State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Manager, United India Insurance Co. ... vs Rakkayee Died, Sivagangai District 4 ... on 5 January, 2024
1
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.
Date of appeal filed:29.05.2019
Present: -THIRU.S. KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
F.A.No.67/2019
FRIDAY, THE 05th DAY OF JANUARY 2024.
The Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Karaikudi,
Sivagangai District.
.......Appellant/Opposite party.
-Vs-
1. Rakayee(Died)
2. Lingam, S/o.Subbaiah,
Narayanadevanpatti,
Manamadurai Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
3. Ukkirapandi, S/o.Subbaiah
Narayanadevanpatti,
Manamadurai Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
4. Thiruppathi, S/o.Subbaiah,
Narayanadevanpatti,
Manamadurai Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
5. Sivasamy, S/o.Subbaiah,
Narayanadevanpatti,
Manamadurai Taluk,
Sivagangai District. ......Respondents/Complainants 1 to 5.
2
Counsel for Appellant/Opposite party : M/s.S.Suresh, Advocate.
Counsel for Respondents/Complainants 1 to 5 : M/s.K.C.Ramalingam, Advocate.
Aggrieved by the opposite party insurance company preferred the appeal
against the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Sivagangai in C.C.No.12/2015, dated 24.04.2019. This appeal coming before me for
final hearing on 30.11.2023 and upon perusing the material records, this
Commission made the following:
ORDER
THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. The Facts:
The complainant alleged that he is an agriculturist and insured his crop with the opposite party under Modified National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (MNAIS) and due to monsoon failure there was no yield from their land and suffered loss Hence he claimed insurance amount and it was not paid by the opposite party insurance company. So alleging deficiency in service and claiming compensation of Rs.100000/- the complaint was filed.
2. The opposite party in the written version alleged that the complainant failed to disclose whether he is a loanee farmer or not a loanee farmer?. The complainant failed to disclose what crop he cultivated and its failure and did not produce any record. Moreover, he failed to add National Agricultural Insurance Company which is a Co-Insurance company as a party to the proceedings and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3
3. Before the District Commission both sides let the evidence and the District Commission finally concluded the opposite party committed deficiency in service and awarded Rs.10000/- with 9.5% interest along with cost of Rs.5000/-.
4. Aggrieved over the dismissal, the appeal has been preferred on the following Grounds that the District Commission failed to note the features of the modified National Agricultural Scheme and insurance can be entertained only upon area approach basis, if any shortfall in yielding is notified then only the opposite party is liable to pay insurance claim as there is no such notification, there is no deficiency in service. Moreover, for the relevant season the average yield for Paddy- II crop was 1917 per/gm and in the absence of such shortfall in yield the insured farmer not entitled to get any compensation.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that as per the modified national agricultural insurance scheme, insurance amount cannot be paid to the insured without notification of shortfall in yield by the government. It is his contention that there is no such notification was issued for the disputed area. As such insurance company did not commit any deficiency in service. On the otherhand the learned counsel for the complainant would submit admittedly the complainant is a farmer and insured the crops, they produced relevant revenue records to show the failure of yield to their land as such they are entitled for insurance amount.
6. Now the Point for consideration is
1. Whether the insurance company committed deficiency in service in not paying the insured amount committed deficiency in service? 4
7. Discussion on the Points:-
Before advent into the facts of these cases, in every consumer complaint it is the duty of the complainant, i. To prove that he is a consumer ii. To prove the opposite party is a service provider and iii. The opposite party committed deficiency in service. Then it is the duty of the opposite party to satisfy that he did not commit any deficiency and to prove his actions are valid, bonafide, and with utmost care. In this case the complainant alleged that he is a farmer and subscriber cum insured to The Modified National Agriculture Scheme in short 'MNAIS'. Particularly in the complaint it is alleged that premium amount was paid. The Ex.A1 premium payment/receipt proved the same. He further alleged that due to monsoon failure and drought there was no yield from his land. To prove crop failure, the adangal Extract issued by the VAO is marked as Ex.A4. It proves that there was no yield from paddy cultivation. A similar complaint and documents filed by other agriculturists of that locality confirmed the natural calamity of that area. The complainant further alleged that he requested the opposite party to pay insurance amount and the opposite party failed to pay the insured amount.
8. The opposite party did not deny payment of premium paid to them. They did not deny that the above premium not related to the season. They even not denied that there was failure of monsoon in that area. So, in the absence of above denials the above facts are deemed to be proved. The only objection of the Insurance company is the complainant did not implead the National Agriculture Insurance Co. 5 India Limited. Since the contract of insurance is only between the complainant and the Insurance company by payment of premium the National Agriculture Insurance Co. India Limited is not a necessary party.
9. Of course in this case, no document is filed to show that any claim was made to the opposite party. But even after filing this application which is a claim for insurance amount, the opposite party failed to come forward or inclined to settle the claim. In such circumstances the findings of the District Commission that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service is appropriate and there is no necessity to interfere with the same. The Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that without any basis, insured amount was ascertained by the District Commission. It is true that the District Commission accepted an unmarked calculation sheet filed by the complainant to decide and determined the above compensation amount. But the above amount is neither exorbitant nor un- proportionate. Further to fix the compensation ,necessary calculation or some basic yard stick is to be evaluated by the commission. So, the award of above compensation seems to be reasonable and acceptable to this commission. Apart from that the complainant is an agriculturist the fact was neither denied nor disputed. Further the claim was not a fraudulent one but seems to be very genuine, and the claim was made by nearly 11 farmers. Except in one or two cases in which the farmers failed to prove before the commission and substantiate claim, others proved and substantiate their claims. In such circumstances the opposite party contested these cases all along for nearly 9 years like some private party who is willing to prolong the issue. The Apex court in many cases deprecated the Insurance company for their too technical approach. Particularly in this case 6 approach of the insurance company against the farmers is unethical and unfair trade practice. Even as per the agreement between the opposite party with National Agriculture Insurance company in which a duty is cast upon the opposite party to inform the National Agricultural Insurance about the claims made to them .Even this duty was not performed by the opposite party.
10. Further The National Consumer Disputes Redressal in Vasant Indrabhan Tambe Etc. vs Agriculture Insurance Company has held after a detailed discussion about the object and procedures as follows, "12. The claim of the complainant was repudiated as per written statement filed by the OP3, which is reproduced here, as under :-
"The Scheme would operate on the basis of Area Approach, i.e., Defined Areas for each crop. The Actual Yield Data of the notified crop for the Defined Area is furnished by the State Government to this Opponent, after conducting the requisite Crop Cutting Experiments in the Notified Area through the State Govt. Machinery. It is submitted that the Complainant's crop may have been insured under the Gangapur Taluka as per the Bank's (OP Nos. 1 & 2) letter dated 18.05.2005. Hereto annexed and marked Ex.-B is the copy of the said letter along with its Annexures. In present case, Defined Area for the Crop Rabi, Onion, is Taluka- Gangapur, wherein no Crop Cutting Experiment was reported by the State Government as per the Yield Data Statement furnished 7 by the State Government to this Opponent. Hereto annexed and marked Ex.-C is the said Actual Yield Data furnished by the State Government to this Opponent. Hence, the present Opponent No.3 are unable to settle the claims of the complainant as per the provisions of the Scheme. It is, therefore, submitted that the present opponents are an unnecessary party to the present complaint, as the claims under the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme are settled on the basis of Yield data furnished by the State Government Machinery and in the instant case, no Crop Cutting Experiments were conducted by the State Government, hence, no claims are payable. It is, therefore, prayed that the complaint ought to be dismissed against the Opponent No.3".13. Again, in the said Scheme, the Clause on 'Loss Assessment in case of Localised Calamities', runs, as follows :-
"Loss Assessment in case of localised calamities:- Loss assessment of localised risks, viz., hailstorm, landslide, cyclone and floods on individual basis shall be experimented in two Districts and shall be extended to other areas in the light of operational experience gained. The insured farmers who experience crop losses due to occurrence of these localised perils shall give immediate notice to the financial institution / notified office of Implementing Agency (IA) and in any case, within 48 hours, along with particulars of crop insured and extent and cause 8 of damage. On receipt of loss intimation, IA shall depute loss assessors to the area for assessment of crop loss. The District Revenue administration will assist IA in assessing the extent of crop loss.
IA shall also develop loss adjusters cadre and for this purpose, few officers will be trained in Loss Assessment procedures. The services of unemployed Agricultural Graduates and retired Agricultural Department Officials may also be utilised for Loss Assessment, after initial training".
14. It may be mentioned here that the petitioners/complainants have based their claims as per the above said chart on the basis of Panchnama. It is apparent that the Agricultural Insurance Co. was terribly amiss in discharge of its duties. They should have compelled the State Government to do the needful. However, negligence, inaction and passivity is discernible on their part as they did not even write a letter to the State Government. In case the State Government was not sending them Crop Cutting data, they should have asked it and compelled it to do the needful. There is dereliction of duty on the part of the Insurance Co. In case if the Agreement was not acceptable to it, it should not have entered into such an Agreement with the State or the Central Government. The report given by Talathi, i.e., the 9 Revenue Officer is quite reliable and no reason was given to discard it."
From the above discussions and judgment it is sufficient for the farmers to rely upon the Revenue records which were not disputed by the Insurance company as not genuine. When a Government official issued a certificate in his official capacity it sufficient and relevant to decide the yield loss. Moreover the farmers cannot be expected any Government data and the Insurance company failed to produce any such data for the relevant period. So, this commission confirmed the order of the District Commission and imposed further cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the Complainants/Respondents by Appellant/Opposite party.
11. In the result,
1. The Appeal is dismissed.
2. The order of the District Commission, Sivagangai in C.C.No.12/2015, dated:24.04.2019 is confirmed.
3. The appellant/opposite party is further directed to pay of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the appeal proceedings to the respondents/ complainants.
Dictated and pronounced in the open court to the Steno-typist transcribed and typed by him corrected by me on this the 05th day of January 2024.
-Sd/-xxx S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1011 12