable from the date of actual payment. In addition, the company was also directed to pay Rs 3,000 as litigation expenses to the plaintiff. The insurance company refused to make the payment and filed an appeal with the state commission challenging the order of the district commission.
