State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tata Aig General Insurance Co Ltd vs Kamlabai Bhaguji Dhule on 9 February, 2022
1 A 1607 to 1611/2019
Date of filing :29.11.2019
Date of order :09.02.2022
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 1607/19, 1608/19, 1609/19, 1610/19 &
1611/19.
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 104 OF 2019,105/2019, 106/2019,
107/2019 & 108/2019 .
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : JALNA.
Tata AIG General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Through its Manager,
Citi Tower, 2nd floor,
Next to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital,
Dr.S.S.Rao Road, Parel (E),
Mumbai - 400012. ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. IN APPEAL NO.1607/2019
i) Bhavanisingh Jagdishsingh Chauhan,
R/o Jamkhed Tq.Ambad,
Dist.Jalna.
ii) District Agriculture Superintendent,
Near Motibag, Jalna.
iii) Tahasildar, Ambad, Jalna. ...RESPONDENTS
2. IN APPEAL NO.1608/2019
i) Kamlabai Bhaguji Dhule,
R/o Jamkhed Tq.Ambad,
Dist.Jalna.
ii) District Agriculture Superintendent,
Near Motibag, Jalna.
iii) Tahasildar, Ambad, Jalna. ...RESPONDENTS
3. IN APPEAL NO.1609/2019
i) Ganesh Tukaram Jadhav,
R/o Jamkhed Tq.Ambad,
Dist.Jalna.
2 A 1607 to 1611/2019
ii) District Agriculture Superintendent,
Near Motibag, Jalna.
iii) Tahasildar, Ambad, Jalna. ...RESPONDENTS
4. IN APPEAL NO.1610/2019
i) Rekha Dnyaneshwar Jadhav,
R/o Jamkhed Tq.Ambad,
Dist.Jalna.
ii) District Agriculture Superintendent,
Near Motibag, Jalna.
iii) Tahasildar, Ambad, Jalna. ...RESPONDENTS
5. IN APPEAL NO.1611/2019
i) Shaikh Nayum Shaikh Rashid,
R/o Chichkhed , Tq.Ambad,
Dist.Jalna.
ii) District Agriculture Superintendent,
Near Motibag, Jalna.
iii) Tahasildar, Ambad, Jalna. ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM : Smt.S.T.Barne, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial
Member.
Mr.K.M.Lawande, Hon'ble Member.
Present : Adv. Mangesh Mene for appellant,
Adv.Shri.S.N.Gaikwad for respondent No.1.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 09/02/2022) Per Mr.K.M.Lawande, Hon'ble Member.
(1) Being aggrieved by the judgement and orders in consumer complaints
(i)No.104/2019, 105/2019, 106/2019, 107/2019, 108/2019 dated 11/10/2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Jalna 3 A 1607 to 1611/2019 the appellant has filed these appeals. Issue being identical, all the appeals are taken together for adjudication way of order.
(2) In all these 5 appeals, each appellant is respectively the opponent No.3, the respondents number 2 and 3 respectively are the opponent No.1 and 2 and respondent No. 1 respectively is the Complainant in each complaint, before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The appellant and the respondents are herein after referred to as per their status in the complaint. And the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum is herein after paper to as District Forum for the sake of convenience. (3)(i) It is the case of complainant in each consumer complaint which is filed separately that, Government of Maharashtra has made Resolution dated 25/04/2018, for the insurance of the fruit crops , ambia bahaar for the year 2018, under the Prime Minister's Crop Insurance Weather Based Scheme. The scheme covered insurance for sweet orange crop (मोसंबी). The opponent No. 3 is the Insurance Company has to implement the scheme. As per the scheme, (i) if rainfall during the period 15/06/2018 to 15/07/2018 is below 124 mm, the farmers are entitled for 100% compensation at the rate of Rs.38,500/-per hectare and (ii) if there are no rains for consecutive 18 days and more during 16.07.2018 to 15.08.2018, the compensation at Rs.38,500/- is payable per hectare Total compensation of Rs.77,000/- per hectare is provided. The premium of Rs.3850/- per hectare is to be paid. 4 A 1607 to 1611/2019
(ii) It is alleged that the complainants have sweet orange cultivation in their fields and they have also paid the premiums as below and insured their crop for damages against the adverse weather as referred in para(i) above.
Sr.No. Name of Name of Area in Premiums paid by complainant village and hectare complainants gut No.
1. Bhavanisingh Leghewadi, 1.60 Rs.6160/-
Chavan Tq.Ambad.
Gut No.1645
2. Kamlabai Dhule Jamkhed, 0.90 Rs.3080/-
Tq.Ambad.
Gut No.656
3. Ganesh Tukaram Jamkhed, 1.00 Rs.3850/-
Jadhav Tq.Ambad.
Gut No.1046
4. Rekha Jamkhed, 0.50 Rs.1925/-
Dnyaneshwar Tq.Ambad.
Jadhav Gut No.1887
5. Shaikh Nayum Chinchkhed, 1.00 Rs.3850/-
Shaikh Rashid Tq.Ambad.
Gut No.157
(iii)It is alleged that in the concerned Jamkhed revenue circle, the rainfall recorded during the period of 15 June to 15 July is 81 Mms. During the period of 16 July to 15 August 2018 there is dry spell for 24 days consequently. Therefore, it is the contention of the complainants that, they are entitled for 100% compensation as below. However ,the insurance company paid them less amount towards the compensation. The insurance company paid less compensation to complainants as shown below.
5 A 1607 to 1611/2019
Sr.No. Name of complainant Entitlement of Allegation that,
Compensation the Insurance
claimed by company paid
complainants. less
compensation .
1. Bhavanisingh Chavan Rs.1,23,200/- Rs.14,880/-
2. Kamlabai Dhule Rs.61,600/- Rs.7440/-
3. Ganesh Tukaram Jadhav Rs.77,000/- Rs.9300/-
4. Rekha Dnyaneshwar Jadhav Rs.38,500/- Rs.5000/-
5. Shaikh Nayum Shaikh Rs.77,000/- Rs.9300/-
Rashid
(iv) Due to non payment of amount as per entitlement as shown above, it
is alleged that, there is deficiency in service on the part of opponent Insurance Company. Hence, the complainants have filed consumer complaints separately with prayer that the opponent Insurance Company be directed to pay the balance amounts referred in para (iii) with 12% interest to each complainant.
(4) The opponent Insurance Company appeared before the District Forum submitted it's written statement in each complaint and denied the allegations. The insurance company admitted the existence of the scheme for the sweet Orange crop for the period mentioned by the complainants. It is further replied that the rain fall recorded at automatic weather station installed by Skymet Company is 58 Mms in the Revenue Circle Jamkhed during the period 15/6/2018 to 15/07/2018. The complainants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 38,500/- per hectare for the said period and 6 A 1607 to 1611/2019 the complainants are paid at this rate as per area under the crop. It is further replied that during the period of 16/07/2018 to 15/08 2018, consecutive dry spell is for 16 days only from 24/07 /2018 to 08/15/2018. The rainfall of 2.5 mms was also considered as no rainfall/dry day in assessing the dry spell days in view of the provisions in the G.R. The complainants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 29,200/- per hectare and they are also paid at this rate. The complainants are entitled for total compensation as below.
Sr.No. Name of Entitlement Entitlement Entitlement
complainant of of for total
compensation compensation compensation.
for for16.07.2018
15.06.2018 to to 15.08.2018
15.07.2018
1. Bhavanisingh Ra.61,600/- Rs.46,700/- Rs.1,08,300/-
Chavan
2. Kamlabai Dhule Rs.30,800/- Rs.23,360/- Rs.54,160/-
3. Ganesh Tukaram Rs.38,500/- Rs.29,200/- Rs.67,700/-
Jadhav
4. Rekha Dnyaneshwar Rs.19,250/- Rs.14,600/- Rs.38,850/-
Jadhav
5. Shaikh Nayum Rs.38500/- Rs.29,200/- Rs.67,700/-
Shaikh Rashid
The opponent insurance company has also paid the assessed insurance amounts to the complainants. It is also submitted that the complainants could approach to the arbitrator as per clause number 6.6 of the policy condition for their grievance.
7 A 1607 to 1611/2019(5) The District Forum allowed the complaints partly and directed opponent No.3 insurance company to pay the balance amounts of Rs.9300/- per hectare. The District Forum directed opponent insurance company to pay following amounts , as sought by complainants.
Sr.No. Name of complainant Insurance company paid less compensation.
1. Bhavanisingh Chavan Rs.14,880/-
2. Kamlabai Dhule Rs.7440/-
3. Ganesh Tukaram Jadhav Rs.9300/-
4. Rekha Dnyaneshwar Jadhav Rs.4650/-
5. Shaikh Nayum Shaikh Rashid Rs.9300/-
(6) Being aggrieved by the impugned judgement and orders of District Forum, the opponent Insurance Company has filed these appeals on the main ground that the District Forum erred in assessing the total consecutive days of dry spell as 24 days when there are only 16 days from 24/07/2018 to 08/08/2018 during the period of 16.07.2018 to 15.08.2018. The District Forum erred in observing rainfall of 2.75 mms is nearer to 2.5 mms and held that, it is to be considered as no rainfall.
(7) Heard Advocate Mr.Mene for the opponent insurance company and Advocate Mr.Gaikwad for complainant at the stage of admission finally. 8 A 1607 to 1611/2019 (8) From the respective submissions of the parties following points arose for our determination. We have noted and answered them for the reasons to follow.
Sr.No. Point Answer
(i) Whether there is deficiency on
the part of opponent Insurance
Company towards the complainant? ...No.
(ii) Whether there requires interference in
the order of District Forum? ...No.
(iii) What order? ... As per final order.
REASONING
Points 1 ,2 and 3 :
(9) (i) The ld.Advocate Shri. Mene of the opponent Insurance Company argued that insurance company has rightly assessed the compensation entitled for the complainant. He further argued that the scheme is two fold. It provides compensation for two periods, one for 15/06 to 15/07 for less rainfall below the threshold rainfall of 124 mms. The hundred percent compensation at the rate of Rs 38,500/- is provided, where the rainfall is below 124 mms . During the period of 15/06/2018 to 15/07/2018 , the rainfall recorded at complainants revenue circle Jamkhed is 81 mm. Accordingly, all the complainants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.38,500/- per hectare and they are also paid at this rate and there is no dispute for the first period of insurance i.e. 15.06.2018 to 15.07.2018. 9 A 1607 to 1611/2019
(ii) The learned advocate further argued that the scheme further provides compensation in case of consecutive dry spell days 14 to 15 days, 16 to 17 days and 18 and above days at Rs. 17,500/- per hectare , Rs.29,200/- per hectare and Rs.38,500/- per hectare respectively for the dry spells during 16/07/2018 to 15/08/2018. The dry day /No rainfall day is to be assessed for no rain fall or rainfall below 2.5 mms for a day and consecutive dry days are to be considered for assessing dry spell.
(iii) It is submitted that, only 16 consecutive dry days recorded in Skymate data, i.e. from 24/07/2018 to 08/08/2018 , even after considering rainfall of 2.5 mms on 25/07/2018 and 26/07/2018 as no rainfall. Therefore, the complainants are entitled for compensation of Rs.29,200/- per hectare for this period. The opponent insurance company has considered the cases of complainants as per this trigger and awarded them compensation amounts as below.
Sr.No. Name of Entitlement Entitlement Total
complainant of of
compensation compensation
for for16.07.2018
15.06.2018 to to 15.08.2018
15.07.2018
1. Bhavanisingh Chavan Ra.61,600/- Rs.46,700/- Rs.1,08,300/-
2. Kamlabai Dhule Rs.30,800/- Rs.23,360/- Rs.54,160/-
3. Ganesh Tukaram Rs.38,500/- Rs.29,200/- Rs.67,700/-
Jadhav
4. Rekha Dnyaneshwar Rs.19,250/- Rs.14,600/- Rs.38,850/-
Jadhav
5. Shaikh Nayum Rs.38500/- Rs.29,200/- Rs.67,700/-
Shaikh Rashid 10 A 1607 to 1611/2019 It is argued by learned Adv. for opponent Insurance Company that, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opponent.
(iv) it is further argued that, the complainants are wrongly claiming 100% compensation at the rate of 38,500/- per hectare claiming that, in the dry spell there are more than 18 consecutive dry days during 16.07.2018 to 15.08.2018. The District Forum has also failed in assessing the dry spell during the period of 16.07.2018 to 15.08.2018. The District Forum wrongly considered the period under dry spell days to 24 days. The District Forum wrongly equated rainfall of 2.75 mms as nil rainfall on 09.08.2018 and assessed dry spell of 24 consecutive days from 24.07.2018 to 15.08.2018. The rainfall upto 2.5 mms only may be equated considered zero/nil rain fall as per G.R. dated 25.04.2018. And rainfall above 2.5 mms can not be considered as no rainfall, when it is not provided in the G.R. The District Forum has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and wrongly assessed that complainants are entitled for 100% compensation and directed to pay difference at the rate of Rs.9,300/- per hectare for the second period i.e. 15/07/2018 to 15/08/2018. The Advocate for opponent Insurance Company concluded his arguments with prayer to allow these appeals.
(10) The ld. Advocate for the complainant Shri.Gaikwad argued that the District Forum has decided the complaint appreciating the weather data in proper perspective. District Forum has rightly considered that the dry spell period is of 24 days from 24/07/2018 to 15/08/2018. The insurance 11 A 1607 to 1611/2019 company adopted a very technical approach in calculating the dry spell days. There is dispute of consideration of rain fall of a single day, i.e. 09/08/2018, the actual rainfall is recorded 2.75 mms. However, it needs to be considered as zero rainfall, when rainfall below 2.5 mms are considered as zero rainfall. There is no substantial difference between these two figures. Rainfall above 2.5 mm to 2.75 mms for a single day does not make sensible difference for growth or maintenance of the crop. The District Forum has rightly appreciated the evidence and avoided reliance on technicalities in assessment of rainfall. The order of the District Forum is just and proper and deserves confirming.
(11) After the submissions of the parties, we would like to assess for the dry spell and the dry days in the dry spell during the period of 16/07/ 2018 to 15/08/2018. There appears no dispute from 24/07/2018 to 08/08/2018 assessing total consecutive dry spell days as 16 days. There appears Specific dispute in assessing the rainfall dt. 09/08/2018 ,whether it is to be read as no rain fall day or rainy day is a pertinent question. The rain fall recorded is 2.75 mm. on this day. The GR dt. 25/04/2018 provides that the rainfall of 2.5 mm and below it , to be considered as no rain fall. In our opinion, when the G.R. provides that rainfall below 2.5 mms to be considered as nil rainfall. Therefore rainfall above 2.5 mms cannot be equated to zero when it is not provided in the G.R. The G.R. already provided definite scope for liberal consideration for rainfall 2.5 mms and below it to be treated as Nil rainfall. In our opinion the liberal interpretation beyond the relaxations/exemptions provided in G.R. need not 12 A 1607 to 1611/2019 be extended further by Consumer Fora on the ground of technicalities. Therefore the rainfall on day i.e.09/08/2018 requires to be considered as 2.75 mms only and need not to be equated to zero mms or Nil rainfall.
It reveals that the opponent insurance company has rightly assessed the days of dry spell and paid the full compensation at Rs.38,500/- rainfall per hectare considering of 58 mms (below 124 mms) for the first half of the insurance period i.e. 15/06/2018 to 15/07/2018. There appears no dispute between the parties for this period.
However, as discussed above, there is only dry spell for 16 consecutive days from 24.07.2018 to 08.08.2018 as per Skymate report. And therefore, the complainants are entitled for compensation of Rs.29,200/- for this period. There is no dispute that the opponent insurance company has already paid it. However, the District Forum has enhanced the compensation to Rs.38,500/- for the second period of compensation 16/7/2018 to 15/08/2018. As discussed earlier, the District Forum wrongly equated rainfall dt.09.08.2018 of 2.75 mms to zero and annexed further dry days in assessing the dry spell of 24 days. We find it difficult to agree with the assessment dry spell of 24 days assessed by the District Forum during 15.07.2018 to 15.08.2018, which is contrary to the criteria laid down in the resolution.
(12) The District Forum has allowed the complaints holding that there is dry spell of 24 consecutive days. The District Forum has also held that the insurance company adopted very technical approach in awarding the compensation to the complaint farmers. We are not agree with the said 13 A 1607 to 1611/2019 observation in view of the aforesaid discussion and being contrary to the criteria laid down in the resolution. Therefore, there requires intervention in the orders of District Forum. We therefore, answer the points accordingly and pass following order.
ORDER
1. Appeal Nos.1607/19, 1608/19, 1609/19, 1610/19 and 1611/19 are allowed.
2. The C.C.Nos. 104/2019,105/2019, 106/2019, 107/2019 & 108/2019 filed before the District Forum are dismissed.
3. No order as to cost.
Sd/- Sd/- Mr.K.M.Lawande Smt.S.T.Barne, Member Presiding Judicial Member MBM