State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Agriculture Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rakesh Sharda on 13 February, 2019
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND,
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 184 / 2018
Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd.
Through its Regional Manager
Regional Office: 56, Rajpur Road, (behind Hotel Classic)
Dehradun, Uttarakhand
.......Appellant / Opposite Party
Versus
Sh. Yashwant Kumar S/o Sh. Patidass
R/o Village- Naugaon Post Naugaon, Tehsil Barkot
District Uttarkashi
.......Respondent / Complainant
FIRST APPEAL NO. 185 / 2018 Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Through its Regional Manager Regional Office: 56, Rajpur Road, (behind Hotel Classic) Dehradun, Uttarakhand .......Appellant / Opposite Party Versus Sh. Diwan Singh S/o Sh. Moti Ram R/o Village- Naugaon Post Naugaon, Tehsil Barkot District Uttarkashi .......Respondent / Complainant FIRST APPEAL NO. 186 / 2018 Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Through its Regional Manager Regional Office: 56, Rajpur Road, (behind Hotel Classic) Dehradun, Uttarakhand .......Appellant / Opposite Party Versus Sh. Harimohan Singh Parmar S/o Late Surat Singh Parmar R/o Village- Mungra Post Naugaon, Tehsil Barkot District Uttarkashi .......Respondent / Complainant 2 FIRST APPEAL NO. 187 / 2018 Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Through its Regional Manager Regional Office: 56, Rajpur Road, (behind Hotel Classic) Dehradun, Uttarakhand .......Appellant / Opposite Party Versus Sh. Jayendra Singh S/o Late Mahendra Singh R/o Village- Murari, Post Naugaon, Tehsil Barkot District Uttarkashi .......Respondent / Complainant FIRST APPEAL NO. 188 / 2018 Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Through its Regional Manager Regional Office: 56, Rajpur Road, (behind Hotel Classic) Dehradun, Uttarakhand .......Appellant / Opposite Party Versus Sh. Rakesh Sharda S/o Sh. Banshi Lal R/o Village- Naugaon Post Naugaon, Tehsil Barkot District Uttarkashi .......Respondent / Complainant FIRST APPEAL NO. 189 / 2018 Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Through its Regional Manager Regional Office: 56, Rajpur Road, (behind Hotel Classic) Dehradun, Uttarakhand .......Appellant / Opposite Party Versus Sh. Chandra Mohan Parmar S/o Sh. Shoorveer Singh Parmar R/o Village- Mungra Post Naugaon, Tehsil Barkot District Uttarkashi .......Respondent / Complainant 3 FIRST APPEAL NO. 190 / 2018 Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Through its Regional Manager Regional Office: 56, Rajpur Road, (behind Hotel Classic) Dehradun, Uttarakhand .......Appellant / Opposite Party Versus Sh. Raj Mohan S/o Sh. Mohan Singh Parmar R/o Village- Mungra Post Naugaon, Tehsil Barkot District Uttarkashi .......Respondent / Complainant FIRST APPEAL NO. 191 / 2018 Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Through its Regional Manager Regional Office: 56, Rajpur Road, (behind Hotel Classic) Dehradun, Uttarakhand .......Appellant / Opposite Party Versus Sh. Jagmohan Singh Parmar S/o Late Mahendra Singh Parmar R/o Village- Muradi, Post Naugaon, Tehsil Barkot District Uttarkashi .......Respondent / Complainant FIRST APPEAL NO. 192 / 2018 Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Through its Regional Manager Regional Office: 56, Rajpur Road, (behind Hotel Classic) Dehradun, Uttarakhand .......Appellant / Opposite Party Versus Sh. Rajmohan Singh Parmar S/o Late Manmohan Singh Parmar & 4 others R/o Village- Mungra Post Naugaon, Tehsil Barkot District Uttarkashi .......Respondent / Complainant 4 FIRST APPEAL NO. 193 / 2018 Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Through its Regional Manager Regional Office: 56, Rajpur Road, (behind Hotel Classic) Dehradun, Uttarakhand .......Appellant / Opposite Party Versus Sh. Jagtar Singh S/o Late Bhagat Singh R/o Village- Naugaon Post Naugaon, Tehsil Barkot District Uttarkashi .......Respondent / Complainant FIRST APPEAL NO. 194 / 2018 Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Through its Regional Manager Regional Office: 56, Rajpur Road, (behind Hotel Classic) Dehradun, Uttarakhand .......Appellant / Opposite Party Versus Sh. Gaurav Basudev S/o Late Jagtar Singh R/o Village- Naugaon Post Naugaon, Tehsil Barkot District Uttarkashi .......Respondent / Complainant FIRST APPEAL NO. 195 / 2018 Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Through its Regional Manager Regional Office: 56, Rajpur Road, (behind Hotel Classic) Dehradun, Uttarakhand .......Appellant / Opposite Party Versus Sh. Arvind Mohan S/o Sh. Upendra Singh Parmar R/o Village- Murari, Post Naugaon, Tehsil Barkot District Uttarkashi .......Respondent / Complainant 5 FIRST APPEAL NO. 196 / 2018 Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Through its Regional Manager Regional Office: 56, Rajpur Road, (behind Hotel Classic) Dehradun, Uttarakhand .......Appellant / Opposite Party Versus Sh. Upendra Singh S/o Late Mahendra Singh Parmar R/o Village Murari, P.O. Naugaon, District Uttarkashi .......Respondent / Complainant Smt. Anjali Gusain, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Sh. G.S. Rana, Learned Counsel for the Respondent AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 197 / 2018 Sh. Gaurav Basudev S/o Sh. Jagtar Singh R/o Village & P.O. Naugaon, District Uttarkashi .......Appellant / Complainant Versus Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Through its Regional Manager Regional Office: 56, Rajpur Road, Dehradun .......Respondent / Opposite Party FIRST APPEAL NO. 198 / 2018 Sh. Diwan Singh S/o Sh. Moti Ram R/o Village & P.O. Naugaon, District Uttarkashi .......Appellant / Complainant Versus Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Through its Regional Manager Regional Office: 56, Rajpur Road, Dehradun .......Respondent / Opposite Party 6 FIRST APPEAL NO. 199 / 2018 Sh. Rajmohan Singh Parmar S/o Late Manmohan Singh Parmar R/o Village Mungra, P.O. Naugaon, District Uttarkashi .......Appellant / Complainant Versus Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Through its Regional Manager Regional Office: 56, Rajpur Road, Dehradun .......Respondent / Opposite Party FIRST APPEAL NO. 200 / 2018 Sh. Jayendra Singh S/o Late Mahendra Singh R/o Village Murari, P.O. Naugaon, District Uttarkashi .......Appellant / Complainant Versus Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Through its Regional Manager Regional Office: 56, Rajpur Road, Dehradun .......Respondent / Opposite Party FIRST APPEAL NO. 201 / 2018 Sh. Rakesh Sharda S/o Sh. Banshi Lal R/o Village & P.O. Naugaon, District Uttarkashi .......Appellant / Complainant Versus Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Through its Regional Manager Regional Office: 56, Rajpur Road, Dehradun .......Respondent / Opposite Party FIRST APPEAL NO. 202 / 2018 Sh. Arvind Mohan S/o Sh. Upendra Singh Parmar R/o Village Murari, P.O. Naugaon, District Uttarkashi .......Appellant / Complainant Versus Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Through its Regional Manager Regional Office: 56, Rajpur Road, Dehradun .......Respondent / Opposite Party 7 FIRST APPEAL NO. 203 / 2018 Sh. Upendra Singh S/o Late Mahendra Singh Parmar R/o Village Murari, P.O. Naugaon, District Uttarkashi .......Appellant / Complainant Versus Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Through its Regional Manager Regional Office: 56, Rajpur Road, Dehradun .......Respondent / Opposite Party FIRST APPEAL NO. 204 / 2018 Sh. Harimohan Singh S/o Late Surat Singh Parmar R/o Village Mungra, P.O. Naugaon, District Uttarkashi .......Appellant / Complainant Versus Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Through its Regional Manager Regional Office: 56, Rajpur Road, Dehradun .......Respondent / Opposite Party FIRST APPEAL NO. 205 / 2018 Sh. Chandra Mohan Parmar S/o Late Shoorveer Singh Parmar R/o Village Mungra, P.O. Naugaon, District Uttarkashi .......Appellant / Complainant Versus Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Through its Regional Manager Regional Office: 56, Rajpur Road, Dehradun .......Respondent / Opposite Party FIRST APPEAL NO. 206 / 2018
1. Sh. Rajmohan Parmar S/o Late Manmohan Singh Parmar
2. Sh. Raimohan Parmar S/o Late Manmohan Singh Parmar
3. Sh. Jaimohan Parmar S/o Late Manmohan Singh Parmar
4. Smt. Gulabi Devi W/o Late Manmohan Singh Parmar All R/o Village Mungra, P.O. Naugaon, District Uttarkashi .......Appellant / Complainant 8 Versus Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Through its Regional Manager Regional Office: 56, Rajpur Road, Dehradun .......Respondent / Opposite Party FIRST APPEAL NO. 207 / 2018 Sh. Jagtar Singh S/o Late Bhagat Singh R/o Village & P.O. Naugaon, District Uttarkashi .......Appellant / Complainant Versus Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Through its Regional Manager Regional Office: 56, Rajpur Road, Dehradun .......Respondent / Opposite Party FIRST APPEAL NO. 208 / 2018 Sh. Jagmohan Singh Parmar S/o Late Mahendra Singh Parmar R/o Village Murari, P.O. Naugaon, District Uttarkashi .......Appellant / Complainant Versus Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Through its Regional Manager Regional Office: 56, Rajpur Road, Dehradun .......Respondent / Opposite Party FIRST APPEAL NO. 209 / 2018 Sh. Yashwant Kumar S/o Sh. Patidass R/o Village Dhari, P.O. Naugaon, District Uttarkashi .......Appellant / Complainant Versus Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Through its Regional Manager Regional Office: 56, Rajpur Road, Dehradun .......Respondent / Opposite Party Sh. G.S. Rana, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Smt. Anjali Gusain, Learned Counsel for the Respondent 9 Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, President Mr. Balveer Prasad, H.J.S., Member Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member Dated: 13/02/2019 ORDER (Per: Mr. Balveer Prasad, Judicial Member):
These appeals arising out of the common order dated 27.10.2018, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dehradun (herein-after to be referred as 'The District Forum') in consumer complaint No. 54 of 2015, 47 of 2015, 48 of 2015, 49 of 2015, 51 of 2015, 52 of 2015, 53 of 2015, 50 of 2015, 83 of 2015, 85 of 2015, 86 of 2015, 87 of 2015 and 88 of 2015, have been preferred under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Forum awarded compensation adopting the uniform criteria of assessment, age-wise per tree as Rs. 200/- in respect of age ranging from 05-15 years and Rs. 400/- in respect of age ranging from 16-40 years, in accordance with the details given in the respective Proposal Form. Besides the amount so calculated, Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony, Rs. 10,000/- towards travelling expenses and Rs. 3,000/- as litigation costs were also awarded. The Insurance Company was directed to pay the amount so ordered, within 30 days; failing which the above amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the respective complaint till realisation.
2. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, the Insurance Company filed appeals bearing Nos. 184 of 2018, 185 of 2018, 186 of 2018, 187 of 2018, 188 of 2018, 189 of 2018, 190 of 2018, 191 of 2018, 192 of 2018, 193 of 2018, 194 of 2018, 195 of 2018 and 196 of 2018 with the prayer to set aside the impugned order, whereas the complainants preferred independent appeals bearing Nos. 197 of 2018, 198 of 2018, 199 of 2018, 200 of 2018, 201 of 2018, 202 10 of 2018, 203 of 2018, 204 of 2018, 205 of 2018, 206 of 2018, 207 of 2018, 208 of 2018 and 209 of 2018, for the enhancement of the amount so awarded by the District Forum.
3. Since the matter in substance is the same, these appeals are being decided by this common order.
4. The facts leading to the appeals are that the complainants belong to the District Uttarkashi, where they are growing apple crops, which is the only source of livelihood for them. The crop of the farmers was insured with Agriculture Insurance Company India Ltd., Dehradun for the period from 01.12.2013 to 31.07.2014.
Sh. Yashwant Kumar paid Rs. 12,000/- as premium for the sum assured - Rs. Two Lac, Sh. Gaurav Basudev paid Rs. 9,000/- as premium for the sum assured - Rs. 1,50,000/-, Sh. Diwan Singh paid Rs. 36,000/- as premium for the sum assured - Rs. Six Lac, Sh. Rajmohan paid Rs. 24,000/- as premium for the sum assured - Rs. Four Lac, Sh. Jayendra Singh paid Rs. 6,000/- as premium for the sum assured - Rs. One Lac, Sh. Rakesh Sharda paid Rs. 24,000/- as premium for the sum assured - Rs. Four Lac, Sh. Arvind Mohan paid Rs. 6,000/- as premium for the sum assured - Rs. One Lac, Sh. Upendra Singh paid Rs. 18,000/- as premium for the sum assured
- Rs. Three Lac, Sh. Hari Mohan paid Rs. 48,000/- as premium for the sum assured - Rs. Eight Lac, Sh. Chandra Mohan Parmar paid Rs. 24,000/- as premium for the sum assured - Rs. Four Lac, Sh. Rajmohan Parmar etc. paid Rs. 24,000/- as premium for the sum assured - Rs. Four Lac, Sh. Jagtar Singh paid Rs. 9,000/- as premium for the sum assured - Rs. One Lac Fifty Thousand and Sh. Jagmohan Singh paid Rs. 48,000/- as premium for the sum assured - Rs. Eight Lac. The apple crop was destroyed on account of excessive rainfall and fall of hailstone.
11It was Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme governed by Government Weather Centre, Barkot and Himalaya Action Research Centre (HARC). The centre 'HARC' is situated at the air distance of about 200 meter from the village 'Syori'. The claim was presented before the Insurance Company, but the Company declined to pay any amount to the respective complainants. Hence, the consumer complaints were set in motion.
5. The Insurance Company resisted the claim and pleaded that no cause of action ever accrued to file the complaints. It has been averred that the complaints have been filed with ulterior motives and to derive unlawful gains. The matter comes under the purview of National Crop Insurance Program (NCIP) and Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme (WBCIS). The insurance scheme was introduced by the Government of India in year 2007-08, to mitigate hardships of insured farmers against the likelihood of the financial loss on account of adverse weather conditions. The payment of insurance premium by the concerned farmers against apple crop for the sum assured as alleged, is admitted. The consumers twisted the material facts. As per G.O. (Government Order) issued by the State Government of Uttarakhand and term sheet, unseasonal / excess rainfall cover period was from 16.03.2014 to 07.05.2014 with corresponding trigger of five days of rainy days. Pay out starts only after if during the cover period number of rainy days is equal to or greater than five rainy days. And as per the term-sheet and weather data recorded at notified RWS, there is only two rainy days during the cover period and accordingly no claim is payable for the cover of unseasonal / excess rainfall cover.
6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that as per reports available from the authorised Reference Weather Station, the claim presented by the farmers stands as 'No Claim' and hence, they are not entitled to any relief, whatsoever. Also argued that the 12 order impugned suffers from legal infirmity for want of correct appreciation of the facts and the circumstances of the case.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the consumers emphasized that the matter is fit-one for the enhancement of claim awarded by the District Forum. Reliance was placed on the verdict passed by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 2607 of 2013; Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd. vs. Kishan Lal, wherein it was postulated that the falling of hailstones amounts to excessive rainfall and the crop destroyed because of Hailstones, was ordered to be compensated in terms of the Judgment passed by the District Forum.
8. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the averments advanced before us.
9. Admittedly, these farmers fall under the category of 'Consumer' within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the facility of Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme (WBCIS) was availed by the respective farmers as per Insurance Proposal Form, in respect of 'Apple' crop - RABI for the year 2013-14. 'Barkot' is designated as the referred weather centre, under the said scheme for Nyaya Panchayat - 'Naugaon'. The risk was under the insurance cover from 01.12.2013 to 31.07.2014.
10. The main question for consideration is as to whether the RABI crop - Apple, was destroyed due to excessive rainfall & the fall of Hailstones, resulting in loss caused to the farmers and they deserve to be compensated by the Agriculture Insurance Co. India Ltd.? If so, to what extent. Secondly, whether the order passed by the District Forum is justified in law or not? Thirdly, as to whether the appeals moved by the respective consumers for the enhancement of the 13 award so passed by the District Forum, deserve to be accepted? If so, to which extent.
11. In order to appreciate the issues involved, it is necessary to have a look at the genesis of the scheme launched for Crop - Insurance. Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme (WBCIS) aims to mitigate the hardship of insured farmers against the likelihood of financial loss on account of anticipated crop-loss resulting from weather conditions including fluctuation in rainfall, temperature, wind, humidity etc. WBCIS uses weather parameters in compensating the cultivators for deemed crop-losses. The State Government should ensure issuance of the notification to all concerned, specifying the sum insured, premium rates & subsidy, as applicable for various crops, term sheets & list of Reference and Back-up weather stations for each Reference Unit Area.
12. The Government of Uttarakhand issued Notification, dated 06.12.2013, wherein it is specified that if for any reason, R.W.S. is not in position to provide 'Data', the 'Data' available at notified Back- up Weather Station shall be taken for consideration. In case the Data from the Notified Back-up Weather Station is not available for any reason whatsoever, Data may be collected from the nearby Weather Station, for the purposes of compensation to be awarded to the farmers. The G.O. reflects two things - firstly, that all these Weather Stations are attached reliability & secondly, it enshrines the spirit to the effect that no injustice be caused to the farmers.
13. It is obvious that the claims are to be computed on the basis of Weather Data recorded at RWS and the claims, if any, are to be paid to all the insured at the same ratio for given location and crop. Regarding the matter in hand, NCML, Barkot is Reference Weather Station (RWS) and NCML, Arakot is Back-up Weather Station 14 (BWS) as per the Term Sheet annexed with the G.O. issued by the State Government.
14. The record envisages that the consumers before us, are relying on the Data furnished by the nearby weather centre - HARC (Himalaya Action Research Centre) for the relevant period. The Data reflects that 613 mm rainfall was recorded from 01.03.2014 to 25.03.2014 and on one single day (i.e. 18.03.2014), 200 mm rainfall was shown. On 11 & 12.03.2014, rainfall was recorded as 180 & 178 mm respectively. We are conscious to take note of the fact that these figures are sufficient to establish that the rainfall is so excessive that one such single rainfall may destroy the crop in toto.
15. It is also worth to signify that the said nearby Weather Centre
- HARC situates just at the air-distance of 200 meters and the road- distance from the apple crops in question, is said to be 1.5 Km. only. Undisputedly, Himalayan Action Research Centre is a Government Institution, the bonafide thereof, has not been questioned by the Agriculture Insurance Company. Moreover, the photograph showing the true picture of the damage caused to the crop, is on record which has not been controverted by the Insurance Company and hence, the same is taken as true.
16. The Insurance Company has supplied emphasis on the NCML data for Barkot area and the data picture shows less degree of rainfall during March & April 2014, thereby refusing relief to the farmers. The data so furnished appears to be far from truth. The Back-up Weather Station - Arakot (of NCML) situates at a too far place from the crop area in question, in comparison to HARC. The District Forum has assigned cogent reasons for arriving at the conclusions drawn.
1517. On the point of enhancement, it was submitted on behalf of the consumers that the Insurance Company paid much higher amount, approximately 40% of the sum assured to the farmers belonging to Bhatwari, District Uttarkashi in under -rated rainfall situations, in comparison to the data reports of the case in hand. In support thereof, the reports obtained under the R.T.I. Act have been filed by the consumers. But the copy of respective orders and details are wanting. Hence, we are unable to express observations in that regard. So far as the present case is concerned, it is obvious by the circumstances that the copy of Schedule & Term Sheet was duly furnished to the farmers and moreover, the parties are bound by the terms of contract. The Term Sheet / Schedule clearly demonstrates the bifurcation of the whole picture in four parts & the matter in hand pertains to the fourth part, i.e. trees, age 5-15 years and the trees of age 16 to 40 years, are to be governed by the rates already fixed as Rs. 200/- and Rs. 400/- per tree respectively, for the purposes of the determination of compensation. The District Forum has rightly focussed its order on the basis of the aforesaid contractual obligations. Thus, we find that the case for enhancement is not made out.
18. It is pertinent to observe that the genuineness of the episode as to the damage caused to the crop has not been specifically challenged. The factum of excessive rainfall is well proved on record, assigning reason for the damage done. The denial of claim is virtually based on technical grounds, for no good logic. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India postulated in Dharmendra Goel vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.; II (2018) CPJ 63 (SC) as under:-
"Courts must take realistic view and compensation, if possible on the material on record, should not be denied on hyper-technical pleas."16
19. So, keeping in view the objectives of the Scheme: WBCIS and following the aforesaid dictum of law, we find that the denial of claim to the farmers, by the Insurance Company is not at all justified in law. Just & Adequate relief has been granted by the District Forum, after detailed analysis of the entire facts and evidence available on record, the same calls for no interference. Therefore, there appears no merit in the Appeals, filed by the concerned parties. The questions posed, hereinabove are disposed of, in the above terms. The arguments advanced on behalf of the parties concerned, stand answered accordingly.
20. As concluded above, the Appeals filed by the rival parties are hereby dismissed.
21. As such, the Judgment & order dated 27.10.2018 passed by the District Forum is confirmed. The Insurance Company is directed to ensure compliance, accordingly. No order as to costs.
Copy of the order be placed on each file and the order (in original) be placed on the leading file i.e. Appeal No. 184 of 2018:
Agriculture Ins. Co. of India Ltd. vs. Sh. Yashwant Kumar.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (BALVEER PRASAD) (JUSTICE B.S. VERMA)