State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Agriculture Insurance Company Of India ... vs Ratan Singh Arya on 22 July, 2023
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 238 / 2019
Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited
through its Regional Manager, Regional Office
56, Rajpur Road (Behind Hotel Classic)
Dehradun - 248001, Uttarakhand
...... Appellant / Opposite Party No. 1
Versus
Sh. Anil Singh Rawat S/o Sh. Satyadev Singh Rawat
R/o Bangai, Bhogpur, Block Doiwala
District Dehradun
...... Respondent / Complainant
Smt. Anjali Gusain, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Chetan Jain, Learned Counsel for Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 239 / 2019
Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited
through its Regional Manager, Regional Office
56, Rajpur Road (Behind Hotel Classic)
Dehradun - 248001, Uttarakhand
...... Appellant / Opposite Party No. 1
Versus
Sh. Satyadev Singh Rawat S/o late Darshan Singh Rawat
R/o Bangai, Bhogpur, Block Doiwala
District Dehradun
...... Respondent / Complainant
Smt. Anjali Gusain, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Chetan Jain, Learned Counsel for Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 240 / 2019
Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited
through its Regional Manager, Regional Office
56, Rajpur Road (Behind Hotel Classic)
Dehradun - 248001, Uttarakhand
...... Appellant / Opposite Party No. 1
Versus
Sh. Krishan Singh Rawat S/o Sh. Satyadev Singh Rawat
R/o Bangai, Bhogpur, Block Doiwala
District Dehradun
...... Respondent / Complainant
Smt. Anjali Gusain, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Chetan Jain, Learned Counsel for Respondent
2
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 241 / 2019
Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited
through its Regional Manager, Regional Office
56, Rajpur Road (Behind Hotel Classic)
Dehradun - 248001, Uttarakhand
...... Appellant / Opposite Party No. 1
Versus
Sh. Phool Singh S/o Sh. Satyadev Singh
R/o Bangai, Bhogpur, Block Doiwala
District Dehradun
...... Respondent / Complainant
Smt. Anjali Gusain, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Chetan Jain, Learned Counsel for Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 242 / 2019
Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited
through its Regional Manager, Regional Office
56, Rajpur Road (Behind Hotel Classic)
Dehradun - 248001, Uttarakhand
...... Appellant / Opposite Party No. 1
Versus
Sh. Ratan Singh Arya S/o late Khushi Ram
R/o Bangai, Bhogpur, Block Doiwala
District Dehradun
...... Respondent / Complainant
Smt. Anjali Gusain, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Chetan Jain, Learned Counsel for Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 243 / 2019
Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited
through its Regional Manager, Regional Office
56, Rajpur Road (Behind Hotel Classic)
Dehradun - 248001, Uttarakhand
...... Appellant / Opposite Party No. 1
Versus
Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Negi S/o late Virendra Singh Negi
R/o Village Bhogpur
District Dehradun
...... Respondent / Complainant
Smt. Anjali Gusain, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Chetan Jain, Learned Counsel for Respondent
3
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 244 / 2019
Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited
through its Regional Manager, Regional Office
56, Rajpur Road (Behind Hotel Classic)
Dehradun - 248001, Uttarakhand
...... Appellant / Opposite Party No. 1
Versus
Sh. Devendra Singh S/o late Ranjeet Singh
R/o Bangai, Bhogpur, Block Doiwala
District Dehradun
...... Respondent / Complainant
Smt. Anjali Gusain, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Chetan Jain, Learned Counsel for Respondent
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 245 / 2019
Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited
through its Regional Manager, Regional Office
56, Rajpur Road (Behind Hotel Classic)
Dehradun - 248001, Uttarakhand
...... Appellant / Opposite Party No. 1
Versus
Sh. Ravi Bhushan Negi S/o late Narpal Singh Rawat
R/o Village Bhogpur
District Dehradun
...... Respondent / Complainant
Smt. Anjali Gusain, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Chetan Jain, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President
Mr. Udai Singh Tolia, Member-II
Dated: 22/07/2023
ORDER
(Per: Justice D.S. Tripathi, President):
These eight appeals, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, have been preferred against the common 4 impugned judgment and order dated 20.05.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (in short "The District Commission") in eight different consumer complaints instituted by the respective complainants, who have been impleaded as respondents in this bunch of appeals. By way of impugned judgment and order, the consumer complaints were allowed and the award, as mentioned in the table given below, was passed in the consumer complaints in favour of the complainants as against the appellant - insurance company, who was impleaded as opposite party No. 1 in the consumer complaints filed before the District Commission:
Sl. No. Consumer Title of Parties Award Amount
Complaint No.
1. 166 of 2014 Sh. Krishan Singh Rawat Vs. Rs. 50,000/- towards claim
Manager, Agriculture Insurance amount; Rs. 10,000/- towards
Corporation of India Limited and mental agony and Rs. 5,000/-
another towards costs 2. 167 of 2014 Sh. Phool Singh Vs. Manager, Rs. 70,000/- towards claim
Agriculture Insurance Corporation amount; Rs. 10,000/- towards of India Limited and another mental agony and Rs. 5,000/-
towards costs
3. 168 of 2014 Sh. Anil Singh Rawat Vs. Manager, Rs. 50,000/- towards claim Agriculture Insurance Corporation amount; Rs. 10,000/- towards of India Limited and another mental agony and Rs. 5,000/-
towards costs
4. 169 of 2014 Sh. Satyadev Singh Rawat Vs. Rs. 2,50,000/- towards claim Manager, Agriculture Insurance amount; Rs. 10,000/- towards Corporation of India Limited and mental agony and Rs. 5,000/-
another towards costs
5
5. 170 of 2014 Sh. Ratan Singh Arya Vs. Manager, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards claim
Agriculture Insurance Corporation amount; Rs. 10,000/- towards of India Limited and another mental agony and Rs. 5,000/-
towards costs
6. 171 of 2014 Sh. Ravi Bhushan Negi Vs. Rs. 50,000/- towards claim Manager, Agriculture Insurance amount; Rs. 10,000/- towards Corporation of India Limited and mental agony and Rs. 5,000/-
another towards costs
7. 172 of 2014 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Negi Vs. Rs. 25,000/- towards claim
Manager, Agriculture Insurance amount; Rs. 10,000/- towards
Corporation of India Limited and mental agony and Rs. 5,000/-
another towards costs
8. 173 of 2014 Sh. Devendra Singh Vs. Manager, Rs. 30,000/- towards claim
Agriculture Insurance Corporation amount; Rs. 10,000/- towards of India Limited and another mental agony and Rs. 5,000/-
towards costs
2. The aforesaid amount was directed to be paid within a period of 30 days', failing which the respective complainants were also held entitled to interest @9% p.a. on the aforesaid award amount, payable from the date of institution of the consumer complaint till payment. Principal Secretary, Horticulture, Govt. of Uttarakhand, Dehradun, who was impleaded as opposite party No. 2 in the consumer complaint, was absolved of the liability to pay any amount to the complainants. Thus, the said opposite party of the consumer complaint, has rightly not been arrayed as party to the present appeals.
3. Since these bunch of appeals arise out of common impugned judgment and order, hence the appeals are taken together for disposal and are decided by this common judgment and order. The issue involved in all the appeals is identical in nature. Therefore, for the 6 sake of convenience, we are taking First Appeal No. 238 of 2019; Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited Vs. Sh. Anil Singh Rawat, as a leading case. This is also for the reason that arguments were advanced by learned counsel for the parties in the said appeal and upon conclusion of arguments, it was submitted that the issue involved in other seven appeals, is the same, hence there in no need to advance separate arguments in those seven appeals.
4. Facts giving rise to the appeal (First Appeal No. 238 of 2019; Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited Vs. Sh. Anil Singh Rawat), in brief, are that the respondent - complainant is a farmer by profession and in order to maintain his family, used to cultivate vegetables, fruits etc. In the month of January, 2013, the officials of Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited - appellant came in the village and informed about the Scheme floated by the Govt. of Uttarakhand and also that the insurance company has been authorised to act as an implementing agency of the Scheme by the Government of Uttarakhand. The farmer opting for the Scheme, was required to pay premium @12% of the sum insured. Out of the said 12% premium, 6% premium was to be paid by the farmer opting for the Scheme and the remaining 6% premium was to be borne by the State Government and Central Government on 50:50 basis. The officials of the insurance company also told that for the period from 01.01.2013 to 30.06.2013, in the event of loss to the complainant due to damage of Litchi crop on account of minimum temperature; maximum temperature; low relative humidity; rainfall; high wind speed, the insurance company will indemnify the loss occasioned. Influenced by the Scheme, the complainant got 50 trees of Litchi insured for sum of Rs. 50,000/- upon payment of premium of Rs. 3,000/-. In the month of June, 2013, on account of natural calamity, the Litchi trees got damaged due to excess rainfall; high wind speed and other changes in 7 weather condition. The intimation of loss was given to the insurance company, but inspite of repeated visits to the office of the insurance company, the claim was not settled. After issuing legal notice to the insurance company, the consumer complaint was set in motion by the complainant before the District Commission.
5. The insurance company filed written statement before the District Commission, wherein it was pleaded that the consumer complaint comes under the purview of Pilot Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme (WBCIS). The Scheme aims to mitigate hardship of farmers against likelihood of financial loss on account of anticipated loss of crops resulting from incidence of adverse conditions of weather parameters. Weather parameters (Low Temperature, High Wind Speed, High Temperature and Low Relative Humidity and Deficit Rainfall) have clearly been mentioned in the Term Sheets, as mentioned in point No. (v) on page No. 4 of the G.O. issued by the Govt. of Uttarakhand. Weather parameters covered along with their period are clearly mentioned in the Term Sheet notified as Annexure - I of the G.O. issued by the Govt. of Uttarakhand. In point No. (viii) on page No. 5 of the G.O. issued by the Govt. of Uttarakhand, it is clearly mentioned that the claim will be computed on the basis of weather data and term sheet and actual loss of yield, flood, drought declared by any agency or Govt., will not form basis of claim. Claim is payable by the insurance company only if the defined triggers are hit, irrespective of the extent of actual loss in the yield. The insurance company has to work strictly within the guidelines of WBCIS and in no event, can go beyond the Scheme. Legal notice issued by the complainant was duly replied by the insurance company, stating therein that no claim is payable by the insurance company. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company.
86. After giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, the above-mentioned consumer complaints have been decided by learned District Commission vide impugned judgment and order dated 20.05.2019, thereby allowing the same in the above terms. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant - insurance company has preferred the present appeals.
7. We have heard rival arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The stand of the appellant - insurance company is that payout under the insurance policy, would be strictly as per the scheme coverage and the payout structure applicable for the location / crop. Learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that weather data recorded at the respective Reference Weather Station (RWS) / Backup Weather Station (BWS) shall be the only basis of claim payout, as is duly mentioned in condition No. 6 of the cover note of Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme (WBCIS) - 'Micro Insurance Product' issued by the insurance company in favour of the complainant, copy whereof is Paper No. 29 on record. Learned counsel also submitted that the loss has taken place in the month of June, 2013 due to excess rainfall; high wind speed and other changes in weather condition, as is mentioned in para 6 of the consumer complaint. In respect of the period from 16.04.2013 to 15.06.2013, temperature and average relative humidity, maximum consecutive days fulfilling the criteria, were 3 days', hence no claim was payable. Similarly, in respect of the period from 01.05.2013 to 30.06.2013, the actual daily rainfall recorded at RWS during the said period was 1110.8 mm, thus no claim was payable. Likewise, for the period from 01.05.2013 to 30.06.2013, the maximum wind speed during this 9 period did not exceed the trigger, making it a case of no claim. It was, thus, rightly observed by the insurance company that no payout / claim is payable for Litchi crop cultivated in Notified Area - Doiwala, Dehradun and insured under WBCIS during Rabi 2012-13 to the insured farmers including the complainant. In support of her aforesaid submission, learned counsel drew attention to Paper No. 32 on record. It was further submitted that under the insurance policy, there was no coverage as against excess rainfall. Hence, in such circumstances, the claim was not payable by the insurance company and was rightly denied as such.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent / complainant submitted that Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, New Delhi vide G.O. No. 13011/01/2008-Credit II dated 07.03.2012, copy whereof is Paper Nos. 15 to 18, has issued administrative instructions regarding implementation of Pilot Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme (WBCIS) during 2012-13 (Kharif 2012 and Rabi 2012-13) and in para 2(i) of the said G.O., it was specifically mentioned that the scheme shall compensate anticipated losses in crop yield resulting from adverse rainfall incidence such as deficit rainfall or excess rainfall. It was also submitted that in para 2(viii) of the said G.O., it was pointed out that the insurance companies will work out their products / schemes according to Operational Guidelines of the scheme to be issued by Govt. of India. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of the instructions issued by Govt. of India, loss as against excess rainfall is to be treated as covered under the insurance policy.
10. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions raised before us, we find force in the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant - insurance company. The reason being that, as is admitted to both the parties, the insurance 10 policy in question did not provide coverage against excess rainfall. It is true that vide G.O. dated 07.03.2012 referred above, the Govt. of India has issued instructions for compensating anticipated losses resulting from deficit rainfall or excess rainfall, but the insurance policy does not provide any such coverage to the insured persons. This apart, the loss has occurred in the month of June, 2013. So far as coverage against high temperature and low relative humidity; deficit rainfall and high wind speed during the relevant period is concerned, none of the above perils fulfilled the criteria fixed for claim payout. The insurance policy specifically states that, "Weather data recorded at the respective Reference Weather Station (RWS) / Backup Weather Station (BWS) shall be the only basis of claim payout". The readings at RWS were not registered to touch or fall into specified trigger levels in relation to Litchi crop cultivated in Notified Area - Doiwala, Dehradun. It would not be out of place to mention here that rainfall for two days' can not be the sole factor for loss assessment, until and unless the triggers are hit, as specifically mentioned in the Term Sheet notified under the Scheme. In this context, we take judicial notice of the fact that in the month of June, 2013, natural calamity had hit Kedarnath Region of the State of Uttarakhand and no natural calamity took place in Dehradun Region or nearby places, i.e., Doiwala Block.
11. In addition to above, point No. 3(viii) of G.O. No. 264/XVI- 1/13/9(39)/130/03 dated 30.01.2013 issued by Principal Secretary, Horticulture, Govt. of Uttarakhand, in furtherance of G.O. dated 07.03.2012 issued by Govt. of India, clearly makes mention of the fact that claim will be computed on the basis of weather data and term sheet. In the case in hand, as is stated above, the readings at RWS were not registered to touch or fall into specified trigger levels and in view of the specific condition laid down in the G.O., the flood declared by any agency or government will not be the basis of claim.
1112. So far as the issue of non-coverage of risk against excess rainfall in the insurance policy is concerned, we do not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for respondent - complainant that non-inclusion of such risk in the insurance policy amounts to unfairness on the part of the insurance company, particularly in view of the instructions issued by the Govt. of India for implementation of Scheme. In this context, it is relevant to state that Hon'ble National Commission in its judgment and order dated 14.01.2020 passed in Revision Petition No. 985 of 2019; Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited Vs. Yashwant Kumar and connected revision petitions, cited by learned counsel for the appellant - insurance company, wherein Hon'ble National Commission has specifically held that, "the vires of the terms and conditions of a public policy can not be examined in a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986". Para 11 of the said judgment is very relevant, which is reproduced below:
"11. This Commission is bound to decide the consumer complaint on the basis of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Since the said terms and conditions do not permit use of data from a nearby weather station other than the RWS, unless neither the data from the RWS, nor the data from the Backup Weather Station is available, the fora below in my opinion could not have used data of HARC for the purpose of compensating the complainants."
13. Learned counsel for respondent / complainant cited judgment and order dated 11.10.2013 passed by this Commission in First Appeal No. 98 of 2012; Agriculture Insurance Company of India 12 Limited Vs. Sh. Deewan Singh Negi and another. In the said case, the stand taken by the insurance company was that the complainant had to submit claim within 48 hours of the occurrence of hailstorm on 01.04.2008 and 03.04.2008, but the claim was submitted on 03.05.2008. There is no such issue involved in the instant case. Learned counsel also cited judgment and order dated 06.05.2022 passed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Public Interest Litigation No. 64 of 2021; Dnyanraj Vs. The Union of India and others. In the said case, it was opined by Hon'ble High Court in para 68 of the judgment that learned counsel for the insurance company could not dispute that under the said scheme, provision has been made for the assessment of loss of individual farm level to crop losses due to occurrence of localized perils / calamities, hailstorm, landslide, inundation, cloud burst and natural fire due to lightening affecting part of a notified unit or a plots. A direction was given to the insurance company to sanction and grant compensation / claim for post-harvest loss caused to the soyabean crop in Kharip Season 2020 to the remaining 357287 agriculturists in Osmanabad District. Learned counsel has also cited judgment and order dated 05.09.2022 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 10391 of 2022; M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Dnyanraj and others, whereby the Special Leave Petition filed against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 06.05.2022 passed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, was dismissed by Hon'ble Apex Court. In the case in hand, from the above discussion, it is amply clear that loss due to excess rainfall was not covered under the insurance policy. Hence the aforesaid case laws are not applicable in the present facts of the case in hand.
14. The net result of the above discussion is that the claim in question lodged by the complainant did not come within the four 13 corners of the insurance policy as well as relevant terms and conditions, hence the claim was not payable and was rightly denied by the insurance company and by doing so, no deficiency in service was committed by the insurance company.
15. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and order passed by learned District Commission suffers from material illegality, warranting interference by this Commission. Consequently, the appeals deserve to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by learned District Commission is liable to be set aside.
16. Appeals are allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 20.05.2019 passed by the District Commission is set aside and consumer complaints stand dismissed. No order as to costs. The amount deposited by the appellant with this Commission in the present appeals, be released in its favour.
17. Let the copy of the order be kept on the record of First Appeal Nos. 239 of 2019; 240 of 2019; 241 of 2019; 242 of 2019; 243 of 2019; 244 of 2019 and 245 of 2019.
18. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
(U.S. TOLIA) (JUSTICE D.S. TRIPATHI)
Member-II President
K