(1.) This Revision Petition by the Complainant is directed against the order dated 06.03.2013, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 622 of 2011. By the impugned order, the State Commission has overturned the order dated 12.10.2011, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Parbhani (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 93 of 2011. By the said order, while accepting the Complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Opposite Parties, including Respondent No.1/Insurance Company, namely United India Insurance Co., alleging deficiency in service on their part in repudiating the claim made by the Petitioner under the Accidental Insurance Scheme for Farmers, on account of the death of her husband in an accident on 05.04.2009, the District Forum had directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainant a compensation of 1,00,000/-, along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint, i.e. 06.04.2011, till realization.
(2.) The short issue arising for consideration in this Revision Petition is as to whether the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim on the ground that at the time of the accident, the Insured/Deceased was only having a learner's license and, as per policy conditions, the pillion rider with him ought to have a regular driving license.
(3.) We have heard learned Counsel and perused the documents on record. We have also taken into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297. In our opinion, the Petitioner, i.e. the Complainant, must succeed in this Revision Petition on the ground that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in unduly delaying decision on the claim in complete violation of the provision of Regulation-8 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders' Interests) Regulations, 2002, more so, when the policy in question was a Social Welfare Scheme.