State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company ... vs Mukand Singh & Ors. on 8 June, 2012
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.695 of 2011.
Date of Institution: 25.04.2011.
Date of Decision: 08.06.2012.
IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Iffco House, 3rd Floor, 34,
Nehru Place, New Delhi-110 019, through its Manager.
.....Appellant.
Versus
1. Mukand Singh, aged about 58 years, S/o Sh. Gurdial Singh;
2. Sukhwinder Singh, aged about 57 years, S/o Sh. Amar Singh;
3. Baljinder Singh, aged about 45 years, S/o Sh. Sardara Singh;
4. Karnail Singh, aged about 40 years, S/o Sh. Mohinder Singh;
All resident of Village Kalajhar, Sub Tehsil Bhawanigarh, Tehsil and
District Sangrur.
....Respondents/complainants.
5. The Kalajhar Co-operative Agriculture Service Society Limited,
Village Kalajhar, Sub Tehsil Bhawanigarh, Tehsil and District
Sangrur, through its Secretary.
6. Sukhwinder Singh Son of Sh. Bachan Singh, Agent of IFFCO Tokio
General Insurance Company Limited, Resident of village Channo,
Sub Tehsil Bhawanigarh, Tehsil and District Sangrur.
...Performa Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated
21.01.2011 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:- Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate, counsel for the appellant.
Sh. Pankaj Katia, Advocate, counsel for respondents no.1 to 4. Respondents no.5 & 6 Exparte.
----------------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
This order shall dispose of the following five appeals as the questions of facts and law involved in all these appeals are identical and the appeals are directed against the similar orders dated 21.01.2011 passed by First Appeal No.695 of 2011 2 the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short "the District Forum"):-
Sr. No. Appeal Number Parties Name
1. F.A. No.695 of 2011 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs Mukand Singh & Ors.
2. F.A. No.697 of 2011 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs Charan Singh & Ors.
3. F.A. No.698 of 2011 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs Barinderjit Singh & Ors.
4. F.A. No.699 of 2011 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs Harnek Singh & Ors.
5. F.A. No.700 of 2011 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs Teja Singh & Ors.
2. The facts are taken from F.A. No.695 of 2011 and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
3. Facts in brief are that Sh. Mukand Singh and others, respondents no.1 to 4/complainants (hereinafter called as "respondents no.1 to 4") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act"), making averments that they are the members of respondent no.5-Society and obtained the service of appellant through respondents no.5 & 6. Respondents no.1 to 4 paid Rs.522/- per acre as premium for the sum insured of Rs.5,000/- per acre and, as such, respondents no.1 to 4 paid Rs.1044/- each for the sum insured of Rs.10,000/-
per two acres. At the time of getting insurance, the respondent no.6 told respondents no.1 to 4 that if the rain will be less or in excess than the normal, then the appellant will pay the claim amount i.e. the sum insured as compensation. The appellant issued the joint certificate of insurance no.95501007 dated 27.06.2008 in respect of the insurance of the crop in the name of respondent no.5 and the crop was insured for the period 01.07.2008 to 30.09.2008.
4. As per the insurance policy, the appellant was to pay the claim to respondents no.1 to 4 on the basis of the information derived from the First Appeal No.695 of 2011 3 Indian Metrological Department (IMD). During the paddy season of 2008, the weather was very bad and the rainfall was less than the normal, as a result of which the crops of respondents no.1 to 4 were damaged badly and they suffered huge pecuniary loss, mental tension and agony. Respondents no.1 to 4 approached the appellant through respondents no.5 & 6 for the settlement of the claim, but the appellant did not pay any heed, nor paid any claim and the appellant as well as respondents no.5 & 6 are deficient in service and their act amounts to unfair trade practice.
5. It was prayed that the appellant and respondents no.5 & 6 be directed to pay claim amount of Rs.10,000/- each i.e. the insured amount along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of insurance till realization, Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
6. In the reply filed on behalf of the appellant, preliminary objections were raised that respondents no.1 to 4 have no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint. The appellant has filed the revision petition against the order of the District Forum and that of the State Commission and the matter is presently under consideration of the Hon'ble National Commission. The earlier complaint was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh complaint, but the present complaint is also same and respondents no.1 to 4 have misused the process of law. Intricate questions of law and facts are involved and the civil court is competent. Respondents no.1 to 4 are under obligation to deliver a detailed statement in writing as per the claim form and any other material particulars relevant to the making of the claim within 90 days from the expiry of the date of the policy, but the present complaint has been filed after the lapse of one year and the same is barred by limitation. The claim of respondents no.1 to 4 does not fall within the ambit of the policy. The appellant did not insure the yield of the crops of any party and the policy was not linked with the declaration or non-declaration of draught by any official agency and the actual yield of the crop was/is not measured as the insurable event is rainfall deficiency and not the actual First Appeal No.695 of 2011 4 shortfall in the crop yield. The policy related to weather only i.e. "Barish Bima Yojana". The policy covers shortfall of rainfall based on the variation between the 'Total Weighted Actual Rainfall" and "Total Weighed Normal Rainfall". Respondents no.1 to 4 are estopped by their act and conduct from filing the present complaint and the complaint has been filed against the cooperative society and no legal proceedings lie against the cooperative society until and unless a mandatory notice for a period of three months is issued. No claim was lodged by respondents no.1 to 4 with the appellant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and respondents no.1 to 4 are not the consumers under the Act. The Forum has no jurisdiction. The complaint is false and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed.
7. On merits, similar pleas were repeated. It was further pleaded that the appellant issued joint certificate of insurance in the name of respondent no.5 for insuring its members as per the list supplied at the time of issuing the joint certificate of insurance. The terms and conditions of the policy were explained to respondent no.5 and its members in vernacular language. Respondent no.5 through its secretary signed the proposal-cum- declaration-receipt form. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the appellant can consider the alternative weather station. The respondents no.1 to 4 should have lodged the claim within 90 days from the expiry of the date of the policy, but nothing such was done.
8. The appellant has to collect data with regard to rainfall in each area after the expiry of the policy, because the claims are to be finalized within 90 days of the expiry of the policy. The appellant approached the Regional Metrological Centre, New Delhi for providing the rainfall data of various stations of Punjab, including Dodahur, Bharthala and Kotra and rainfall data of Abohar, Fazilka, Amritsar, Dodahur, Faridkot, Moga, Muktsar, Jagraon, Samrala, Kapurthala, Roopnagar, Mansa, Nawanshahr was conveyed. The appellant again approached the said centre to provide the rainfall data with regard to Sangrur, Patiala, Roopnagar and Gurdaspur First Appeal No.695 of 2011 5 Districts and rainfall data of Barnala, Malerkotla, Dera Bassi, Rajpura, Patiala, Anandpur Sahib, Nangal, Ropar, Gurdaspur and Pathankot was only available with them, but the rainfall data of the reference weather station Kotra was not available with IMD and it was considered as missing rainfall data and the appellant has to chose alternative weather station for determining the rainfall in respect of the policy in question.
9. The appellant approached the National Collateral Management Services Limited which provides specific Market Intelligence services including price, crop and Weather Intelligence and asked it to provide the rainfall data of Sangrur for the period 1st July, 2008 to 30th September, 2008 which was considered as alternative weather station by the appellant. As per the rainfall data provided by the NCMSL, the total rainfall in the month of July, 2008 in Sangrur was 59.43 mm. In the month of August, 2008, it was 227.06 mm and in the month of September, 2008, it was 106.4 mm. It was normal rainfall and the Weighted Actual Rainfall during this period was 369.9 mm which was above the Total Weighted Normal Rainfall i.e. 14.4% and respondents no.1 to 4 are not entitled to any claim under the policy. The appellant considered Sangrur as alternative weather station being nearest to Kotra which was to be considered as Reference Weather Station.
10. As per the rainfall data made available by NCMSL, there was no shortfall of rainfall and the rainfall was excess to the extent of 14.4%. All other allegations of the complaint were denied and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
11. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent no.5, it was admitted that the cultivated area of paddy crop under Weather Insurance Scheme of respondents no.1 to 4 was insured. Premium was paid and the sum insured was Rs.10,000/- per two acres. Issuance of joint certificate of insurance as well as the period of insurance was also admitted. It was further admitted that the appellant was to pay the claim to respondents no.1 to 4 without any application, on the basis of information derived from the IMD. It was further First Appeal No.695 of 2011 6 submitted that the answering respondent approached the appellant and respondent no.6 for redressing the grievances of respondents no.1 to 4, but of no avail. Respondent no.5 is not liable to pay the claim, as it has taken the insurance for its members. Denying other allegations of the complaint, it was prayed that the compliant may be dismissed.
12. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent on.6, similar pleas as taken by respondent no.5 were repeated and inter-alia it was further pleaded that respondent no.6 is only the agent of the appellant and the liability, if any, is of the appellant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
13. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions by way of filing affidavits and documents.
14. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that the rainfall was deficient by 50% and respondents no.1 to 4 are entitled to 50% of the insured amount proportionately. No benefit of the exclusion clause can be given to the appellant, as the terms and conditions are not supplied to respondents no.1 to 4, and allowed the complaint directing the appellant to pay each of the respondents no.1 to 4 a sum of Rs.5,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 30.09.2008 till realization and Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses.
15. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21.01.2011, the appellant has come up in appeal.
16. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and perused the record of the learned District Forum. We have also heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as perused the written arguments submitted on behalf of respondents no.1 to 4.
17. Respondents no.5 & 6 have not contested the appeal and were proceeded against exparte.
18. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that admittedly, the crops of respondents no.1 to 4 were insured through respondent no.5 for First Appeal No.695 of 2011 7 the period 01.07.2008 to 30.09.2008. It was 'Barish Bima Yojana' and as per the data collected, the Weighted Normal Rainfall was more than the normal. The weather data from IMD was not available for Kotra Weather Station and the data was taken from Reference Weather Station i.e. Sangrur which was nearest to Kotra through NCMSL and as per that, the Weighted Normal Rainfall was more than the normal rainfall and the District Forum has not taken into consideration all these facts and the appeal may be accepted and the impugned order may be set aside.
19. In the written arguments filed on behalf of the respondents no.1 to 4, the pleadings of the complaint were reiterated. It was submitted that in the instant case, the data has to be taken of Kotra, District Sangrur, but the data of IMD was not placed on record by the appellant. However, the data as allegedly available with NCMSL was placed on record. The District Forum after considering the data available of Malerkotla as issued by the IMD, passed the award dated 21.01.2011. The data of District Sangrur was also available, but in order to wriggle out of its liability, the appellant chose an alternative data base which was favourable to it. The terms and conditions were supplied to respondent no.5 only and the appellant insurance company cannot take benefit of any exclusion clause. Respondents no.1 to 4 approached respondents no.5 and 6 to settle the claim, but nothing was done. The order of the District Forum is valid and reasonable order and the appeal may be dismissed.
20. We have considered the oral submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as written arguments filed on behalf of respondents no.1 to 4 and have carefully examined the entire record placed on file.
21. Respondent no.5-Society obtained the insurance policy Ex.C-1 for its members under 'Barish Bima Yojana' for the period 01.07.2008 to 30.09.2008. As per Ex.C-1, the Reference Weather Station was 'Kotra' and the Trigger opted was 30%. As per the letter of the appellant Ex.R-7 written First Appeal No.695 of 2011 8 to DDGM, Regional Meteorological Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi dated 13.08.2008, the appellant requested to provide monthly rainfall data (in MMs) for the month of July, August and September, 2008 for the weather stations of Punjab, including Bharthala, Dodahur, Kotra in Sangrur District and paid necessary fee vide Ex.R-8 and Ex.R-9 and the acknowledgement is Ex.R-10. As per the data sent by Meteorological Department, no rainfall data was available of Dodahur in Sangrur District. Again letter Ex.R-11 dated 09.09.2008 was written by the appellant to provide monthly rainfall data for the month of July, August and September, 2008 for District Sangrur and other stations. Necessary fee for the same was paid, but no data was provided.
22. Ex.R-3 is the schedule of 'Barish Bima Yojana Policy' and 'Weightage Table' is provided as follows:-
Weightage Table Month Weight Normal Rainfall(mm) Weighted Normal Rainfall July 1.50 116.4 174.5 August 1.00 111.0 111.0 September 0.50 75.4 75.4 TWNR Index 323.2 MM
23. 'Claim Payout Table' is given below:-
Claim Payout Table % Deficiency Sum Insured Payment Percentage 0% 0 10% 0 20% 0 30% 10 40% 15 50% 25 60% 35 70% 45 80% 75 First Appeal No.695 of 2011 9 90% 100
24. Weather Insurance Policy Ex.R-4 provides and defines 'Reference Weather Station', as follows:-
"Reference Weather Station:-
It means the primary weather station as specified in the Schedule, the weather data (as per IMD records) of which will be utilized to compute the Weather Index during the Policy Period".
25. The Reference Weather Station in the present case was 'Kotra', but no data from the IMD was provided about the rainfall. Clause-14 of the Policy Ex.R-4 provides the 'Alternate Weather Station' and the same is reproduced as follows:-
Alternate Weather Station:-
"It means the Secondary Weather Station which we may deem fit and accept as a substitute Weather Station in the event of non-availability of required data from the primary reference Weather Station".
26. Alternate Weather Station was Sangrur, but the IMD did not provide any data for Sangrur District also and Clause-16 of the policy Ex.R-4 provide 'Actual Weather Data' as follows:-
Actual Weather Data:-
"It shall mean the reference weather data for the Policy Period as obtained from IMD or any other recognized source".
27. Since, the Reference Weather Data for the policy period was not obtained from the IMD, then it was to be taken from any other recognized source and the appellant chose to collect the same from National Collateral Management Services Limited (NCMSL). Ex.R-13 is the "Capability Statement", which was provided to the appellant by the NCMSL and under the head "Technology", it is provided as under:-
Technology:-First Appeal No.695 of 2011 10
"We import Cabled Vantage Pro2 automatic weather stations from Davis Instruments, California, USA, Davis Instruments, a privately held manufacturing company and developer of exceptional instruments for weather, marine, and automotive use, prides itself on innovative, high- quality products since last 45 years. Professional Vantage Pro2 weather station series measure barometric pressure, temperature, humidity, rainfall, wind speed and direction, UV/solar and much more! You'll get highs and lows (and/or totals or averages) for virtually all weather variables for the past 24 days, months, or years, and your own local forecast-all without a PC. Temperature and humidity sensors are housed inside a radiation shield. The shield protects against solar and other sources of radiated and reflected heat, improving accuracy. Our integrated sensor suite combines the rain collector, temperature and humidity sensors, and anemometer into one package-making setup easy and improving performance and reliability".
28. Under the head "Clients", it has been provided as follows:-
Clients:-
"The NCMSL is providing the quality & reliable weather data to prestigious institutions/organizations across the world. Agricultural Insurance Company of India Limited (AICI), ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, Space Application Centre (SAC), IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), National Commodity and Derivatives Exchange Limited (NCDEX), Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture (CRIDA), Friends of Women's World Banking (FWWB), Self Employed Women's Association (SEWA), Institute of Finance Management Research (IFMR), Harvard Business School, USA, B S Envi-Tech, National Research Centre for Grapes (NRCG), DuPont and Reliance Energy Limited, are some of the prestigious institutions/organizations using our hourly weather data both for commercial and research purposes". First Appeal No.695 of 2011 11
29. Ex.R-15 is the data of rainfall in Sangrur district provided by the said NCMSL and as per that, the Total Rainfall in the month of July, 2008 in Sangrur was 59.43 mm; in the month of August, 2008, it was 227.06 mm and in the month of September, 2008, it was 106.4 mm. This was the normal rainfall and the Weighted Actual Rainfall during the month of July was 59.43 x 15=89.14 mm; in the month of August, it 227.6 mm and in the month of September, 2008, it was 53.2 mm. Thus, the Total Weighted Actual Rainfall during the period covered under the policy was 369.9 mm.
30. As per the normal rainfall, Weighted Normal Rainfall was 323.2 mm and the Weighted Actual Rainfall was 369.9 mm and, as such, it was in excess and there was no deficiency in the rainfall. The District Forum has relied upon the rainfall data Ex.C-3 of Malerkotla which is far away from the Reference Weather Station, Kotra. Kotra Weather Station is on one side of Sangrur district and the Malerkotla is on the other side and the nearest Weather Station was Sangrur and the same was chosen by the appellant, but since the IMD did not provide any data of rainfall of Sangrur district, then the same was obtained from NCMSL in the alternative, which is also providing the rainfall data and other datas to various prestigious institutions. The respondents no.1 to 4 could rebut the data by leading evidence, but no such evidence was led and the data of Malerkotla cannot be considered to be the correct data applicable to Kotra station. The District Forum has not taken notice of Clause-14 of the Weather Insurance Policy Ex.R-4 wherein the Alternate Weather Station is defined as discussed above as well as the Actual Weather Data, as detailed above. The appellant tried its best to get the data of rainfall for Sangrur district as well as other districts, but the same was not provided, as being not available and then other recognized source of NCMSL was chosen and the data was obtained from the same.
31. In view of above discussion, it is clear that Weighted Normal Rainfall was 323.2 mm and the Weighted Actual Rainfall was 369.9 mm and it First Appeal No.695 of 2011 12 was more than the normal rainfall and was not deficient in any manner. The order of the District Forum is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
32. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is accepted and the impugned order dated 21.01.2011 under appeal passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by respondents no.1 to 4 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
33. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.4552/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. First Appeal No.697 of 2011:-
34. Similarly, in F.A. No.697 of 2011 (IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Vs Charan Singh & Ors.), respondents no.1 to 4 obtained the service of appellant through respondents no.5 & 6. Respondents no.1 to 4 paid Rs.522/- per acre as premium for the sum insured of Rs.5,000/- per acre and, as such, respondents no.1 to 4 paid Rs.1044/- each for the sum insured of Rs.10,000/- per two acres. The appellant issued the joint certificate of insurance no.95501007 dated 27.06.2008 in respect of the insurance of the crop in the name of respondent no.5 and the crop was insured for the period 01.07.2008 to 30.09.2008. As per the insurance policy, the appellant was to pay the claim to respondents no.1 to 4 on the basis of the information derived from the Indian Metrological Department (IMD). During the paddy season of 2008, the weather was very bad and the rainfall was less than the normal, as a result of which the crops of respondents no.1 to 4 were damaged badly and they suffered huge pecuniary loss, mental tension and agony. It was prayed that the appellant and respondents no.5 & 6 be directed to pay claim amount of Rs.10,000/- each i.e. the insured amount along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of insurance till realization, Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
First Appeal No.695 of 2011 13
35. The complaint was contested by the appellant and respondents no.5 & 6 by filing their respective written replies on the same lines of their replies filed in F.A. No.695 of 2011.
36. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint directing the appellant to pay each of the respondents no.1 to 4 a sum of Rs.5,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 30.09.2008 till realization and Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses.
37. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.695 of 2011 (IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Vs Mukand Singh & Ors.), F.A. No.697 of 2011 (IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Vs Charan Singh & Ors.) is accepted and the impugned order dated 21.01.2011 under appeal passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by respondents no.1 to 4 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
38. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.4552/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. First Appeal No.698 of 2011:-
39. Similarly, in F.A. No.698 of 2011 (IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Vs Barinderjit Singh & Ors.), respondent no.1 obtained the service of appellant through respondents no.2 & 3. Respondent no.1 paid Rs.522/- per acre as premium for the sum insured of Rs.5,000/- per acre and, as such, respondent no.1 paid Rs.10,440/- for the sum insured of Rs.1,00,000/-. The appellant issued the joint certificate of insurance no.95501007 dated 27.06.2008 in respect of the insurance of the crop in the name of respondent no.2 and the crop was insured for the period 01.07.2008 to 30.09.2008. As per the insurance policy, the appellant was to pay the claim to respondent no.1 on the basis of the information derived from First Appeal No.695 of 2011 14 the Indian Metrological Department (IMD). During the paddy season of 2008, the weather was very bad and the rainfall was less than the normal, as a result of which the crop of respondent no.1 was damaged badly and he suffered huge pecuniary loss, mental tension and agony. It was prayed that the appellant and respondents no.2 & 3 be directed to pay claim amount of Rs.1,00,000/- i.e. the insured amount along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of insurance till realization, Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
40. The complaint was contested by the appellant and respondents no.2 & 3 by filing their respective written replies on the same lines of their replies filed in F.A. No.695 of 2011.
41. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint directing the appellant to pay to respondent no.1 a sum of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 30.09.2008 till realization and Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses.
42. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.695 of 2011 (IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Vs Mukand Singh & Ors.), F.A. No.698 of 2011 (IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Vs Barinderjit Singh & Ors.) is accepted and the impugned order dated 21.01.2011 under appeal passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by respondent no.1 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
43. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. First Appeal No.699 of 2011:-
44. Similarly, in F.A. No.699 of 2011 (IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Vs Harnek Singh & Ors.), respondent no.1 First Appeal No.695 of 2011 15 obtained the service of appellant through respondents no.2 & 3. Respondent no.1 paid Rs.522/- per acre as premium for the sum insured of Rs.5,000/- per acre and, as such, respondent no.1 paid Rs.14,094/- for the sum insured of Rs.1,35,000/-. The appellant issued the joint certificate of insurance no.95501007 dated 27.06.2008 in respect of the insurance of the crop in the name of respondent no.2 and the crop was insured for the period 01.07.2008 to 30.09.2008. As per the insurance policy, the appellant was to pay the claim to respondent no.1 on the basis of the information derived from the Indian Metrological Department (IMD). During the paddy season of 2008, the weather was very bad and the rainfall was less than the normal, as a result of which the crop of respondent no.1 was damaged badly and he suffered huge pecuniary loss, mental tension and agony. It was prayed that the appellant and respondents no.2 & 3 be directed to pay claim amount of Rs.1,35,000/- i.e. the insured amount along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of insurance till realization, Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
45. The complaint was contested by the appellant and respondents no.2 & 3 by filing their respective written replies on the same lines of their replies filed in F.A. No.695 of 2011.
46. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint directing the appellant to pay to respondent no.1 a sum of Rs.67,500/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 30.09.2008 till realization and Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses.
47. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.695 of 2011 (IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Vs Mukand Singh & Ors.), F.A. No.699 of 2011 (IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Vs Harnek Singh & Ors.) is accepted and the impugned order dated 21.01.2011 under appeal passed by the District Forum is set First Appeal No.695 of 2011 16 aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by respondent no.1 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
48. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. First Appeal No.700 of 2011:-
49. Similarly, in F.A. No.700 of 2011 (IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Vs Teja Singh & Ors.), respondent no.1 obtained the service of appellant through respondents no.2 & 3. Respondent no.1 paid Rs.522/- per acre as premium for the sum insured of Rs.5,000/- per acre and, as such, respondent no.1 paid Rs.2610/- for the sum insured of Rs.25,000/-. The appellant issued the joint certificate of insurance no.95501007 dated 27.06.2008 in respect of the insurance of the crop in the name of respondent no.2 and the crop was insured for the period 01.07.2008 to 30.09.2008. As per the insurance policy, the appellant was to pay the claim to respondent no.1 on the basis of the information derived from the Indian Metrological Department (IMD). During the paddy season of 2008, the weather was very bad and the rainfall was less than the normal, as a result of which the crop of respondent no.1 was damaged badly and he suffered huge pecuniary loss, mental tension and agony. It was prayed that the appellant and respondents no.2 & 3 be directed to pay claim amount of Rs.25,000/- i.e. the insured amount along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of insurance till realization, Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
50. The complaint was contested by the appellant and respondents no.2 & 3 by filing their respective written replies on the same lines of their replies filed in F.A. No.695 of 2011.
51. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District First Appeal No.695 of 2011 17 Forum allowed the complaint directing the appellant to pay to respondent no.1 a sum of Rs.12,500/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 30.09.2008 till realization and Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses.
52. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.695 of 2011 (IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Vs Mukand Singh & Ors.), F.A. No.700 of 2011 (IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Vs Teja Singh & Ors.) is accepted and the impugned order dated 21.01.2011 under appeal passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by respondent no.1 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
53. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.9131/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
54. The arguments in all these appeals were heard on 31.05.2012 and the orders were reserved. Now the orders be communicated to the parties.
55. The appeals could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
56. Copy of the order be placed in the following cases:-
2. F.A. No.697 of 2011 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Charan Singh & Ors.
3. F.A. No.698 of 2011 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Barinderjit Singh & Ors.
4. F.A. No.699 of 2011 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Harnek Singh & Ors.
5. F.A. No.700 of 2011 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Teja Singh & Ors.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Piare Lal Garg) Member June 08, 2012.
(Gurmeet S)