Aid for farmer’s widow stalled over driving licence, court orders Rs 2 lakh compensation

6 min readNew DelhiJun 15, 2026 02:27 PM IST

The farmer’s widow stated that agricultural land stood recorded in her name, making her husband eligible for coverage under the Gopinath Munde Shetkari scheme. (AI-generated image)

A Maharashtra consumer commission has directed the state agriculture department to pay Rs 2 lakh with 8 per cent interest, along with Rs 10,000 compensation for mental agony and Rs 7,000 towards litigation costs, to the widow of a farmer who died in a 2022 road accident, nearly four years after her claim under the Gopinath Munde Shetkari Apghat Suraksha Sanugrah Anudan Yojana was left pending over the non-submission of a driving licence.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, comprising president Prajna Devendra Hendre and members Ganeshkumar R Selukar and Janhavi A Bhide, was hearing a complaint filed by Ratnabai Sanjay Dagale against the commissioner of agriculture, Maharashtra, and district agriculture authorities over the non-processing of her claim under the farmer accident assistance scheme.

“Keeping a farmer’s accident compensation claim pending indefinitely defeats the very purpose of a welfare scheme meant to provide financial support to families in distress,” said the district commission on June 4.

Holding that the authorities had rendered deficient service by keeping the claim pending indefinitely, the commission ruled that Ratnabai was entitled to the benefits of the scheme and could not be denied financial assistance meant for bereaved farming families.

Husband died in 2022 road accident

According to the complaint, Ratnabai’s husband, Sanjay Sahebrao Dagale, died on October 31, 2022, after a harvester, allegedly being driven rashly and negligently, collided with his motorcycle near Kannad in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar district.

The commission noted that Dagale suffered multiple injuries in the crash and succumbed while undergoing treatment on the same day.

A criminal case was registered against the harvester driver and a chargesheet was subsequently filed.

Ratnabai informed the commission that the family depended on farming and agricultural labour for its livelihood.

She further stated that agricultural land stood recorded in her name, making her husband eligible for coverage under the Gopinath Munde scheme.

Claim filed in 2023 but remained pending

After learning about the scheme, Ratnabai submitted the required documents before the office of the taluka agriculture officer, Kannad, on February 22, 2023.

However, she alleged that officials continued to demand her deceased husband’s driving licence and failed to process the claim because the document was not furnished.

According to her, the authorities neither approved nor rejected the application and instead kept it pending for years.

Story continues below this ad

The agriculture department defended its stand by citing a government circular dated May 17, 2023, which it said required a valid driving licence where a farmer died while driving a vehicle.

The department also argued that beneficiaries of the welfare scheme could not be treated as consumers because they did not pay any insurance premium.

Can beneficiaries of welfare schemes be consumers?

A key issue before the commission was whether a beneficiary under a government welfare scheme could seek relief under consumer protection law.

The bench examined the history and objectives of the Gopinath Munde Shetkari Apghat Suraksha Sanugrah Anudan Yojana and observed that it was intended to provide financial assistance to farmers and their families in cases of accidental death or disability.

Story continues below this ad

It also noted that the present scheme was a continuation of earlier farmer accident insurance programmes that had existed in Maharashtra since 2005-06.

Relying on Supreme Court decisions, including Lucknow Development Authority v M K Gupta and Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v Shiv Kumar Joshi, the commission held that authorities implementing welfare schemes render a service and that beneficiaries can be treated as consumers under the Consumer Protection Act.

The commission observed that once the government assumes responsibility for implementing such a scheme, beneficiaries are entitled to seek redressal when the promised benefits are not delivered.

Authorities found guilty of deficiency in service

After reviewing the records, the commission concluded that Ratnabai fulfilled the eligibility requirements under the scheme and that the authorities had failed to take a final decision on her application.

The bench specifically held that keeping the claim pending for an indefinite period amounted to deficiency in service and defeated the purpose of a welfare scheme designed to provide timely financial support to families affected by accidents.

It, therefore, answered in the affirmative on the questions of whether Ratnabai was a consumer and whether the agriculture authorities had rendered deficient service by delaying the claim.

Commission orders payment with interest

Partly allowing the complaint on June 4, 2026, the commission directed the agriculture department to approve the claim and pay Ratnabai Rs 2 lakh under the scheme, along with interest at 8 per cent per annum from May 1, 2024, until actual payment.

The commission also awarded Rs 10,000 as compensation for the mental and financial hardship suffered by the complainant and Rs 7,000 towards litigation expenses.

Further, it ordered that if the authorities fail to comply within 45 days of receiving the certified copy of the judgment, they will be liable to pay an additional 2 per cent interest on the awarded amount until realisation.

Significance

The ruling underscores that government departments implementing welfare schemes cannot leave claims pending indefinitely on technical grounds and escape accountability.

Story continues below this ad

It also strengthens the position of beneficiaries seeking relief under consumer law when delays in administrative decision-making deprive them of benefits meant to provide support during times of crisis.

For Ratnabai Dagale, the order brings relief nearly four years after the accident that claimed her husband’s life and more than two years after she approached the consumer commission seeking justice.

© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd

Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system.

Expertise

Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including:

Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability.

Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters.

Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights.

Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More

Tags:

compensation

consumer court

farmer

widow