CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.

Present

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President

Smt. Bindhu M Thomas, Member

                                                                                                                                     Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

 

CC No.145/09

 

                                                    Tuesday the 29^th day of May, 2012

 

Petitioner                                                          : K.T. Rejimon,

                                                                         Kunchakkeriyil,

                                                                        ` Kumarakom East PO,

                                                                         Kottayam.

                                                                          (Adv.Sabu.K)

 

                                                                      Vs.

Opposite party                                                   : 1) Agricultural Insurance Company of

                                                                                India, Vazhuthakkad Regional Office,

                                                                                 T.C.No.14/1765, Baker Junction,

                                                                                  Thiruvananthapuram-14

                                                                                    (Adv.Girija P.G)

                                                                            2) Secretary,

                                                                                Kumarakom Service Co-Operative

                                                                                Bank Ltd No.2298, Kumarakom.

                                                                                (Paul K.Abraham)

                                                                            3) Secretary,

                                                                                Kottayam District co-Operative Bank.     

                                                                               (Adv.Jose Joseph.K)        

 

 

 

             Case of the petitioner, filed on 4/5/09, is as follows:-

 

Petitioner is an agriculturist having 2 ½ acres of agriculture land in Kumarakom Panchayat. Petitioner insured the crop with 1^st opposite party through 2^nd opposite party. Petitioner for the purpose of cultivation availed loan of Rs.25,000/- from the 2^nd opposite party. According to the petitioner due to natural calamities during September 2008 the entire cultivation of the petitioner was lost. Petitioner informed the 1^st opposite party and the agricultural officer of the said locality with regard to the loss of cultivation. From 2009 February 1^st opposite party issued notice to the petitioner with regard to the repayment of the loan. On 5/3/09 due to compulsion from the part of 1^st opposite party petitioner repaid the entire loan amount due to the bank. According to the petitioner 1^st opposite party is liable to indemnify and compensate the petitioner for loss of cultivation. Petitioner states that act of the opposite party in not processing the claim of the petitioner amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the petition.

            1^st opposite party entered appearance filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to 1^st opposite party petitioner is not a consumer and the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Government of Kerala as per its order dated 27/10/99 accepted the NAIS propounded by Central Government. The scheme is purely a social welfare measure. 1^st opposite party is merely an agent of Central Government administering the said scheme. Scheme operates on an area approach and areas are notified before a season, by State Government as decided by the state level co-ordination committee for crop insurance for furnishing notified crops/area list to the participating financial institutions. Collection of premium as well as payment of claim will be done on a seasonal basis. All farmers growing paddy, who avail crop loan from commercial banks, co-operative credit institutions and regional rural banks are automatically and compulsorily to be covered under the scheme. All banks shall submit details of the crop loans disbursed and crop insurance coverage details through their nodal bank offices, who shall in turn consolidate such particulars and submit a declaration to 1^st opposite party in a prescribed format along with remittance for the premium collected from farmers within specified period. 1^st opposite party does not receive any details regarding name of farmers, name of villages or name of the bank branches where loans are actually disbursed. State Govt. conducts crop cutting experiments in all the notified areas through its concerned department. The seasonal actual yield computed for each area by the state govt. is compared against threshold yield calculated for that area. If there is a shortfall in yield then only insured farmer will be eligible for indemnification. 1^st opposite party admitted that they collected premium from nodal bank in terms of provisions of the scheme and holds money in trust. In this case petitioner filed a complaint stating that his paddy crop had been lost due to rain and subsequent bund damage. Other details regarding the season of cultivation, notified panchayat and details of declaration etc.,                     are not furnished in the complaint submitted by the petitioner so, opposite party is not in a position to state whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation. The actual yield for paddy crop supplied to 1^st opposite party by the department of Economics and Statistics, Govt.of Kerala for 2008 season for the threshold yield is 3792 Kgm per hector. Actual yield is 4999 per hector and no shortfall in the yield. So as per the information given by the state govt. there is no shortfall in actual yield of Kumarakom Panchayat. According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part and they pay for dismissal of the petition with their costs.

            2^nd opposite party filed version stating that the petition is not maintainable. According to the 2^nd opposite party petitioner had taken a loan for Rs. 25000/- from 2^nd opposite party for Rs.25000/- in the interest free agricultural loan scheme of Kerala State Govt. As per the terms and conditions of the scheme petitioner remitted insurance premium amount through 1^st opposite party bank for getting the benefit of the scheme. Petitioner cleared the insured dues in the bank. According to the 1^st opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part and they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.

            Additional 3^rd opposite party, arrayed as party as per order in IA 206/10 dtd 21/4/10, filed separate version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to the 3^rd opposite party petition is barred by Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act. 3^rd opposite party admitted that petitioner availed a loan for 2^nd opposite party for agricultural purpose on 5/9/08. Petitioner’s crop was also insured with 1^st opposite party by payment of premium. The additional 3^rd opposite party had given required declaration without any delay on their part. According to the 3^rd opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part and they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.

Points for determinations are:

i)                    Whether the petitioner is a consumer?

ii)                   Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

iii)                 Reliefs and costs.

Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed both parties and Ext.A1 to A5 documents on the side of petitioner and Ext.B1 to B4 documents on the side of opposite parties

            According to the 1^st opposite party the insurance coverage given to the farmer is governed by NAIS, framed by Govt and the liability is not contractual on the basis of the scheme so petitioner is not a consumer. In our view the contention raised by the opposite party is of no merit. Admittedly the scheme is for the benefit of the farmers including the petitioner’s and beneficiary of the scheme paid the premium of the policy. The word ‘consumer’ is a comprehensive expression it extents from a person who buys any commodity for consideration or avails the service for consideration, their ambits further enlarged by use of inclusive clause. For instance, it is not only the person who avails the service but even though who are beneficiaries of such service with approval of the person who hired the service are also included in the definition of consumer. So in our view petitioner is a consumer.

            Opposite party has no case that there is no loss sustained to the paddy crop, cultivated by the petitioner. Ext.A2 is a certificate issued by Agricultural Officer of Kumarakom Krishi Bhavan. From Ext.A2 it can be seen that paddy crop of the petitioner in .66 hectors has been completely lost due to heavy rain, flood and break of bund occurred on 9/9/08. Opposite party in their version stated that if there is shortfall in any particular notified area in a season, each of eligible insured farmers in that notified area will be eligible for indemnification. As per the reports submitted by the department of Economics and Statistics, Govt.of Kerala in receipt of Kharif 2008 season from 1/4/08 to 30/9/08 is that there is no shortfall yield. 1^st opposite party has another contention that 3^rd opposite party has not filed any details of declaration with regard to the cultivation. 1^st opposite party in para 9 of their version admitted that complainant has filed a complaint to the 1^st opposite party stating that his paddy crop cultivated in 2 ½ acres is completely lost so, admittedly before getting the report of the Economics and Statistics department a complainant had been lodged by the petitioner with regard to loss of cultivation, but 1^st opposite party has not taken any steps to enquire with regard to the claim of the petitioner. Even though 1^st opposite party has a definite case that the nodal bank has not submitted any declaration as per the scheme. But nothing has been placed on record to prove the same. By accepting the premium opposite party has a bounden duty to enquire with regard to the claim of the complainant. Being an agency of Govt.1^st opposite party should be more conscious in dealing with its consumer. Under our constitution sovereignty vest in the people. Every limb of constitutional machinery is obliged to the people oriented. A public functionary if acts maliciously and exercise of its power results in harassment then it cannot be an exercise of power but it is an abuse of power. Harassment of poor farmer by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. In such situation injury caused to society is grievous. Nothing is more damage than the feeling of helplessness to a poor citizen like a farmer. So it is prime duty of 1^st opposite party to help a poor farmer by enquire about a claim for loss of cultivation. In our view act of the 1^st opposite party in not enquiring with regard to claim of the petitioner even after getting a complaint of loss sustained amounts to clear deficiency in service so point no.2 is found accordingly.

            In view of the findings in point No.1&2 petition is allowed.

            In the result 1^st opposite party is ordered to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service committed by the 1^st opposite

 

 

 

 

party. 1^st opposite party is also ordered to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- as cost of the proceedings. Since there is no evidence with regard to loss and sufferings no separate compensation is ordered.

Order shall be complied with within one month of the receipt of a copy of the order.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of May, 2012.

.

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-

Smt. Bindhu M Thomas, Member                     Sd/-

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                    Sd/-

 

 

Ext.A1-Receipt showing payment of insurance premium

Ext.A2-Certificate issued by the Agricultural Officer, Kumarakom

Ext.A3-Relevant page of newspaper cutting

Ext.A4-copy of receipt dtd 5/3/09

Ext.A5-copy of receipt dtd 5/3/09

Ext.B1-copy of order No.GO(MS)No.304/99/AD dtd 27-10-99

Ext.B2-letter no.13011/15/99 dtd 16/7/99 Ministry of Agriculture, Govt.of India

Ext.B3-copy of declaration form

Ext.B4-copy of statement given to the dept.of Economics&Statistics dtd 29//1/09

 

 By Order,

Senior Superintendent.