National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. vs 1. Irawati & Anr. on 7 May, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 783 OF 2008 (Against the order dated 20.11.2007 in Complaint Case No.1552/2006 of the State Commission, Kartanaka) ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. HEAD OFFICE ORIENTAL HOUSE, A-25/27, ASAF ALI ROAD NEW DELHI 110002 AND ALSO DIVISIONAL OFFICE IST FLOOR, N.G. COMPLEX OPP. MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA GULBARGA 585102 ....... Petitioner Versus 1. IRAWATI W/O SAIBANNA HALLI 2. SATISH S/O SAIBANNA HALLI BOTH R/O MANNUR VILLAGE AFZALPUR TALUK GULBARGA - 585102 ... Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate For the Respondent : Already ex-parte Pronounced on : 7th May, 2014 ORDER
REKHA GUPTA Revision Petition No. 783 of 2008 has been filed by the petitioner Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. against the order dated 20.11.2007, passed by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (short, State Commission) in First Appeal No.1552 of 2006.
2. The facts of the present case as per complaint are that the complainants/respondents are the owners of the agricultural lands bearing Sy. Nos.594/2 and 594/1 respectively situated at Mannur village in Afazalpur Taluka. The respondent no.1 is the mother and respondent no.2 is the son. The said lands being very fertile are suitable for growing advanced crops. Hence, respondents with the active assistance of daughter by name Meenaxi A.Agharkhed thought of growing advanced crops especially the Tissue Culture Banana, since the lands are very much suitable for the said crop. In this respect soil and water source reports were obtained from the competent authorities.
3. During 2000-01, respondents have successfully raised/grown Tissue Culture Banana (TCB) for the first time in the said lands.
This Tissue Culture Banana being an advanced variety requires huge investment for purchasing plants, fertilizers and other aid materials and for preparatory of the land to suit the same for the crop. Apart from this, the cost of growing/maintaining of the crop is also very high and hence, respondents have taken required financial assistance from the State Bank of India, Mannur branch by hypothecating the crops as well as by furnishing land security by both the respondents and of Meenaxi A.Agharkhed. Before/while advancing the loan, the said banker had meticulously verified/investigated all the records. Later the said banker had duly visited and investigated the lands, preparations/facilities, assured the viability of the growth of the said crop with the technical assistance from experts.
It is only on the entire satisfaction of the banker, the banker had approved the proposal for assistance and had assisted the respondents. As per the financial assistance norms, the banker on its own as a mandatory obligation ought to have insured the hypothecated crop, but in his case has failed to do so for the reasons best known to it. As per the Govt.s scheme of finance, this mandatory provision shall have to be complied with by the banker. It is also a norm suggested by technical committee that the premium required for insuring crop should be sanctioned to the loanee in addition to the crop loan.
4. Regarding respondents efforts in order to grow the TCB successfully is concerned, respondents have provided water through interlinked pipelines connected to 6 high yielding bore wells (3 in each of the lands). The entire plantation is provided with inter connected sophisticated drip system. The arrangements for providing soluble fertilizers and other materials through drip lines were made by providing ventured system.
Accordingly, the land was made absolutely fit for growing the T.C.Banana.
5. The respondents have come to know through an advertisement of the petitioner insurer about the crop for availing benefits of its insurance plan against various crop perils. Reading the advertisement, daughter of respondent no.1 Smt. Meenaxi A.Agharkhed approached the petitioner to enquire about the crop insurance scheme. On approached and on taking down the technical details, petitioner insisted the said Meenaxi A.Agharkhed to go in for the TCB crop insurance with it. In addition, the petitioner assured Meenaxi A.Agharkhed that the petitioner company will serve with utmost concern especially to the farmers. Hence, having been induced by the tall claims of the petitioners, respondent no.1, Meenaxi A.Agharkhed made up her mind to go in for T.C.Banana crop insurance with the petitioner. Accordingly, on receiving the proposal form from the petitioner, submitted her proposal for insurance to the petitioner during August 2002 by furnishing all the required minute details for insurance. It was also made clear that the sum assured is based on the minimum cost of cultivation (as assessed by District Technical Committee, Gulbarga) as the insurance is opted at least to save the minimum cost of cultivation in case of contingencies. Thereafter, on verifying all the records pertaining to the lands, crops, facilities and even on visiting the land and on observing the crop by its technical staff and on satisfying with all the norms, informed the respondent, Meenaxi A.Agharkhed to pay Rs.60,000/- by its letter dated 30.10.2002 as premium for T.C.Banana ratoon crop spread over 25 acres at the rate of Rs.11,25,000/-. At that time fresh crop of 5 acres was in the budding stage. It is pertinent to note here that after submission of the proposal, petitioner took more than two months time to verify the proposal form from all the angles and it is only thereafter insurer has decided to insure the same for the total sum assured of Rs.11,25,000/-. Though, the premium rate was very high, but still the same was paid in order to breathe safely. Petitioner insurer has accepted the premium during Dec., 2002. At this juncture, respondents had to obtain further assistance for insurance premium payment from the banker as per the guidelines. When respondents felt that further assistance may take some time, the respondents told the banker to pay the premium amount to the petitioner from the undisbursed balance of Rs.60,000/- in order to avoid further delay.
6. In the acceptance letter, petitioner had mentioned that the acceptance is subject to the approval of its higher ups.
Immediately on receipt of this qualified acceptance, Meenaxi A.Agharkhed approached the petitioner and expressed concern over the qualified acceptance. However, petitioner made it clear that this was only a formality that too incase of new areas of insurance like Tissue Culture Banana crop etc.
7. It seems there was correspondence between various offices of the petitioner regarding respondents crop insurance.
At one stage, Meenaxi A.Agharkhed, the daughter of respondent, was informed by the petitioners Delhi Office that its Bangalore Zonal Office had strongly recommended for accepting the proposal of insurance as the same was kept pending for inordinate span of time.
8. Later, the respondent learnt that the petitioner had sent (after long time) the premium amount back to the banker despite the fact that the banker has nothing to do with the contract of insurance as it has not insured the crop and much less there is no privity of contract in between the banker and the insurer. (It is a clear case that the respondents through their Meenaxi A.Agharkhed insured the crop independently). At this juncture, they have been told to accept the policy for Rs.10,000/- per acre instead of Rs.45,000/- per acre. It was apparent from the letter that absolutely there is no coordination between the petitioners officers, since this recent information through the banker was contrary to its Delhi office information.
Accordingly, Meenaxi A.Agharkhed the daughter of respondent no.1 wrote a letter dated 30.4.2003 requesting to issue the policy as per the proposal.
9. The banker had kept the DDs with himself and later it seems had returned it to the petitioner. The premium amount was with the petitioner insurer even to this day. It is further submitted that the petitioner has all along been postponing the issuance of policy for no reason.
10. In the meanwhile the entire insured T.C.Banana crop came was hit by strong summer wind during the second week of June, 2003, and on account of this violent natural calamity the T.C.Banana crop (insured) collapsed in toto resulting in 100% loss. It is submitted that during this period various farmers in the neighborhood have also lost their crops. The news of the natural calamity had been widely covered in the media. It is specifically submitted that Meenaxi A.Agharkhed, the respondent no.1s daughter had later immediately informed to the petitioner the loss of insured crop due to the occurrence of natural calamity. This fact was also informed to the banker. Petitioners officials did not issue endorsement for having received the information and hence, Meenaxi A.Agharkhed the daughter of respondent no.1 was forced to write a letter informing the fact in writing, a day later to avoid unnecessary complications. On account of this natural calamity, respondents entire insured crop has been lost. The lost insured T.C.Banana crop being a ratoon crop was expected to yield very high returns as stability, vigor is naturally more comparing to the first crop in the ratoon crop.
In the first year itself, respondents had grown 500 tons of banana.
11. After information, the respondents asked the petitioner to furnish claim form for lodging the same with the petitioner for compensating the loss. It is pertinent to note here that on getting the information of the loss of insured crop, petitioner wrote a letter dated 14.6.2003 to the banker stating that respondents may please be persuaded to accept the insurance for Rs.10,000/- per acre instead of Rs.45,000/- acre as per the proposal. However, on information petitioner appointed its own panel members to verify the loss occasioned to the insured crop. As per the petitioners officials/ investigators requisition respondents got supplied/furnished the information as requisitioned. In fact, on one occasion the information sent through RPAD to the investigator of the petitioner which was returned as refused.
In the meanwhile, revenue department horticulture department officials of the Government of Karnataka had also conducted the spot inspection to assess the loss caused to the T.C.Banana crop.
12. On receipt of the loss of insured crop information by Meenaxi A.Agharkhed through the letter dated 6.6.2003, petitioner on that very day informed that it has already rejected the proposal for insurance hence, the insurance company was not liable. However, Meenaxi A.Agharkhed, the daughter of respondent no.1 requested the petitioner to kindly consider all the factual/legal aspects concerning the insurance contract and to come to the right conclusion.
13. Later on non-hearing from the petitioner, respondents strongly protested for its inaction in not considering their request in the right perspective. It is under these pressures, petitioner disclosed that it is not liable to pay the claim as there is no privity in between. The rejection/repudiation of the respondents claim as a matter of fact, the non-issuance of the claim form itself amounts to per se deficiency in service as defined u/s 2 (1) (g) of the CP Act, 1986 since the rejection is wholly unjust improper and illegal as petitioner has not at all wholly rejected the acceptance, but systematically kept it under the consideration mostly favorable for almost 8 months (for insuring the crop for one year). Hence, keeping the premium for more than half of the insurance period without issuing the policy giving an impression that the policy will be issued and later rejecting the claim on the ground that there is not privity, will also definitely amounts to deficiency in service as defined u/s (2) (1) (g) of the CP Act, 1986. It is submitted that respondent by its letter dated 17.6.2003 has filed away the respondents claim falsely saying that it does not merit any action to be taken at its end.
14. In the said letter, petitioner has falsely stated that it has made clear that it will assume the risk only after receiving the approval of the competent authority and accordingly, the amount remitted by SBI was kept under deposit vide receipt dated 23.12.2002.
Petitioner has further falsely averred in that letter that on being advised by its regional office to refund the deposit amount as the proposal was not acceptable expediently refunded the amount of Rs.60,000/- held in the deposit to SBI branch vide 2 DDs for Rs.30,000/- each. It is further falsely averred in the letter that Meenaxi A.Agharkhed is aware of all these developments. It is specifically denied that insurer had never communicated the advices of assuming risk of the plantation, as also that the amount held in deposit was already refunded and hence, the question of issuing the policy does not arise at all etc. All these averments are just contrary to the correspondence/communications between the parties. Hence, it is quite clear that the petitioner has acted unscrupulously while dealing with the innocent consumers.
15. The petitioner if it was not willing to insure the crop nothing prevented it to straight away return the premium to the respondents as the insurance contract is independent of the banker. As bonafide respondents never anticipated the possibility of rejecting the proposal for insurance throughout the period. On the contrary, the petitioner has given an impression that it has accepted the proposal and however, the policy will be issued soon on getting some minor clarification from the higher authority. Accordingly, even to this day, the premium amount is lying with the petitioner itself.
Hence, it is mischievous and absurd to contend that the insurer is not liable etc. These lapses of the insurer certainly constitute unfair trade practice also as defined u/s 2 (1) (r) of the Act. Alternatively, it is submitted that if the petitioner was not willing to accept the insurance at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per acre as proposed, then nothing prevented it to accept the premium at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per acre rate. Then, the respondents would have thought of insuring the crop elsewhere, or petitioner ought to have directed the respondents to pay premium required to be paid @ Rs.10,000/- per acre sum assured. If it had any reservations then also petitioner ought to have informed the insured that the premium received at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per acre sum assured for 25 acres banana plantation is kept under abeyance till approval. But, however, insurer without doing observing/taking any steps to secure the interest of the consumer has acted recklessly so as to the per se detriment of the innocent consumers. These lapses are also constitutes deficiency as well as unfair trade practice by the petitioner.
16. The petitioner Company has corresponded within its circles for accepting the proposal and at no point of time rejecting it.
On one occasion, respondents was misguided by petitioner regarding accepting the insurance for Rs.10,000/- sum assured per acre. However, the said acceptance was immediately withdrawn. It is pertinent to note here that the premium amount received in the month of Dec., 2002 is for issuance of policy for the sum assured of Rs.11.25 lakhs i.e. @ 45,000/- per acre for 25 acres.
This amount has been paid at the instance of the petitioner and the same had not been remitted back by the insurer.
The inordinate delay either in accepting or rejecting the proposal also constitutes an actionable wrong under COPRA 86.
17. Receiving the premium from the insured and keeping it with the company for an inordinate period giving an impression that the issuance of policy is under active consideration and subsequently when it comes to claim, rejecting the claim by posing the reason that there is no insurance, is also an unfair trade practice and equally constitutes deficiency on the part of the insurer. In this case also, the petitioner has acted in a callous negligent manner in handling the respondents insurance.
18. The petitioner/opposite party in their written statement before the District Forum denied all the facts contained in para 5 of the complaint and stated as follows;
That contents of para no.5 of the complaint are false, baseless, hence denied in toto. It is denied that the complainants have come to know through an advertisement of the respondent insurer about the crop for availing benefits of its insurance plan against various crop perils. It is denied that on the basis of the Glancing advertisement, daughter of the complainant no.1, Smt. Meenaxi A.Agharkhed approached the respondent to enquire about the crop insurance scheme. It is denied that on approached and on taking down the technical details, respondent vehemently insisted the said Meenaxi A.Agharkhed to go in for the TCB crop insurance with it, in addition, the respondent assured the said Meenaxi A.Agharkhed that the respondent company will serve with utmost concern especially to the farmers, hence, having been induced by tall claims of the respondent the complainant no.1 Meenaxi A.Agharkhed made up her mind to go in for TCB crop insurance with respondent. It is denied that on receiving the proposal form from the respondent, submitted her proposal for insurance to the respondent during August, 2002 by furnishing all the required minute details for insurance. It is denied that the respondent made clear that the sum assured is based on the minimum cost of cultivation as the insurance is opted at least to save the minimum cost of cultivation in case of contingencies. It is denied that the respondent after verifying all records pertaining to the lands, crops, facilities and even vesting the land and on observing the crop by its technical staff and on satisfying with all the norms, informed the complainants (Meenaxi A.Agharkhed) to pay Rs.60,000/- by its letter dated 30.10.2002 as a deposit premium for TCB ratoon crop spread over 25 acres at the rate of Rs.11,25,000/-. It is denied that the respondent took more than two months time to verify the proposal form from all the angles and its is only thereafter, insurer has decided to insure the same for the total sum assured of Rs.11,25,000/-. It is denied that the respondent insurer has accepted the deposit premium during Dec., 2002, and at that juncture, the complaints had to obtain further assistance for insurance deposit premium payment from the banker as per the guidelines. It is denied that the complainants told to the banker to pay the deposit premium amount to the respondent from the undisbursed balance of Rs.60,000/- to the respondent in order to avoid further delay.
18. District Forum vide their letter dated 25.5.2006 allowed the complaint and passed the following order ;
Complaint is partly allowed. Complainants are entitled to recover a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of this complaint till the date of realization from opposite party. Complainants are also entitled to recover a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and costs of this proceedings from opposite party. Further, opposite party is directed to pay the said amount within one month from the date of this order.
19. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission vide their order dated 20.11.2007 while allowing the appeal in part observed as follows ;
Admittedly, the insurance company has not issued the policy accepting the proposal form filed by the complainant even though it received the amount of Rs.60,000/-. If that is so, there was no concluded contract so as to pay on the basis of the loss of crop. But at the same time, the complainant is entitled for compensation because of the negligence/lapses on the part of the opposite party in not considering the proposal form within a reasonable time. When the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- in the month of December, 2002 along with the proposal form necessarily the opposite party ought to have considered the same within the reasonable time.
In the instant case for about two months, no decision was taken by the opposite party. But ultimately on 13.3.2003 the insurance company returned the sum of Rs.60,000/- under two demand drafts to the SBI, Mannur Branch. This unreasonable delay on the part of the opposite party in not taking a decision on the proposal form filed by the complainant itself amounts to deficiency in service because of its lapses.
Therefore, we are of the view awarding a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation would meet the ends of justice in view of the fact that even if the insurance company had taken immediate steps and issued the policy on receipt of the premium, in all probability, the complainant could have got the compensation on the basis of the actual loss suffered by him.
20. State Commission thereafter, modified the order of the District Forum as under ;
Appeal is allowed in part.
The appellant/opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.
The appellant is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards costs and mental agony suffered by the complainant.
The appellant in this appeal has deposited a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- before this Commission.
Hence, the office is directed to transfer the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest as ordered above to the District Forum to enable the District Forum to pay the amount to the complainant as per the order passed after due notice to the complainant.
21. Hence, the revision petition.
22. The main grounds for the revision petition are that ;
Because Honble State Commission has failed to consider the fact that the provisional premium received by the insurance company was subject to approval from the Competent Authority of the petitioner company. It is further submitted here that in its letter dated 30.10.2002, the insurance company intimated to the GPA of the respondents that the risk will be assumed only on receipt of approval from the Competent Authority of the petitioner company at Bangalore. It is further submitted here that the insurance company refunded the provisional premium of Rs.60,000/- to the banker of respondents due to advise of non-approval of the insurance risk from the competent authority of the petitioner company vide letter dated 23.1.2003. As such the order is liable to be set aside.
Because the Honble State Commission has failed to consider the fact that the insurance company has already refunded the provision insurance premium vide cheque for Rs.60,000/- in favour of the respondents as per the letter dated 24.1.2003 to the banker of the respondents, who issued the provisional premium cheque of Rs.60,000/- in favour of the insurance company. It is submitted here that the said banker vide its letter dated 21.12.2002 also mentioned that in case of release of any amount, it may be directly forwarded to the Bank. When the approval on the proposal form was not received by the insurance company, the insurance company prepared a cheque of Rs.60,000/- in the name of GPA of respondents and forwarded to the banker of the respondents vide letter dated 21.1.2003 dispatched on 24.1.2003. As such it is liable to be set aside.
Because the Honble State Commission wrongly reached to the conclusion that the amount of Rs.60,000/- i.e. provisional insurance premium was refunded by the insurance company only on 13.3.2003. However, it is submitted here that the provisional insurance premium was refunded to the bank first time on 24.1.2003 by the petitioner insurance company. As such, the order is liable to be set aside.
Because while holding the deficiency on the part of the insurance company, the State Commission did not rightly rely upon the documents and evidence available on the record. However, it is submitted here that the insurance company had already filed the letter issued by the State Bank of India regarding acceptance of refunded provisional insurance premium amount vide letter dated 4.2.2003 as such the order is liable to be set aside.
Because the Honble State Commission failed to consider the fact that the insurance company rejected the proposal form much prior from the receipt of the intimation of loss i.e. 16.6.2003 and accordingly refunded the provisional insurance premium in favour of respondent in January, 2003 because the proposal form was not accepted by the Competent Authority of petitioner insurance company, as such the order is liable to be set aside.
Because the amount awarded by the Honble State Commission is on the higher side because there was no privity of the contract between the insurance company and the respondents/their GPA. It is submitted here that the Honble State Commission had clearly observed and held that there was no insurance contract between the parties, as such the order is liable to be modified.
Because the Honble State Commission has awarded the interest @ 6% from the date of filing the complaint till its realization. However, it is submitted here that the subject provisional premium of Rs.60,000/- was refunded within 35 days from the receipt of the provision insurance premium which was conditionally accepted by the insurance company. As such the order is liable to be modified.
23. It is an admitted fact that the respondents had submitted their proposal form for insurance in August, 2002. After considering the same, petitioner vide their letter dated 13.10.2002, petitioner/Divisional Officer had written letter to GPA of the respondents that they were arranging for inspection of the farm by one of their veterinary doctors and requesting to remit the provisional premium of Rs.60,000/- stating that they were referring proposal to the Regional Office for acceptance. This certainly conveyed that the proposal has been approved by the divisional office and hence, forwarded to higher authority for acceptance.
The respondents had requested their Bank, SBI, Mannur to remit the amount of Rs.60,000/- on their behalf from their account. The petitioner has made much of one line in the letter of the Bank dated 21.12.2002 forwarding the DD for Rs.60,000/- which reads as incase of release of any amount, it may be directly forwarded to the Bank. It may be noted here that this line pertains to any release of any amount and not refund.
Thereafter, the Bank vide letter dated 21.1.2003 to the Divisional Office of the petitioner returned the cheque no.0324574 dated 22.1.2003 for Rs.60,000/- as the name of the payee has been wrongly mentioned. The forwarded letter of the Bank clearly stated as follows ;
4.2.2003 Dear Sir, Banana Plantation Return of Insurance Premium Cheque No.0324574 dated 22.1.2003 With reference to your letter dated 21.1.2003. We acknowledge the receipt of cheque No.0324574 dated 22.1.2003 for Rs.60,000/- However, we are returning the cheque No.0324574 dated 22.1.2003 for Rs.60,000/- as the name of the payee is wrongly mentioned as Smt.M.A.Agarkhad instead of Smt. Iravati Halli and Sri Satish S.Halli. Kindly make suitable alterations in the cheque. A copy of one letter is dated 21.12.2002 is also enclosed for your personal. Since, the insurance is at the option of the borrower. Kindly forward the cheque to Meenaxi A.Agharkhed (PA holder) drawn as SBI Mannurs ..
Yours faithfully, For State Bank of India Branch Manager, Mannur
24. Thereafter, two demand drafts for Rs.30,000/- in the name of Irawati Halli and Sri Satish S.Halli were sent vide letter dated 4.2.2003 to the Branch Manager, SBI, Mannur instead of to Meenaxi A.Agharkhed. No letter has been placed on record to state as to why Rs.60,000/- was being refunded to the respondents. Thereafter, on 30.5.2003, Mrs. Meenaxi A.Agharkhed wrote a letter to the Divisional Manager of the petitioner Company stating that ;
From :
Meenaxi A.Agharkhed W/o Anandrao Agharkhed Plot No.267, Mahaveer Nagar, Gulbarga Dated : 30.5.2003 To, The Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
M.G. Complex, Ist floor, Opp. Mini Vidhan Soudha, Gulbarga 582102 Sub : Return of premium DD in respect of Insurance of Tissue Culture Banana Respected Sir, I am herewith returning the original demand drafts bearing No.606185 for Rs.30,000/- and DD bearing No.606186 for Rs.30,000/- which has been wrongly sent by your office. I request you to receive demand drafts and issue the policy as per the proposal submitted by me from the date of proposal. Kindly acknowledge the receipt of the same.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully (Meenaxi A.Agharkhed R/o Gulbarga
25. When nothing was heard from the Divisional Office of the petitioner Company, they requested for pay out for insurance company which was sent vide letter dated 16.6.2003 sent by Meenaxi A.Agharkhed, stated as under ;
From :
Meenaxi A.Agharkhed W/o Anandrao Agharkhed Plot No.267, Mahaveer Nagar, Gulbarga 585102 Dated : 16.6.2003 To, The Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
M.G. Complex, Ist floor, Opp. Mini Vidhan Soudha, Gulbarga 582102 Respected Sir, I undersigned Smt. Meenaxi Anandrao Agarkhed R/o Mahaveer Nagar, Gulbarga the P.A.Holder of Smt. Veeravathi Saibanna Halli and Sri Satish Saibanna Halli both residents of Mannur Tq.Afzalpur, regret to bring it to your notice that our insured 25 acre Banana Crop has been destroyed in toto, due to storm and other natural calamities struck during last 2-3 days. Hence, I request you to kindly arrange to give me a claim form and do the needful to compensate the loss at least to the tune of the sum assured amount of Rs.11.25 lakhs.
Sir, I have yet not received the Banana Crop insurance policy copy despite several requests and reminders. Please send the policy copy also at the earliest.
This is for your information.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully (Meenaxi A.Agharkhed) R/o Gulbarga
26. On record, the first letter stating that perhaps the insurance company has agreed to give insurance that was sent vide letter dated 16.6.2003. In the letter addressed to M.A.Agarkhed, stated as follows ;
Dept. : RID 17.6.2003 To, Smt. Meenaxi A.Agharkhed No.267, Mahaveer Nagar, Gulbarga 585102 Madam, Re : Loss of Banana Crop due to storming and other Natural Calamity We are in receipt of your letter dated 16.6.2003.
The following is our reply :
1.
We made it abundantly clear to you vide our letter dated 30.10.2002 itself that we will be assuming the risk only after receiving the approval of our competent authority at our Regional Office, Bangalore and accordingly, the amount remitted by SBI, Mannur Branch was kept under deposit vide our receipt dated 23.12.2002.
2. And on being advised by our Regional Office to refund the deposit amount as the proposal was not acceptable expediently, we refunded the amount of Rs.60,000/- held in deposit to SBI, Mannur Branch vide two DDs bearing Nos.606185 & 606186 for Rs.30,000/- each. You are very well aware of all these developments.
Since, we have never communicated our advices of assuming the risk of Banana plantation insurance, as also that the amount held in deposit was already refunded, the question of our issuing the policy does not arise at all.
Under the above circumstances your letter dated 16.6.2003 is filed away as it does not merit any action to be taken at our end.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully, (Divisional Manager)
27. Petitioner/opposite party in its written statement admitted that the demand drafts sent vide order dated 4.6.2003 were returned to the petitioner on the ground that the respondents had refused to receive the same.
28. Counsel for petitioner failed to explain the provision, guidelines or scheme under which they had asked for provisional premium of Rs.60,000/-. They also failed to explain how the money was kept in deposit till Jan., 2003. Counsel for petitioner also failed to explain as to why the amount was returned to the Bank and not to the respondents who had asked for the insurance. It was not the Bank who was taking insurance. They had merely forward the premium amount on behalf of the respondent. Counsel for petitioner could show no evidence that the respondents had been informed at any point of time that their proposal for insurance had not been accepted and the reasons thereof. While there was an implicit admission that it had been accepted at the divisional office level, they, thereafter, failed to convey the rejection of the proposal by the higher authorities and the reasons thereof. The respondents, hence, cannot be faulted for believing that they had not received the insurance policy due to delay in processing of the proposal by the petitioner Company. Had they been informed about the rejection of the proposal they could have made alternative arrangements towards insuring their crop. On the other hand, it is apparent from the documents on record that the petitioner company indulged in unfair trade practice and committed grave deficiency in service in not only asking for the provisional premium but keeping the amount for many months and thereafter, casually returning the same without interest to the Bank and without informing the respondents about the fate of the proposal for insurance.
29. Honble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed ;
Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums.
The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.
30. Thus, no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of Act. Since, State Commission has given detailed and reasoned order which does not call for any interference nor it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Thus, present petition is hereby, dismissed with cost of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only).
31. Petitioner is directed to pay the cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to each of the respondents by way of demand draft in their names and remaining cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to be deposited, by way of demand draft in the name of Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission, within four weeks from today.
In case, petitioner fails to deposit the said cost within the prescribed period, then it shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.
32. List on 4.7.2014 for compliance.
..J (V.B. GUPTA) (PRESIDING MEMBER) ....
(REKHA GUPTA) (MEMBER) Sonia/