Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.

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.

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.

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.