State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tata Aig General Insurance Co Ltd vs Datta Ganesh Pawor on 24 September, 2021
1 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016
Date of filing : 16.08.2016
Date of order : 24.09.2021
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT
AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 734 OF 2016
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 263 OF 2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : NANDED.
Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd,.
Through its Zonal Manager,
Mr.Imtiyaz Malik,
R/o Lower Parel (W), Mumbai APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Suvarna Sanjay Pawar,
R/o Nivgha , Tq. Mudkhed, Dist.Nanded.
2. NDCC Bank , Br. Mudkhed,
Dist.Nanded. RESPONDENT No.1&2
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 735 OF 2016
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 256 OF 2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : NANDED.
Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd,.
Through its Zonal Manager,
Mr.Imtiyaz Malik,
R/o Lower Parel (W), Mumbai APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Datta Ganesh Pawar,
R/o Nivgha , Tq. Mudkhed, Dist.Nanded.
2. NDCC Bank , Br. Mudkhed,
Dist.Nanded. RESPONDENT No.1&2
2 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 736 OF 2016
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 396 OF 2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : NANDED.
Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd,.
Through its Zonal Manager,
Mr.Imtiyaz Malik,
R/o Lower Parel (W), Mumbai APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Chandba Pandurang Pawar,
R/o Nivgha , Tq. Mudkhed, Dist.Nanded.
2. Dena Bank , Br. Mudkhed,
Dist.Nanded. RESPONDENT No.1&2
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 737 OF 2016
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 394 OF 2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : NANDED.
Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd,.
Through its Zonal Manager,
Mr.Imtiyaz Malik,
R/o Lower Parel (W), Mumbai APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Digambar Ramji Kadam,
R/o Rodhi , Tq. & Dist.Nanded.
2. Br. Manager, Br.Ardhapur,
Maharashtra Gramin Bank, Nanded. RESPONDENT No.1&2
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 738 OF 2016
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 297 OF 2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : NANDED.
Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd,.
Through its Zonal Manager,
Mr.Imtiyaz Malik,
R/o Lower Parel (W), Mumbai APPELLANT
VERSUS
3 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016
1. Digambar Ramji Kadam,
R/o Rodgi , Tq. Hadgaon, Dist.Nanded.
2. Br. Manager, Br.Ardhapur,
Bank of India, Nanded. RESPONDENT No.1&2
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 739 OF 2016
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 261 OF 2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : NANDED.
Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd,.
Through its Zonal Manager,
Mr.Imtiyaz Malik,
R/o Lower Parel (W), Mumbai APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Vyenkati Kishan Pawar,
R/o Nivgha , Tq. Mudkhed, Dist.Nanded.
2. The Manager, NDCC, Br.Mudkhed,
Dist.Nanded. RESPONDENT No.1&2
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 740 OF 2016
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 417 OF 2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : NANDED.
Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd,.
Through its Zonal Manager,
Mr.Imtiyaz Malik,
R/o Lower Parel (W), Mumbai APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Shri.Sachin Subhashrao Deshpande,
R/o Rahati , Tq. & Dist.Nanded.
2. Br.Manager, NDCC Bank, Nanded.
Dist.Nanded. RESPONDENT No.1&2
4 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 741 OF 2016
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 299 OF 2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : NANDED.
Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd,.
Through its Zonal Manager,
Mr.Imtiyaz Malik,
R/o Lower Parel (W), Mumbai APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Shri. Maroti Ramji Kadam,
R/o Rodgi , Tq. Hadgaon, Dist.Nanded.
2. Br.Manager, Bank of India, Br.Ardhapur,
Dist.Nanded. RESPONDENT No.1&2
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 742 OF 2016
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 397 OF 2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : NANDED.
Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd,.
Through its Zonal Manager,
Mr.Imtiyaz Malik,
R/o Lower Parel (W), Mumbai APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Rajaram Laxman Nardele,
R/o Nivgha , Tq. Mudkhed, Dist.Nanded.
2. Dena Bank, Br.Mudkhed, Tq.Mudkhed,
Dist.Nanded. RESPONDENT No.1&2
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 743 OF 2016
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 232 OF 2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : NANDED.
Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd,.
Through its Zonal Manager,
Mr.Imtiyaz Malik,
R/o Lower Parel (W), Mumbai APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Laxmibai Raghunathrao Deshmukh,
R/o Barad , Tq. Mudkhed, Dist.Nanded.
2. Maharashtra Gramin Bank, Br.Barad,
5 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016
Tq.Mudkhed, Dist.Nanded. RESPONDENT No.1&2
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 744 OF 2016
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 227 OF 2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : NANDED.
Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd,.
Through its Zonal Manager,
Mr.Imtiyaz Malik,
R/o Lower Parel (W), Mumbai APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Mamtabai Trambakrao Khupse,
R/o Tirkaswadi , Tq. Mudkhed, Dist.Nanded.
2. Maharashtra Gramin Bank,Br. Barad, Tq.Mudkhed,
Dist.Nanded. RESPONDENT No.1&2
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 745 OF 2016
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 395 OF 2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : NANDED.
Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd,.
Through its Zonal Manager,
Mr.Imtiyaz Malik,
R/o Lower Parel (W), Mumbai APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Sharad Parshuram Zarikar,
R/o Zari , Tq. & Dist.Nanded.
2. Br.Manager,
Maharashtra Gramin Bank, Nanded,
Dist.Nanded. RESPONDENT No.1&2
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 746 OF 2016
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 419 OF 2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : NANDED.
Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd,.
Through its Zonal Manager,
Mr.Imtiyaz Malik,
6 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016
R/o Lower Parel (W), Mumbai APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Shri. Ravi Bapurao Deshmukh,
R/o Pardi, , Tq. Ardhapur, Dist.Nanded.
2. Br.Manager,
Maharashtra Gramin Bank, Nanded.
Dist.Nanded. RESPONDENT No.1&2
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 747 OF 2016
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 408 OF 2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : NANDED.
Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd,.
Through its Zonal Manager,
Mr.Imtiyaz Malik,
R/o Lower Parel (W), Mumbai APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Prabhakar Kashinath Pawar,
R/o Nivgha , , Tq. Mudkhed, Dist.Nanded.
2. NDCC Bank, Br.Mudkhed,
Dist.Nanded. RESPONDENT No.1&2
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 748 OF 2016
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 419 OF 2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : NANDED.
Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd,.
Through its Zonal Manager,
Mr.Imtiyaz Malik,
R/o Lower Parel (W), Mumbai APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Nandkishor Hiraman Ringe,
R/o Zari, Tq. Nanded, Dist.Nanded.
2. Br.Manager,
Maharashtra Gramin Bank, vishnupuri Naned.
Dist.Nanded. RESPONDENT No.1&2
7 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 749 OF 2016
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 399 OF 2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : NANDED.
Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd,.
Through its Zonal Manager,
Mr.Imtiyaz Malik,
R/o Lower Parel (W), Mumbai APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Shri. Ganesh Ramji Kadam,
R/o. Rodgi, Tq. Hadgaon, Dist.Nanded.
2. Br.Manager, Bank of India, Nanded.
Dist.Nanded. RESPONDENT No.1&2
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 750 OF 2016
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 230 OF 2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : NANDED.
Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd,.
Through its Zonal Manager,
Mr.Imtiyaz Malik,
R/o Lower Parel (W), Mumbai APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Archana Panditrao Vyavhare,
R/o Dongargaon. Tq. Mudkhed, Dist.Nanded.
2. Maharashtra Gramin Bank, Br.Barad,
Tq. Mudkhed, Dist.Nanded. RESPONDENT No.1&2
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 751 OF 2016
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 414 OF 2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : NANDED.
Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd,.
Through its Zonal Manager,
Mr.Imtiyaz Malik,
R/o Lower Parel (W), Mumbai APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Shri.Parasramji Dattaramji Wagh,
R/o Naleshwar, Tq. & Dist.Nanded.
2. Br.Manager, NDCC Bank, Nanded.
8 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016
Dist.Nanded. RESPONDENT No.1&2
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 752 OF 2016
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 392 OF 2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : NANDED.
Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd,.
Through its Zonal Manager,
Mr.Imtiyaz Malik,
R/o Lower Parel (W), Mumbai APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Shankar Hiraman Zarikar,
R/o Zari, Tq. & Dist.Nanded.
2. Br.Manager,
Maharashtra Gamin Bank, Vishnupuri, Nanded.
Dist.Nanded. RESPONDENT No.1&2
CORAM : Smt.S.T.Barne, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial
Member.
Mr.K.M.Lawande, Hon'ble Member.
Present : Adv.R.H.Dahat for appellant,
Adv. G.P.Shinde for respondent no.1.
Adv. Respondent no.2 exparte.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 24/09/2021) Per Smt.S.T.Barne, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. The appellants in appeal No. 734/2016 to 752/2016 have preferred these appeals against the judgment and order in consumer complaint No. 263/2016, 256/16, 396/16, 394/16, 297/16, 261/16, 417/16, 299/16, 397/16, 232/16, 227/16, 395/16, 419/16, 408/16, 9 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016 391/16, 399/16, 230/16, 414/16, 392/16, decided by District consumer Forum Nanded on 27.5.2016 & 17/06/2016.
2. The appellant TATA AIG Insurance company, is the opponent. The respondent No.1&2 in each case are the complainant and the opponent Bank respectively. The parties are hereinafter referred as the complainant and opponent as per original status in the complaint.
3. It is the case of complainant in each case they are from Nanded District having their respective lands under the revenue circle of Tq.Barad ,Hadgaon (Manatha), Limgaon, Ardhapur, Vishnupuri under Nanded District. They have planted banana in their respective land. The Central Govt. and State Govt. have introduced the insurance policy known as "National weather based Crop Insurance" during the agricultural year 2014-15 i.e. 1.11.2014 to 31.5.2015 for the protection of agriculturist whose crops were affected due to sudden change in the weather such as maximum temperature, minimum temperature, winds speed or heavy rain. As per said insurance policy the agriculturist has to pay 50 % of the amount of premium and state Govt. and Central Govt. has to share 25 % each towards the premium. Each complainant has paid the amount of their respective share through opponent bank and the opponent insurance company had received said premium.
4. It is alleged by the complainants in their respective complaint that during aforesaid period more particularly on 1.11.14 to 28.2.15 there was minimum temperature less than 8. degree Celsius continuously for more than 3 days. There was maximum temperature during the period of 15 April 2015 to 31 May 2015 above 44 degree Celsius continuously for more than 3 to 5 days due to which their banana crop were severely affected. They did not get any income from banana crop.
10 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016
5. The complainant has taken crop insurance policy to protect the loss of crop due to change of weather. Therefore, after completing the period of insurance between 01/11/14 to 31/5/15 the opponents were supposed to pay the amount of compensation out of the said insurance policy to the respective complainant within 45 days. The opponents have not followed the terms and conditions of said insurance policy. The opponents have also not installed the weathers station as per norms. The data collected by opponents was wrong. The opponent without any sufficient reason gave meagre amount to the complainants in some of the cases and refused to pay the insured amount and thereby committed deficiency in service.
6. It was binding on the opponent Bank to forward the necessary information and documents to opponent insurance company. The opponent No.1 has deposited the amount of premium of insurance and necessary documents to opponent Bank. However, the opponent Bank failed to pay the amount as per insurance policy towards the loss of crop sustained to the complainant, in respect of insured crop within 45 days. Hence, they have claimed the amount of insurance payable to them along with interest @ 15 % p.a. since from completion of insured period. They have also claimed Rs. 15,000/- towards financial loss, as well as mental and physical agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards the cost of complaint.
7. The statement showing details of each complainants are given as under.
11 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016 Sr. Name of complainant & Appeal No Area under Banana Amount of Revenue Amount of total No place of residence. C.C.No. crop premium circle. compensation claimed deposited.
. with Gut No. As as per complaint (in
per Rupees)
complaint (in
hector)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 Suvarna S.Pawar, A/734/2016 Gut No.257, Nivgha, 4500 Barad. 75000 Insurance
R/o Nivgha, C.C.No.263/2016 Tq.Mudkhed, 15000 compensation,
Tq.Mudkhed, Dist.Nanded. Decided on 27/05/2016. Area 1H, 56R. 10000 cost.
2 Dattaji Pawar, A/735/2016 Gut No.254, Nivgha, 2700 Barad. 45000 Insurance
R/o Nivgha, C.C.No.256/2016 Tq.Mudkhed, 15000 compensation,
Tq.Mudkhed, Dist.Nanded. Dec ided on 27.5.2016 Area 67R. 10000 cost.
3 Chandba P.Pawar, A/736/2016 Gut No.298/2, 4500 Barad. 90000 Insurance
R/o Nivgha, C.C.No. 396/2016 Nivgha, 7000 compensation,
Tq.Mudkhed, Dist.Nanded. Decided on 27.5.2016 Tq.Mudkhed, 3000 cost.
Area 1H, 20R.
4 Digambar R.Kadam, A/737/2016 Gut No.70 1800 Ardhapur. 30000 Insurance
R/o Rodhi, CC No.394/2016 Karwadi, (As per 7/12 20000 compensation,
Tq.&Dist.Nanded. Decided on 27.5.2016 extract) 10000 cost.
Tq & Dist.Nanded.
Area 40R.
5 Digambar R.Kadam, A/738/2016 Gut No.15/A, 4500 Hadgaon. 75000 Insurance
R/o Rodghi, CC No. 297/2016 Manatha Hadgaon 15000 compensation,
Tq.Hadgaon, Dist.Nanded. Decided on 27.5.2016 Tq.Hadgaon, Area 1H. 10000 cost.
6 Vyankati K.Pawar, A/739/2016 Gut No.1, 1315 Barad. 22500 Insurance
R/o Nivgha, CC No. 261/2016 Nivgha, 15000 compensation,
Tq.Mudkhed, Dist.Nanded. Decided on 27.5.2016 Tq.Mudkhed, 10000 cost.
Area 39R.
12 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016
7 Sachin Subhashrao Deshpande, A/740/2016 Gut No.260, 4500 Limbgaon 75000 Insurance
R/o Rahati, CC No. 417/2016 Rahati 15000 compensation,
Tq & Dist. Nanded. Decided on 20.6.2016. Tq. & Dist.Nanded, 10000 cost.
Area 1H,
8 Maruti Ramji A/741/2016 Gut No.15 -D, 3600 Hadgaon 60000 Insurance
Kadam, CC No. 299/2016 Gut.No.15-P 20000 compensation,
R/o Rodgi, Decided on 27.5.2016 Rodgi. Tq.Hadgaon, 10000 cost.
Tq.Hadgaon, Dist.Nanded. Area 80R. (As per 7/12
extract 61 R.)
9 Rajaram Laxman A/742/2016 Gut No.257, Nivgha, 4500 Barad. 75000 Insurance
Nardile, CC No.397/2016 Tq.Mudkhed, 15000 compensation,
R/o Nivgha, Decided on Area 1H, 56R. 10000 cost.
Tq.Mudkhed, Dist.Nanded.
10 Laxmibai Raghunathrao A/743/2016 Gut No.738, 3150 Barad. 52500 Insurance
Deshmukh, CC No. 232/2016 Barad, Mudkhed, 15000 compensation,
R/o Barad, Decided on 17.6.2016 Nanded. 10000 cost.
Tq.Mudkhed, Dist.Nanded. Area 58R.
11 Mamtabai Tryambakrao Khupse, A/744/2016 Gut No.26, Barad. 75000 Insurance
R/o Tirkaswadi, Tq. CC No. 227/2016 Tarkaswadi,, 15000 compensation,
3600
Mudkhed, Dist.Nanded. Decided on 17.6.2016 Tq.Mudkhed, 10000 cost.
Area 60R.
12 Sharad Parshuram Zarikar, A/745/2016 Gut No.198, 4500 Vishnupuri. 75000 Insurance
R/o Zari-Loha, CC No. 395/2016 Zari, 20000 compensation,
Tq.Loha, Dist.Nanded. Decided on 17.6.2016 Tq.Loha, Dist.Nanded. 5000 cost.
Area 1H.
13 Ravi Baburao A/746/2016 Gut No162, 3600 Ardhapur. 60000 Insurance
Deshmukh, CC No. 419/2016 Pardi, Tq.Ardhapur, 15000 compensation,
R/o Pardi, Decided on 27.5.2016 Area 80R. 5000 cost.
Tq.Ardhapur, Dist.Nanded.
13 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016
14 Prabhakar Kashinath Pawar, A/747/2016 Gut No.314/1, Gut. No. 9000 Barad. 150000 Insurance
R/o Nivgha, Tq.Mudkhed, CC No. 408/2016 314/3,Gut No. 314/4 15000 compensation,
Dist.Nanded. Decided on 27.5.2016 Gut No. 311/1, 10000 cost.
Nivgha,Tq.Mudkhed,
Area 2H, 45R.
15 Nandkishor @ Kishor Hiraman A/748/2016 Gut No.198, Zari. 5985 Vishnupuri. 97500 Insurance
Renge, CC No. 391/2016 Tq.Loha, Dist.Nanded. 20000 compensation,
R/o Zari, Tq.Loha, Dist.Nanded. Decided on 17.6.2016 Area 1H, 30R. 10000 cost.
16 Ganesh Ramji Kadam, A/749/2016 Gut No.15/(J), Rodgi, 3600 Hadgaon. 60000 Insurance
R/o Rodgi, CC No. 399/2016 Tq.Hadgaon, 15000 compensation,
Tq.Hadgaon, Dist.Nanded. Decided on 27/5/2016 Dist.Nanded. 10000 cost.
Area 80R.
17 Archana Panditrao Vyavahare, A/750/2016 Gut No.127, 4500 Barad. 75000 Insurance
R/o Dongargaon, CC No. 230/2016 Dongargaon, 15000 compensation,
Tq.Mudkhed, Dist.Nanded. Decided on 17.6.2016. Tq.Mudkhed, 10000 cost.
Area 1H, 21R.
18 Parashuram Dattaramji Wagh, A/751/2016 Gut No.163, Naleshwar, 4500 Limbgaon 75000 Insurance
R/o Naleshwar, CC No. 414/2016 Tq & Dist.Nanded. 15000 compensation,
Tq & Dist.Nanded. Dediced on 20.6.2016 Area 1H, 54R. 5000 cost.
Shankar Hiraman Zarikar, A/752/2016 Gut No.54, Zari, 4725 Vishnupuri. 75000 Insurance
Tq.Loha 15000 compensation,
19 R/o Zari, CC No. 392/2016
Area 1H. 10000 cost.
Tq.Loha, Dist.Nanded. Decided on
17.6.2016.
14 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016
8. The opponent bank has filed written statement in respective complaint and denied all adverse contentions. It is the contention of opponent Bank that there is no agreement between complainant and opponent bank in respect of insurance policy. Complainants unnecessarily joined opponent Bank as a party to each complaint. It is admitted that the Govt. has recognized the scheme of crop insurance. However, it is denied that the complainants have sustained loss due to sudden weather change as alleged. The opponent Bank have no direct concern with loss or gain of complainant out of insurance policy under Govt. Scheme. They have not committed any kind of deficiency in service. The opponent bank is just protecting the interest of borrowers. The opponent Insurance company has deposited the amount payable to insurer in their respective account. The opponent Bank has not committed any deficiency in service. Hence, the opponent Bank has prayed for dismissal of the complaint as against opponent Bank.
9. The opponent insurance company has also submitted its written statement in each complaint and denied all adverse contentions in the complaint. It is the contention of the opponent Insurance company that complainant is not the consumer of opponent Insurance company. The Consumer Protection Act is not applicable to the complainant. Hence, the complaints are not maintainable. The complainants have not given the details of policy, the loan obtained from opponent bank. The complainant has also not given the description of the land and, the area in which the banana crop is planted. The State Govt. is also not made party to the complaint. For these reasons also the complaints are liable to be dismissed.
10. It is also contention of opponent Insurance Company that as per the weather based policy the interest of insured are protected from the loss due to change of weather in following circumstances as per Govt. Resolution dt.10/9/2014.
15 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016
वमा संर ण कार (हवामान धोके) व वमा संर ण माणके ( गर) व नक
ु सान भरप ाई रक् कम ( ती हे क्टर
कालावधी. )
द. 1 नोव ्हबर 2014 ते 28 फे"ूवार$ 2015. सलग 3 दवस %कमान ताप मान 8 &ड(ी सेल ्सीअस %कं वा त ्यापे ा कमी ताप मान रा हल ्यास नुकसान भरप ाई .
25,000/- दे य रा हल.
वेगाचा वारा 1. माच,, ए ल व जुलै म हन ्यात कोणत ्याह$ एका दवशी द.1 माच, 2015 ते 31 जुलै 2015. 50 %क.मी. ते 54.99 %क.मी. व मे व जून म हन ्यात कोणत ्याह$ एका दवशी 60 %क.मी. ते 64.99 %क.मी. 1त तास या वेगाने वारे वा हल ्यास . 25,000/- नुकसान भरप ाई दे य होईल.
2. माच,, ए ल व जुलै म हन ्यात कोणत ्याह$ एका दवशी 55 %क.मी. %कं वा जास ्त वेगाने व मे व जुन म हन ्यात कोणत ्याह$ एका दवशी 65 %क.मी. ती तास %कं वा जास ्त या वेगाने वारे वा हल ्यास . 50,000/- दे य होईल.
जास ्त ताप मान. 1. सलग तीन दवस 44 &ड(ी सेल ्सीअस %कं वा त ्यापे ा जास ्त ताप मान गेल ्यास . 10,000/- दे य होईल.
द. 15 ए ल, 2015 ते 31 मे 2015.
2. सलग चार दवस 44 &ड(ी सेल ्सीअस %कं वा त ्यापे ा जास ्त ताप मान गेल ्यास . 15,000/- दे य होईल.
3. सलग प ाच दवस 44 &ड(ी सेल ्सीअस %कं वा त ्यापे ा जास ्त ताप मान गेल ्यास . 25,000/- दे य होईल.
वमा योजनेत सहभाग %2या :
कज,दार शेतकर$ : अ1नवाय, सहभाग, ब3काकडून केळी या प कासाठ6 कज, मया,दा मंजूर असणा-या सव, शेतक-यांना वमा हा त ्या त ्या बँकांकडून दे ण ्यात येणा-या कज, प ुरवठा रक् कमेमधून भरला जाईल.
8बगर कज,दार शेतकर$ :
एैि:छक सहभाग, सदर शेतक-यांनी वमा स ्ताव प <क भ न रोख वमा हत ्यासह आप ले खाते असणा-या बँक शाखेत वह$त मुदतीत जमा करावे.
एकूण वमा संर? त रक् कम ( 1त हे क्टर) . 1,00,000/-
(जे शा.1न.2. 1014/ .2.138/14-ए द.10.9.14 माणे . 75,000/- करण ्यात आल$ आहे ) शेतक-यांनी भरावयाचा वमा हप ्ता ( 1त हे क्टर) . 6,000/-
11. It is the contention of opponent Insurance Company that, the insurance policy is drawn by sharing joint responsibility of State Govt. Central Govt. for 25 % each and with 50 % of the amount of premium by the each complainant. Therefore, the State Govt. & Central Govt. are necessary parties. As per Govt. resolution dated 16 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016 10.9.14 the crop of banana is protected by insuring the amount of Rs. 75,000/- per hector as per revised resolution No. वमायो/1014 14/138.2.-ए द14/9/10., सहप < 3 is binding on the parties.
12. As per Govt. circular the weather station is to be installed by third party institute registered with the Govt. to record the weather report. It is not responsibility of opponent Insurance Company to see as to which height the weather stations are to be erected or installed. The weather report recorded by registered institute as per the circular of Govt. are to be relied upon and those reports are binding on insurance company. The villages of complainants are covering at weather station Nivgha,Hadgaon, Barad, Limbgaon, Ardhapur, Mudkhed,Manatha, (Vishnupuri) under Nanded revenue circle under District Nanded installed by NCMSL. Therefore, its reports are binding on parties.
13. The complainants have not submitted the weather report recorded at weather station at nearest Revenue circle (mahasul mandal). They have also not given details, for which reason he is entitled for the amount of compensation from insurance company. They have also not submitted details of their respective land in which they have planted banana plants, along with documents as to his ownership.
The complaint has also not produced the document regarding policy. The govt. of Maharashtra is necessary party. The complainants have also not produced documents to show that opponent No.1 has disputed the amount towards the policy to opponent Insurance Company.
14. It is further contention of opponent Insurance Company that, as per circular under reference No. MRO/WBCIS/AMBEBAHAR/2013-14 notification/4023/2013 dated 3rd Oct. 2013. The fruit crop insurance scheme is to be implemented and for that purpose the automated weather stations (AWS) are to be installed at revenue circle and as per the recording recorded by AWS the compensation towards crop insurance is to be assessed.
17 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016
15. The third party institute namely NCMSL Hyderabad has installed the automatic weather station network at revenue circle. The weather report recorded as per Indian weather research centre are found correct. Therefore, the opponent Insurance Company is relying upon the weather report recorded by NCMSL during the period of 1.11.2014 to 31.7.2015. It is the contention of opponent No.2 that, a) during 1.11.14 to 28.2.15 there was never minimum temperature less than 8 degree Celsius continuously for three days. b) during the period of 1.3.15 to 31.7.15 and more particularly in the month of March, April, July there was never the speed of wind more than 50 km per hour to 54.99 km or in the month of May and June there was no winds speed above 60 km to 64.99 km per hour. So also in the month of March, April and July there was wind speed exceeding 55 km per hour or in the month of May and June 65 km per hour or more than that for a single day. c) During 15.4.15 to 31.3.15 there was no high temperature above 45 degree Celsius for continuously three days, or four days or five days or more than that and there was no such atmosphere or weather to sustain the loss to the crop of banana. There is also no entry found in 7/12 extract crop entry of banana for the period of 2014-15.
16. It is the contention of opponent Insurance Company that, the insurance company has deposited the amount of Rs.1,05,31,688/- with opponent bank. It has not given information as to how said amount is distributed. If at all there is any deficiency in service then the opponent Bank will be responsible for it. The opponent Bank has not submitted any details before Dist. Consumer Forum. The opponent Insurance Company has not committed any kind of deficiency in service and hence the opponent Insurance Company has prayed for dismissal of complaints.
17. The Dist. Consumer Forum after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties pleased to award Rs. 75,000/- per hector to each complainant towards the insured amount and also awarded Rs. 5,000/- to each complainant towards mental agony and cost of the complaint.
18 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016
18. The Ld. Adv. for opponent Insurance Co. (present appellant) has bifurcated the appeals in two sets. One is in respect of appeal Nos. 737/2016, 738/16, 740/16, 745/16, 746/16, 749/16, 751/16, wherein the opponent No.2 has already made payment by settling their claim. The another set is of appeals No. 734/2016, 735/16, 736/16, 739/16, 741/16, 742/16, 743/16, 744/16, 747/16, 750/16 which are covering under Barad Tahasil no trigger parameter found. Whereas the appeal Nos. A/745/16, 748/16, 752/16, covering under Vishnupuri circle wherein no trigger is made out. Hence, no claim is payable.
19. It is argued on behalf of appellant that the Dist. Forum has not followed given norms for granting Rs. 75,000/- each per hector to the complainants. The complainants/ claimants have also not produced documents to show that all the 3 parameters were triggered. In fact only one parameter of temperature was triggered in some Revenue Circle and as per terms and conditions for those parameters claimants are entitled for Rs. 18,750/- per hector. Secondly the Forum has not appreciated that weather stations are installed by independent agency authorized by Govt. The Forum placed reliance on certificate given by interior designer, without any affidavit in support of it and concluded that, weather station of NCMSL were installed without following the norms. The opponent Insurance Company gave lump sum amount of Rs. 2,05,33,958/- to opponent bank. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opponent Insurance company. The Forum has not considered the criteria of Govt. Resolution No. 1014/PRA Kra No./138/14-A dt. 10/9/2014, and that as per said resolution the complainant entitled for Rs. 18,750/- per hector for changes in wind speed, in some Revenue Circle the Forum failed to appreciate that it cannot go beyond policy terms & conditions.
20. The Ld. Adv. for complainant submitted in his arguments that, complainants have obtained insurance under Agricultural Insurance scheme of Govt. for the period of 2014-15, which is weather based scheme. Which is covering the perils caused due to adverse weather incidence, leading to crop loss due to deficit rainfall, Dry spell. The Govt. of Maharashtra on 10/9/14 issued resolution by laying criteria 19 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016 according to National Crop Insurance programme. The Govt. established the 3rd party for revenue circle to record the weather changes. The complainant raised the objections to the data collected by insurance company through NCMSL. The weather stations established by NCMSL are not as per the norms and the data recorded by NCMSL is doubtful. On the basis of such data, Insurance company came to erroneous conclusion and assessed inadequate amount. Hence, the complainant relied upon, the judgment of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in (2014) I CDR (NIC) 331, The Agricultural Insurnace company of India V/s Kishanlal s/o Jaganath, and supported the judgment of District Consumer Forum, in granting entire insurance sum of Rs. 75,000/- each. After submission of arguments by both the parties the Adv. for complainant produced some documents, including the inquiry report dated 4.6.2017, held by District Agricultural Officer Nanded, regarding the inspection of weather station, in respect of assessment of 2015-16.
21. The Ld. Adv. for appellant objected the production of those documents after argument on behalf of original complainant (respondent) as those documents are subsequent to the policy period and they were not before Dist. Consumer Forum . Apart from this the complainant has not produced any other report contrary to the report brought by opponent on record through NCMSL, the 3rd party agency authorized by Govt.. Moreover, the opponent insurance company, already allotted the amount on the basis of the report from weather station established by NCMSL in respective Revenue circle under the taluka places through opponent bank. The Ld. Adv. for appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission reported in 2016(IV) CPR 462 (NC) Agricultural Insurance company of India V/s Barishing Bisht and another , and submitted that, the responsibility assessed by insurance company on the basis of data collected and provided by 3rd party authorised weather station cannot be faulted. Govt. does not envisaged the payment of higher compensation or a compensation based on actual loss suffered by farmers. The District Consumer Forum cannot go beyond the terms and conditions of the policy.
20 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016
22. On the basis of respective submissions of the complainant and opponent Insurance company following points arise for our determination. We have noted them along with our findings against it accordingly for the reasons to follow.
Sr.No. Points. Findings.
1 Whether the complainant proved partly proved in CC. Nos. 263/2016,
deficiency in Service on the part of 256/2016, 396/2016, 261/2016,
opponent insurance company? 299/2016, 397/2016, 232/2016,
227/2016 408/2016, 230/2016.
2 Whether there requires interference in Yes.
the order Of District Consumer Forum
?
3 What order? As per final order.
REASONING
23. Point No. 1&2 :- Admittedly the complainant in each complaint are claiming compensation on the basis of weather based policy recognized by central Govt.
resolution No. वमायो 1014/ माणप < 214/138.ए द 14/9/10 .to be assessed as per the attached letter (2,3,4 सहप <). The criteria the circumstances and the method & rates for assessing the compensation and the triggers are given as follows.
सहप < 2
वमा संर ण कार (हवामान धोके) व वमा संर ण माणके ( गर) व नुकसान भरप ाई रक् कम ( ती हे क्टर
कालावधी. )
द. 1 नोव ्हबर 2014 ते 28 फे"ूवार$ 2015. सलग 3 दवस %कमान ताप मान 8 &ड(ी सेल ्सीअस %कं वा त ्यापे ा कमी ताप मान रा हल ्यास नुकसान भरप ाई .
25,000/- दे य रा हल.
वेगाचा वारा 1. माच,, ए ल व जल ु ै म हन ्यात कोणत ्याह$ एका दवशी द.1 माच, 2015 ते 31 जुलै 2015. 50 %क.मी. ते 54.99 %क.मी. व मे व जून म हन ्यात कोणत ्याह$ एका दवशी 60 %क.मी. ते 64.99 %क.मी. 1त तास या वेगाने वारे वा हल ्यास . 25,000/- नुकसान 21 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016 भरप ाई दे य होईल.
2. माच,, ए ल व जुलै म हन ्यात कोणत ्याह$ एका दवशी 55 %क.मी. %कं वा जास ्त वेगाने व मे व जुन म हन ्यात कोणत ्याह$ एका दवशी 65 %क.मी. ती तास %कं वा जास ्त या वेगाने वारे वा हल ्यास . 50,000/- दे य होईल.
जास ्त ताप मान. 1. सलग तीन दवस 44 &ड(ी सेल ्सीअस %कं वा त ्यापे ा जास ्त ताप मान गेल ्यास . 10,000/- दे य होईल.
द. 15 ए ल, 2015 ते 31 मे 2015.
2. सलग चार दवस 44 &ड(ी सेल ्सीअस %कं वा त ्यापे ा जास ्त ताप मान गेल ्यास . 15,000/- दे य होईल.
3. सलग प ाच दवस 44 &ड(ी सेल ्सीअस %कं वा त ्यापे ा जास ्त ताप मान गेल ्यास . 25,000/- दे य होईल.
वमा योजनेत सहभाग %2या :
कज,दार शेतकर$ : अ1नवाय, सहभाग, ब3काकडून केळी या प कासाठ6 कज, मया,दा मंजरू असणा-या सव, शेतक-यांना वमा हा त ्या त ्या बँकांकडून दे ण ्यात येणा-या कज, प ुरवठा रक् कमेमधून भरला जाईल.
8बगर कज,दार शेतकर$ :
एैि:छक सहभाग, सदर शेतक-यांनी वमा स ्ताव प <क भ न रोख वमा हत ्यासह आप ले खाते असणा-या बँक शाखेत वह$त मुदतीत जमा करावे.
एकूण वमा संर? त रक् कम ( 1त हे क्टर) . 1,00,000/-
(जे शा.1न.2. 1014/ .2.138/14-ए द.10.9.14 माणे . 75,000/- करण ्यात आल$ आहे ) शेतक-यांनी भरावयाचा वमा हप ्ता ( 1त हे क्टर) . 6,000/-
24. As per said resolution and annexed letter (4 सहप <) and the conditions led down and as per norms given the weather stations were to be established by independent agencies authorized by Govt. Hence, the insurance company has relied upon the weather reports recorded by NCMSL at respective revenue circles at talukas under Nanded District.
25. The complainant disputed the weather report adopted by insurance company with allegations that, the weather report relied by opponent insurance company of 3rd party agency NCMSL, is faulty as the installation of said weather stations are not made in accordance with the norms led down by Govt. However, no contrary 22 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016 evidence is brought on record, in respect of weather conditions recorded by NCMSL for the year 2014-2015.
26. In appeal, the complainant has produced the report regarding inquiry of weather stations established under NCMSL, at revenue circles Mugat, Mudkhed, Barad, Ardhapur, Malegaon made by sub. Div. Agricultural officer Nanded District dated 6.4.2017. Said inquiry is apparently made in the month of March 2017. From the notes of report it reveals that, said report is in respect of weather station established in 2015-16 and 2016-17. The present complaints/claims are in respect of the insurance period of 2014-15. Of course, the report submitted by complainant it is being of 2017 was not before District Consumer Forum. For aforesaid reasons the report is not applicable to the present claims. Therefore, under such circumstances the report which relied upon by the insurance company and is collected from weather stations established by NCMSL the authorized agency, is to be relied upon.
If at all the complainant felt that it was faulty. The complainant ought to have produced the report from approved weather stations by the Govt. The complainant has only produced one certificate issued by interior designer who is not authorized by Govt. or representative of any authorized agency working for authorized weather stations. Which has no relevancy with weather station installed in Nanded District. Moreover, the complainant has also not produced any affidavit of said person in support of certificate issued by him. Hence, on bare submissions on behalf of complainant that, the recording of weather condition by NCMSL is faulty is not acceptable.
27. The opponent No.1 has produced the copies of notification dated 10th Sept.2014 वमायो 1014/ माणप< 214/138.ए . The enclosure letter (सहप<2) with said resolution speaks about the parameter/criteria and the weather triggers its period and the rate of insured amount per hector reproduced earlier and on the basis of it the chart is prepared as follows. For the purposes of assessment of the amount payable to the claimants per trigger weather.
23 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016
Parameter Original Maximum Revised sum Remarks (working)
sum insured (Rs.) insured (Rs.)
Min. Max.25000/per 18750/- 75.00 % of original S.I. of
Temperature Hectare Rs. 25000/-
Continuously for 3
days.
Max. Tem. above 44 degree 75.00 % of original S.I. of i)
celcius. Rs. 25000/-
10000/per Hectare 7500/- ii) Rs.10000/-
cont. for 3 days.
Rs.15000/- per H.
For cont. 4 days.
Max. Rs.25000/-
cont. for 5 days. Max.18750/-
Wind Speed As specified in 75.00 % of original S.I. of
notification Rs.50000/-
Rs.25000/- and Max. 18750/-
50000/- respectively Max.37500/-
per hector.
Total sum 100000/per Hectare Max.75000.00 75.00 % of original S.I. of
insured maximum. Rs. 100000/-
28. The enclosure 3 (सहप < 3) attached to said resolution speaks about the weather based crop insurance rates of 2014-15 providing District wise, crop wise premium rate and revised sum insured. In the said resolution the scale for Nanded district is given as follows.
Crop Dist. Area Allotted Sum Premiu Reduce Farme Centr State Total Farmer
name (in compan insured m Rate d sum r al Govt premiu Premiu
HR.) y (in Rs) (%) insured Share Govt. . m (in m rate
(in Rs) (in Share Shar Rs) (%)
Rs) (in e
Rs) (in
Rs
Banana Nande 15,000 TATA 1,00,000 16.00 75,000 4500 3750 3750 12000 6.00
d Dist. AIG
24 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016
29. With this we shall come to the weather data recorded by revenue circle established & produced by NCMSL and produced by TATA AIG opponent No.2 insurance company on record.
i) Triggered parameter recorded by Barad circle, by weather station installed at Barad - Minimum Temperature recorded consecutively for four days from 10/01/2015 to 13/01/2015 as follows.
10/01/2015 5.6 degree Celsius
11/01/2015 6.7 degree Celsius.
12/01/2015 8.1 degree Celsius.
13/01/2015 7.1 degree Celsius.
ii) Triggered parameter recorded by "Hadgaon" circle, by weather station
installed at Hadgaon -- Maximum Temperature 44 degree or more for consecutive three days from 19/05/2015 to 21/05/2015 as follows.
19/05/2015 44.7 degree Celsius
20/05/2015 44.7 degree Celsius.
21/05/2015 44 degree Celsius.
iii) Triggered parameter recorded by Ardhapur circle, by weather station
installed at Ardhapur -- Maximum Temperature 44 degree or more for consecutive three days from 19/5/2015 to 21/5/2015 as follows.
19/05/2015 44.2 degree Celsius
20/05/2015 44.5 degree Celsius.
21/05/2015 44.2 degree Celsius.
25 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016
iv) Triggered parameter recorded by Vishnupuri circle, no trigger found during
01/11/2014 to 31/07/2015, as required as per Govt. Circular dated 10.09.2014.
v) Triggered parameter recorded by Limbagaon circle, by weather station installed by Limbgaon - Wind speed of 50 km to 54.99 km on 4/4/2015 as follows.
04/04/2015 51.2 km
30. From the aforesaid weather reports it reveals that, in respect of the aforesaid weather station i.e. at Hadgaon and Ardhapur maximum temperature continuously for 3 days was above 44 Celsius. At Limbagon circle for a single day the wind speed was above 50 km/h. While at Barad minimum temperature is shown continuously for four days during 10.01.2015 to 13.01.2015 was 5.6, 6.7, 8.1 & 7.1 degree Celsius.
31. In respect of weather recorded at Barad circle our attention is drawn towards the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in TATA AIG Vs. Madhav Amrutrao Deshmukh decided on 29.08.2018. Wherein for continuously for four days the weather was below 8 degree Celsius except for one day it is shown as 8.1. The Hon'ble National Commission in Revision in TATA AIG Vs. Madhav Amrutrao Deshmukh decided on 29.08.2018 upheld the judgment of District Commission wherein considering the four days minimum temperature which was below 8 Celsius and only one a single day there was .1 degree Celsius was excess is held negligible one and the criteria of minimum temperature for four days below 8 degree Celsius is made applicable for the claim in the said Revenue Circle and 26 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016 compensation is awarded. Therefore, in the case in hand also relying upon the Judgment of Hon'ble National Commission stated Supra the complaints covering under Barad mahasul are entitled for compensation towards insured amount payable for the trigger three days minimum temperature less than 3 degree Celsius as per Govt. Resolution. Even in the earlier judgment of this Commission in FA/753/2016 to FA/777/2016 decided by this Commission on 08.02.2019 the cases from Nivgha Tq.Mudkhed following under Barad circle of similar insured period are considered under Mudkhed Circle and awarded compensation towards minimum temperature recorded on 10.01.2015 to 12.01.2015 continuously for three days below 8 degree Celsius in the said circle. There are also appeals covering under Vishnupuri circle, no trigger is found as required for grant of insured amount.
32. From the aforesaid criteria and weather recorded at revenue circles we would like to make it clear that, in none of the revenue circle all the three triggers were recorded or available during aforesaid period to grant entire amount of Rs.75,000/- to each complainant in the present complaints.
33. Therefore, on available documents produced by complainant as to his area of land, the trigger data of respective areas recorded at the stations of revenue circle within which the land of complainant is situated, the amount of compensation is assessed. With this the details of each complaint /claim under crop insurance scheme along with the amount of compensation paid or to be paid is given as follows in two different sets of appeal.
34. From the above said criteria and the weather recorded at respective revenue circle the Ld. Adv. for opponent has submitted the list of paid and unpaid cases. In view of aforesaid discussion and record made available in respect of each complaint 27 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016 the details of each complaint under the crop insurance scheme, with amount of compensation paid or to be paid in each case in the following chart.
35. In the case in hand the District Consumer Forum pleased to award Rs. 75,000/- i.e. entire insured amount in each of the appeal with the observation that, the weather stations were not installed as per the norms laid down by the Government but they are installed at 6 to 6.5 meter height. Due to which if the weather stations have collected in correct data it was the responsibility of insurance company to take care of the same for accurate recording of weather data. However, insurance company has denied its liability . The agriculturists are required to face the situation like heavy drought where Annewari i.e. percentage of crop had gone below 30 % in Nanded District. The opponent insurance company has assessed their compensation @ Rs.18750/- per hector. It is wrong on the part of opponent insurance company to assess the compensation on the basis of wrong weather data. Therefore, the District Consumer Forum has awarded entire insured amount of Rs. 75,000/- per hector.
36. It is important to note that, the District Consumer Forum has completely ignored the fact that it is weather based insurance scheme falling under the Govt. circular No. MRO/WBCIS/AMBEBAHAR/2013-14 notification /4023/2013 dated. 3rd Oct. 2013 and it is revised vide Govt. circular dated 1014 prakra 138/14 A dtd. 10.9.14 wherein the criteria for deciding compensation is also given along with attached letter (सहप < 1 to 4) with said notification. In the same notification the criteria of installation of weather station is also given showing the revenue circle falling under the Tahasil of the Districts. As per said Govt. regulations and notification this insurance scheme is applicable strictly for weather changes shown therein along with fixed criteria. It reveals that, the District Consumer Forum travelled beyond said criteria laid down in the notification & the weather reports 28 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016 produced on record and awarded the compensation of Rs. 75,000/- in each cases.
The District Consumer Forum totally ignored सहप < 2 attached to notification, wherein the protected period under the policy, and the weather triggers deciding compensation with the criteria given for each trigger are given. We have already reproduced said criteria under the hearing of सहप < 2.
37. With the aforesaid discussion we are of the opinion that, the District Consumer Forum has committed error in ignoring the Govt. resolution and notification applicable for weather based scheme.
38. It appears that, the District Consumer Forum has paid attention towards pleading of complainants wherein they have mentioned that, they suffered heavy loss due to heavy drought and their crop percentage has gone below 30 % . They even could not get the expenses incurred by them for sowing and cultivation of their crop. The farmers might have suffered loss for any other reasons such as heavy drought or for want of rain. But unfortunately the agreement of this insurance scheme is not as per actual loss faced by the agriculturists. But their interest are protected to some extent under weather based criteria led down in the weather based insurance scheme. Hence, we are helpless to go beyond the agreement between Govt. and insurance policy which is purely based on notification of Govt. dt.10 Sept.2014 reproduced earlier. So far as loss of the agriculturists due to shortage of rain or draught is concerned the Govt. has issued separate resolution dt.25 Nov.2014 by giving some concessions in revenue in loan or in electricity bills or examination fees etc. Which has no relevancy with weather based insurance scheme in question. Therefore, there requires interference in the judgment and order of District Consumer Forum.
29 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016
39. On behalf of complainants the objection raised that, the weather stations are not installed as per the criteria and norms led down in the notification and therefore, they have also produced the inquiry report made into weather station concluded in the year 2017. However, said inspection report is in respect of the grievances in the year 2015- 2016, 2016-2017, said inquiry is concluded in the year 2017. Therefore, said report can not be made applicable in the present cases in appeal before this commission which are for the year of 2013 & 2014 .
40. Apart from this the appellant insurance company has based on the weather report recorded by weather station MCNL the authorized third party agency. The complainants have not adduced any evidence challenging the report recorded by said agency. The complainant has relied upon one certificate issued by Mr.Uaday Tidke, interior designer in respect of the weather stations situated at Girgaon Tq.Vasmat Dist.Hingoli which is not relevant with the present cases. Moreover, he is also not authorized by Govt. or representative of any agency. Moreover, no affidavit in support of it is produced. Therefore, in the case in hand report of the weather stations installed by MCNL at Nanded District at revenue circle under the Tahasil are made applicable to the respective cases for the purposes of assessment of compensation, as those reports remained unchallenged. In Insurance Company has given list of paid cases in appeal No. 737/2016(CC/394/2016), 738/2016(CC/297/2016), 740/2016(CC/417/2016), 746/2016(CC/419/2016), 749/2016(CC/399/2016), 751/2016(CC/414/2016). Wherein the opponent Insurance Company already awarded compensation and the complainant has not adduced any contrary evidence for compensation awarded. Hence, apparently there is no cause of action or deficiency in service on the part of opponent in the aforesaid cases. Hence, those complaints are required to be dismissed.
41. Admittedly, the opponent insurance company did not pay any compensation in the cases shown in unpaid list of in written notes of argument. The insurance 30 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016 company ought to have given the compensation to the claimants, following under Ardhapur & Barad circle and thereby committed deficiency in service in not awarding the compensation to the agriculturists in appeal No.734/2016(CC/263/2016), 735/2016(CC/256/2016), 736/2016(CC/396/2016), 739/2016(CC/261/2016), 741/2016(CC/299/2016), 742/2016(CC/397/2016), 743/2016(CC/232/2016), 744/2016(CC/227/2016), 747/2016(CC/408/2016), 750/2016(CC/230/2016).
42. So far as case No.745/16(CC/395/2016), 748/16(CC/391/2016), 752/16(CC/392/2016) are concerned, the lands of the complainants are situated at Zari Tq.Loha, Dist.Nanded, which is covering at Vishnupuri Revenue circle. According to appellant no trigger weather for awarding compensation towards insurance is recorded in this circle. The complainant has also not adduced any evidence showing trigger for awarding compensation. Hence, in those cases following under Vishnupuri Circle the complainants are not entitled for any compensation. Therefore, their complaints deserves to be dismissed.
43. Therefore, with the aforesaid discussion, considering the notifications, circulars in respect of weather based scheme and the criteria lead down in the attached letter (sahapatra 1 to 4) with the said notification to assess the compensation under weather based insurance scheme the following chart is prepared for better understanding of the claim of each complainant. In the said chart the details of amount by consideration the details of land, criteria laid down in notifications for weather based scheme, the amount payable in view of trigger weather shown in para 26 towards compensation is awarded.
31 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016 Sr. Name of Appeal No Gut No. and area Amou Revenue Amount of total Trigger Amount Amount Amount No complainant & C.C.No. under Banan crop. nt of circle. compensation weather. entitled as already paid entitled for.
premiu per trigger to
. place of claimed
m weather. complainant
residence. deposit as per complaint according to
ed. (in Rupees) Insurance
Company.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 Suvarna S.Pawar, A/734/2016 Gut No.257, Nivgha, 4500 Barad. 75000 Insurance Min. temp. 18750 PH. Unpaid. @18750 PH
R/o Nivgha, C.C.No.263/2016 Tq.Mudkhed, 15000 compensation, Continuously for
3 days.
Tq.Mudkhed, Decided on Area 1H, 56R. 10000 cost.
(amount insured
Dist.Nanded. 27/05/2016. 25,000/- )
Revised to 18750
per Hector.
2 Dattaji Pawar, A/735/2016 Gut No.254, Nivgha, 2700 Barad. 45000 Insurance Min. temp. 18750 PH. Unpaid. @18750 PH
R/o Nivgha, C.C.No.256/2016 Tq.Mudkhed, 15000 compensation, Continuously for
3 days.
Tq.Mudkhed, Dec ided on 27.5.2016 Area 67R. 10000 cost.
(amount insured
Dist.Nanded. 25,000/- )
Revised to 18750
per Hector.
3 Chandba P.Pawar, A/736/2016 Gut No.298/2, 5400 Barad. 90000 Insurance Min. temp. 18750 PH. ----- @18750/- P.H.
R/o Nivgha, C.C.No. 396/2016 Nivgha, 7000 compensation, Continuously for
3 days.
Tq.Mudkhed, Decided on 27.5.2016 Tq.Mudkhed, 3000 cost.
(amount insured
Dist.Nanded. Area 1H, 20R. 25,000/- )
Revised to 18750
per Hector.
4 Digambar R.Kadam, A/737/2016 Gut No.70 1800 Ardhapur. 30000 Insurance Max. Temp. 7500 PH. Paid 3000 at ----
R/o Rodhi, CC No.394/2016 Karwadi, (As per 7/12 20000 compensation, continuously for Ardhapur.
3 days. (amount
Tq.&Dist.Nanded. Decided on 27.5.2016 extract) 10000 cost.
insured
32 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016
Tq & Dist.Nanded. Rs.10,000/- )
Area 40R. Revised to 7500/-
PH.
5 Digambar R.Kadam, A/738/2016 Gut No.15/A, 4500 Hadgaon. 75000 Insurance Max. Temp. 7500 PH. 7500 ------
R/o Rodghi, CC No. 297/2016 Manatha Hadgaon 15000 compensation, continuously for
3 days. (amount
Tq.Hadgaon, Decided on 27.5.2016 Tq.Hadgaon, 10000 cost.
insured
Dist.Nanded. Rs.10,000/- )
Area 1H. Revised to 7500/-
PH.
6 Vyankati K.Pawar, A/739/2016 Gut No.1, 1315 Barad. 22500 Insurance Min. temp. 18750 PH. Unpaid. @ 18750/-
R/o Nivgha, CC No. 261/2016 Nivgha, 15000 compensation, Continuously for P.H.
3 days.
Tq.Mudkhed, Decided on 27.5.2016 Tq.Mudkhed, 10000 cost.
(amount insured
Dist.Nanded. Area 39R. 25,000/- )
Revised to 18750
per Hector.
7 Sachin Subhashrao A/740/2016 Gut No.260, 4500 Limbgaon 75000 Insurance High wind on 4th 18750 PH. 18750 Paid. --------
Deshpande, CC No. 417/2016 Rahati 15000 compensation, April a single
day.
R/o Rahati, Decided on 20.6.2016. Tq. & Dist.Nanded, 10000 cost.
Amount insured
Tq & Dist. Nanded. Area 1H, 25000 and revised
to 18750 PH.
8 Maruti Ramji A/741/2016 Gut No.15 -D, 3600 Hadgaon 60000 Insurance Max. Temp. 7500 PH. unpaid. @ 7500 P.H.
Kadam, CC No. 299/2016 Gut.No.15-P 20000 compensation, Continuously for
3 days. (amount
R/o Rodgi, Decided on 27.5.2016 Rodgi. Tq.Hadgaon, 10000 cost.
insured Rs.10,000
Tq.Hadgaon, Area 80R. (As per 7/12 )
Dist.Nanded. extract 61 R.) Revised to 7500/-
PH.
9 Rajaram Laxman A/742/2016 Gut No.257, Nivgha, 4500 Barad. 75000 Insurance Min. temp. 18750 PH. Unpaid. @18750/- P.H.
Nardile, CC No.397/2016 Tq.Mudkhed, 15000 compensation, Continuously for
3 days.
33 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016
R/o Nivgha, Decided on Area 1H, 56R. 10000 cost. (amount insured
Tq.Mudkhed, 25,000/- )
Revised to 18750
Dist.Nanded. per Hector.
10 Laxmibai A/743/2016 Gut No.738, 3150 Barad. 52500 Insurance Min. temp. 18750 PH. Unpaid. @ 18750/-
Raghunathrao CC No. 232/2016 Barad, Mudkhed, 15000 compensation, Continuously for P.H.
3 days.
Deshmukh, Decided on 17.6.2016 Nanded. 10000 cost.
(amount insured
R/o Barad, Area 58R. 25,000/- )
Tq.Mudkhed, Revised to 18750
per Hector.
Dist.Nanded.
11 Mamtabai A/744/2016 Gut No.26, Barad. 75000 Insurance Min. temp. 18750 PH. Unpaid. @ 18750/-
Tryambakrao CC No. 227/2016 Tarkaswadi,, 15000 compensation, Continuously for P.H.
3600 3 days.
Khupse, Decided on 17.6.2016 Tq.Mudkhed, 10000 cost. (amount insured
R/o Tirkaswadi, Tq. Area 60R. 25,000/- )
Mudkhed, Revised to 18750
per Hector.
Dist.Nanded.
12 Sharad Parshuram A/745/2016 Gut No.198, 4500 Vishnupuri 75000 Insurance No trigger made 18750 PH. Not entitled. -------
Zarikar, CC No. 395/2016 Zari, . 20000 compensation, out.
R/o Zari-Loha, Decided on 17.6.2016 Tq.Loha, 5000 cost.
Tq.Loha, Dist.Nanded.
Dist.Nanded. Area 1H.
13 Ravi Baburao A/746/2016 Gut No162, 3600 Ardhapur. 60000 Insurance Max. Temp. 7500 PH. Paid Rs.6000 -------
Deshmukh, CC No. 419/2016 Pardi, Tq.Ardhapur, 15000 compensation, Continuously for
3 days. (amount
R/o Pardi, Decided on 27.5.2016 Area 80R. 5000 cost.
insured Rs.10,000
Tq.Ardhapur, )
Dist.Nanded. Revised to 7500/-
PH.
14 Prabhakar Kashinath A/747/2016 Gut No.314/1, 9000 Barad. 150000 Insurance Min. temp. 18750 PH. Unpaid. @ 18750/-
Pawar, CC No. 408/2016 Gut. No. 314/3, 15000 compensation, Continuously for P.H.
3 days.
R/o Nivgha, Decided on 27.5.2016 Gut No. 314/4 10000 cost.
(amount insured
Tq.Mudkhed, Gut No. 311/1, 25,000/- )
34 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016
Dist.Nanded. Nivgha, Revised to 18750
Tq.Mudkhed, per Hector.
Area 2H, 45R.
15 Nandkishor @ A/748/2016 Gut No.198, Zari. 5985 Vishnupuri 97500 Insurance No trigger made 18750 PH. Not entitled -------
Kishor Hiraman CC No. 391/2016 Tq.Loha, . 20000 compensation, out. for.
Renge, Decided on 17.6.2016 Dist.Nanded. 10000 cost.
R/o Zari, Tq.Loha, Area 1H, 30R.
Dist.Nanded.
16 Ganesh Ramji A/749/2016 Gut No.15/(J), Rodgi, 3600 Hadgaon. 60000 Insurance Max. Temp. 7500 PH. 6000 Paid. ----------
Kadam, CC No. 399/2016 Tq.Hadgaon, 15000 compensation, Continuously for 3
days. (amount
R/o Rodgi, Decided on 27/5/2016 Dist.Nanded. 10000 cost. insured Rs.10,000 )
Tq.Hadgaon, Area 80R. Revised to 7500/-
Dist.Nanded. PH.
17 Archana Panditrao A/750/2016 Gut No.127, 4500 Barad. 75000 Insurance Min. temp. 18750 PH. Unpaid. @18750/- P.H.
Vyavahare, CC No. 230/2016 Dongargaon, 15000 compensation, Continuously for 3
days.
R/o Dongargaon, Decided on 17.6.2016. Tq.Mudkhed, 10000 cost. (amount insured
Tq.Mudkhed, Area 1H, 21R. 25,000/- )
Dist.Nanded. Revised to 18750
per Hector.
18 Parashuram A/751/2016 Gut No.163, 4500 Limbgaon. 75000 Insurance High wind on 4th 18750 PH. 18750 paid. ---------
Dattaramji Wagh, CC No. 414/2016 Naleshwar, 15000 compensation, April a single day.
Amount insured
R/o Naleshwar, Dediced on 20.6.2016 Tq & Dist.Nanded. 5000 cost.
25000 and revised to
Tq & Dist.Nanded. Area 1H, 54R. 18750 PH.
19 Shankar A/752/2016 Gut No.54, Zari, 4725 Vishnupuri 75000 Insurance No trigger made 18750 PH. Not entitled for. --------
Tq.Loha . 15000 compensation, out.
Hiraman CC No. 392/2016
Area 1H. 10000 cost.
Zarikar, Decided on
R/o Zari, 17.6.2016.
Tq.Loha,
Dist.Nanded.
35 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016
In following cases the opponent No.2 Insurance Company has already made payment to the complainants as per their entitlement as shown in the column No. 11 & 12 given against their name and appeal nos. Hence those appeals are allowed and those complaints are dismissed.
Sr. Name of the complainant Appeal No. Gat No. & Revenue Area of Name of Amount Amount Triggers Amount entitled Amount Amount due
No with place of land under and Circle land. Crop insured claimed Weather as per trigger received
crop and revenue circle complainant Banana /per Towards (Parametres per hec.) weather per hect. by
No. with area hector compens complain
under Premiu ation ant
insurance m paid
. by
farmer.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1 Sanjay Digamber A/753/16 25(B) Rodgi 58 R Banana 2610 41250 Max.Tem. 4350 4350 ---
Kadam. CC/400/16 Rodgi under continuously (7500 x 0.58)
R/o.Rodgi, Tal.Hadgaon, Tq. Tq. 55 R for 3 days.
Dist. Nanded Hadgaon. Hadgaon. (Amount insured of
Rs.10000/-and
revised to Rs.7500/-
per hec.)
2 Sunil Narharrao A/755/16 179 Limbgao 1H. Banana 3600 60000 High wind 15000 15000 ---
Maddhe CC/675/15 Waghi n. Under 16R on 4 April 15 (18750 x 0.80)
R/o.Waghi, Tal. & Dist. Tq&Dist. Tahsil 80 R. Single day
Nanded Nanded. Nanded (Amount insured of
Rs.25000/-and
revised to
Rs.18750/- per hec.)
3 Subhash Vitthalrao A/756/16 70 Limgaon 47 R Banana 1800 30000 High wind 7500 7500 ---
Deshpande, CC/418/16 Rahati Under 4th April 15 (18750 x 0.40)
R/o. Rahati, Tal. & Dist. Tq.Nand Tahsil 40 R. Single day
Nanded ed. Nanded (Amount insured of
Rs.25000/-and
revised to
Rs.18750/- per hec.)
4 Shivaji Ganeshrao A/759/16 25(B/1) Manatha 66 R. Banana 2700 45000 Max.Tem. 4500 4500 ---
CC/398/16
36 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016
Kadam, under 60 R. continuously for 3 (7500 x 0.66)
R/o, Rodgi, Tal. tahsil days at Hadgaon
Hadgaon, Dist. Hadgao circle.
n. (Amount insured of
Nanded
Rs.10000/-and
revised to Rs.7500/-
per hec.)
5 Kamalabai Nanarao A/760/16 55 Limgao 50 R. Banana 2250 37500 High wind 9375 9375 ---
kshirsagar, CC/415/16 Borgaon n Under 4th April 15 (18750 x 0.50)
R/o (Telang) Tahsil 50 R. Single day
Dist.Na Nanded (Amount insured of
Borgaon(Telang),
nded. Rs.25000/-and
Tal. & Dist. Nanded revised to
Rs.18750/- per hec.)
6 Gopal Sambhaji A/763/16 641 Barad 1H. Banana 2700 45000 Min.Tem. 11250 11250 ---
CC/402/16 Barad, under 21R. (he is continuously for 3 (18750 x 0.60)
Bhimewar days.
Tq.Mud tahsil 60 R. claiming
R/o.Barad, Tal. deposite (Amount insured
Mudkheda, Dist. khed Mudkhe d 4500 of Rs.25000/-and
Dist.Na d circle but no
Nanded revised to
nded. receipt)
Rs.18750/- per
hec.)
7 Anandrao Ramji A/771/16 15(B) Manatha 2.14 Banana 3600 60000 Max.Tem. 6000 6000 ---
Kadam CC/298/16 15(G2) under 84 R continuously for 3 (7500 x 0.80)
R/o.Rodagi, Tal. odgi, tahsil Total 80 R. days.
Hadgaon, Dist. Tq.Had Hadgao 2.97 (Amount insured
Nanded gaon n circle of Rs.10000/-and
Dist.Na revised to
nded Rs.7500/- per hec)
8 Vittalrao Raghoji A/772/16 66 Ardhapu 1 H, 28 Banana 3600 60000 Max.Tem. 6000 6000 ----
Lone CC/300/16 Karwadi r circle R continuously for 3 (7500 x 0.80)
R/o.Durganagar, Tq.Ardh 80 R. days.
Tal. Ardhapur, Dist. apur, (Amount insured
Dist.Na of Rs.10000/-and
Nanded
nded. revised to
Rs.7500/- per hec)
37 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016
9 Govind Nanarao A/773/16 55, Limgao 1.67 Banana 2250 37500 As per Limbgaon 15000 15000 ---
Kshirsagar CC/416/16 Borgaon n Under High wind (18750 x 0.80)
(wrongly Telang Tahsil 80 R. on 4th April 15
R/o mentioned
Borgaon(Telang), Tq &, Nanded (Amount insured
Rahati in
Tal. & Dist. Nanded Dist.Na of Rs.25000/-and
pleading)
nded. revised to
Rs.18750/- per
hec.)
10 Govindrao Narayan A/775/16 448 Barad 1.68 Banana 4500 75000 Min.Tem. 18750 18750 ---
CC/403/16 Barad, under continuously for 3 (18750 x 1.68)
Deshmukh days.
R/o. Barad, Tal. Tq.Mud tahsil 1H
(Amount insured
Mudkheda, Dist khed Mudkhe
of Rs.25000/-and
Dist.Na d circle
Nanded revised to
nded.
Rs.18750/- per
hec.)
11 Suresh Govindrao A/776/16 448 Barad 44 R Banana 4500 75000 Min.Tem. 18750 18750 --
CC/404/16 449 under 40 R continuously for 3 (18750 x 1.0)
Deshmukh days.
R/o. Barad, Tal. 452 tahsil 25 R. 1 H.
(Amount insured
Mudkheda, Dist Barad, Mudkhe Total
of Rs.25000/-and
Nanded Tq.Mud d circle 1.5
revised to
khed
Rs.18750/- per
Dist.Na
hec.)
nded.
12 Bhimrao Nivrutti A/777/16 129 Limgao 88 R Banana 3600 60000 As per Limbgaon 15000 15000 ---
Bokare CC/413/16 Rahati, n Under . High wind on 4th (18750 x 0.80)
R/o.Rahati, Tal. & Tq. Tahsil 80 R. April 15.
Dist. Nanded Dist.Na Nanded (Amount insured
nded. of Rs.25000/-and
revised to
Rs.18750/- per
hec.)
38 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016
44. With the aforesaid discussion & chart prepared we are of the opinion that, there requires interference in the judgment and order of District Consumer Forum. Hence, we answer the points accordingly and pass the following order.
ORDER
1. The Appeal Nos. 737/2016, 738/2016, 740/2016, 746/2016, 749/2016, 751/2016, are partly allowed and the judgment and order in consumer complaint Nos. 394/2016, 297/2016, 260/2016, 419/2016, 399/2016, 414/2016, (wherein the complainants are already paid as per adverse weather trigger established) is hereby quashed and set aside and those complaints are dismissed with no order as to costs.
2. The appeal Nos. 745/2016, 748/2016, 752/2016 are hereby partly allowed. The judgment and order in CC Nos. 395/2016, 391/2016, 392/2016 are hereby quashed and set-aside and those complaints are dismissed wherein the complainants are not entitled for any amount as no adverse weather trigger is recorded).
3. The appeal Nos.734/2016, 735/2016, 736/2016, 739/2016, 741/2016, 742/2016, 743/2016, 744/2016, 747/2016, 750/2016, are partly allowed. The judgment and order of District Consumer Forum in complaints No. 263/2016, 256/2016, 396/2016, 261/2016, 299/2016, 397/2016, 232/2016, 227/2016, 408/2016, 414/2016, is hereby quashed and set aside and it is modified and it be read as under.
i) The complainants in complaint Nos. 263/2016, 256/2016, 396/2016, 261/2016, 299/2016, 397/2016, 232/2016, 39 A/734/2016 to A/752/2016 227/2016, 408/2016, 414/2016, are entitled for the compensation towards insurance amount as shown in the chart against their respective name and appeal Nos. along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 16th July 2015 when amount become due & payable to the complainant, till actual receipt of the amount.
ii) In addition to aforesaid amount the complainants in consumer complaint Nos. 263/2016, 256/2016, 396/2016, 261/2016, 299/2016, 397/2016, 232/2016, 227/2016, 408/2016, 414/2016, are entitled for amount of Rs.
10,000/- each for mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards the cost of proceeding within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
iii) The opponent insurance company is at liberty to take necessary step consequent to the order in respect of payment made/payment to be made to respective complainants.
Mr.K.M.Lawande Smt.S.T.Barne,
Member Presiding Judicial Member
40