National Consumer Disputes Redressal
V. Ramalingam vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. & 3 ... on 8 October, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 1128 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 09/09/2014 in Complaint No. 14/2010 of the State Commission Tamil Nadu) 1. V. RAMALINGAM Son of Late K. Venkatasamy Medicinal Herbal Farm, Shri Mother Mayi Ashram Thirupachanur Village )& Post , Villupuram Taluk Tamil Nadu ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & 3 ORS. Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director, Mumbai Maharastra 2. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, XI, Sudharshan Buildings, IInd Floor, No.14, Whites Road, Chennai-600 014, Tamil Nadu. 3. Canara Bank Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director, Town Hall Circle, Bengaluru, Karnataka 4. Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Hi-tech Agri Branch, Spencer Plaza, Chennai-600 002, Tamil Nadu ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appellant : Mr. MSM Asaithambi & Mr. C. Kannan,
Advocates For the Respondent : For the Res. No.1&2 : Mr. Maibam N. Singh, Advocate
For the Res. No. 3&4 : Mr. Baldev Malik, Advocate
Dated : 08 Oct 2015 ORDER
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 9.9.2014 passed by the learned Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (in short, 'the State Commission') in Consumer Complaint No. 14/2010 - V. Ramalingam Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. by which, complaint was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/appellant is a farmer carrying out and maintaining Medicinal/aromatic farming and thereby cultivating various rare precious medicinal and aromatic herbs and plants. Being a capital intensive agricultural activity the complainant is carrying out the same by obtaining the loans from the 4th opposite party. As a precondition for sanctioning the financial facilities the 4th opposite party insisted upon taking an Insurance Policy from the 2nd opposite party in respect of the drip irrigation system, barbed wire fencing, micro sprinklers and other machineries and structures used in the above agricultural activity against damages that may be caused by flood/fire and other calamities. The complainant was constrained and accordingly took out an Insurance Policy No. 0111000/11/08/11/00000114 for the year 2008 as well i.e., for the Policy Period Commencing from 20.05.2008 to 19.05.2009, under the standard and special perils Policy with the 2nd Opposite party in respect of the assets as above said for the medicinal and aromatic farms as already stated. In the year 2008, the cyclone "NISHA" has struck almost the entire Tamil Nadu and caused extensive damages throughout the state including the farm of the complainant. The occurrence of "Nisha" cyclone on 26.11.2008 and consequent rain and flood damages were well articulated and covered extensively by the media as it caused extensive damages in its multiple ramifications. The damages caused by the "Nisha" cyclone was reported to the 4th opposite party by way of telegram dated 29.11.2008 and further requested the 4th opposite party to intimate the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party did not arrange for any immediate inspection. The complainant has also lodged a claim for Rs. 28,79,000/- along with necessary particulars as required by the 2nd opposite party vide its letter dated 02.12.2008. However the 2nd opposite party has rejected the claim vide its order dated 21.04.2009 on unsustainable and unreasonable grounds stating that there was no flood damage in the farm. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before learned State Commission. OP No.1 & 2 resisted complaint and submitted that as per surveyor, there was no loss due to cyclone 'Nisha' dated 26.11.2008 or any other date, so, claim was rightly repudiated. It was further submitted that serious disputed questions can be satisfactorily decided only by a detailed enquiry by a civil court. Complainant also filed earlier Complaint No. 13/2010 in respect of earlier policy on the basis of alleged flood. Complainant has claimed amount without any basis whereas thatched shed fell down due to normal wear and tear. Denying any deficiency prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 3 & 4 resisted complaint and admitted financial assistance given to the complainant by way of loan, but denied any deficiency on their part and further submitted that they never insisted complainant to take insurance policy from OP No. 1 & 2 and they have been joined as party without any cause, hence, complaint be dismissed. Learned State Commission after hearing all the parties dismissed complaint against which, this appeal has been filed.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that inspite of proof of cyclone and damage due to heavy rains, learned State Commission committed error in dismissing complaint; hence, appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside and compensation be awarded. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, appeal be dismissed.
4. It is not disputed that complainant obtained insurance coverage from OP No. 1 & 2 for a sum of Rs.37,85,000/- pertaining to shades, irrigation system and other implements. This policy included damage due to storm, cyclone, flood, inundation, etc.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention towards report of Indian Metrological Department which revealed that on 26.11.2008, there was rainfall of 183.5 mm and on 27.11.2008, there was rainfall of 113.4 mm with maximum wind speed of 30 k.m. per hour in that area. No specific report of the village in which complainant's agricultural land was situated has been placed on record. Perusal of aforesaid report reveals that wind speed of maximum 30 k.m. per hour will normally not fall within purview of storm or cyclone and rainfall of 183 mm on one day and 113 mm on next day will normally not cause flood. Only on the basis of statement of Minister published in the paper regarding 'Nisha' Cyclone depicting Villupuram District as affected place, it cannot be presumed that there was any inundation or flood in village of complainant where his agricultural land was situated. No doubt, as per RTI information compensation to 10 persons has been given in Thirupachur Village, but no document has been placed on record to prove that any compensation was given to complainant on account of storm/cyclone/loss of crop of property to the complainant. Learned Counsel for the complainant has drawn my attention towards PWD letter from Chief engineer to Thiru. V. Ramalingam, Sri Mother Mayi Trust in which compensation of Rs.1,000/- has been given to Thiru V. Ramalingam. This compensation pertains to rainfall for the year 2006 and 2008 and has not been given to the complainant. In such circumstances, this document does not help to the complainant.
6. Complainant has filed affidavit of Ravi before State Commission in which he submitted that his land is adjacent to complainant's land and complainant's two sheds fell down due to 'Nisha' cyclone. He has not stated that his crop also suffered due to cyclone/flood. Another witness of the complainant J. Purushothaman submitted that on the request of complainant, he surveyed farm of complainant and during inspection he found that two sheds in the farm were completely damaged by cyclone wind and also found damage in irrigation pipes and electric motors and crops were submerged in flood water and two sheds collapsed due to cyclone. Complainant has not placed survey report prepared by his witness J. Purushothaman, who is a retired officer of Agriculture Department and in absence of that inspection report, no reliance can be placed on his affidavit, particularly, in the light of observations made by the surveyor appointed by OP. Witness Ravi referred earlier has not mentioned in his affidavit damage to drip irrigation pipes and electric motors and in such circumstances, looking to contradictions in their statements both of them cannot be believed.
7. Surveyor appointed by OP mentioned in his report that insured's property is on a well elevated and plain land and the elevation of this land is about 3 ft. above the level of this natural drain way. He further observed that property for which the loss is claimed does not have flood marks or other water damage marks. It was further observed by him that had there been flooding in complainant's field which was 3 ft. above the level; entire village would have been affected. In such circumstances, it cannot be presumed that on account of heavy rains there was flood in complainant's land which caused damage to his irrigation system including pipes, motors and damage to sheds. It was further observed by him that had there been collapse of thatched sheds due to cyclone, there could not have been any growth of vegetation and creepers on the sheds. There is no reason to disbelieve report of surveyor.
8. Complainant claimed loss of crops which were not insured by this policy. Complainant claimed damage to drip irrigation system and electric motors, but they were not produced before surveyor for inspection and in such circumstances, no claim was admissible pertaining to drip irrigation system and electric motors. Complainant claimed Rs.4,80,000/- towards thatched sheds whereas it was insured only for Rs.3,00,000/-. Complainant claimed Rs.12,64,000/- pertaining to shade net of 12,000 sq. mts. insured for Rs. 18,00,000/- and complainant wanted to place reliance on report of Mr. K. Chinnadurai, Retd. AGM, SBI in which he proposed cost of shade net @ Rs.85/- SQM for 14,400 SQM whereas shade net was only 12,000 SQM. In such circumstances, no reliance can be placed on report of Mr. K. Chinnadurai which has not been supported by affidavit of aforesaid person.
9. Complainant impleaded OP No. 3 & 4 without any evidence on record to substantiate that complainant was compelled by OP No. 3 & 4 to take policy from OP No.1 & 2 and unnecessarily dragged OP No. 3 & 4 in litigation. Complainant has not come with clean hands. Learned State Commission while dismissing complaint also observed as under:
"Based on our observations on the type, nature and frequency of insurance claims, we are of the opinion that the Moral Hazard of the Insured is less than satisfactory".
10. In the light of aforesaid discussion, complainant failed to prove any deficiency on the part of OP in repudiating claim and I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and appeal is liable to be dismissed.
11. Consequently, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
......................J K.S. CHAUDHARI PRESIDING MEMBER