These two Revision Petitions, by the Complainant, are directed against a common order dated 29.04.2014, passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Shimla (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeals No. 364/2013 and 375/2013. By the impugned order, while accepting the Appeals filed by Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited and Punjab National Bank, Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 respectively in the Complaint, the State Commission has overturned the order dated 28.10.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kullu (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 12 of 2012. Insofar as the District Forum was concerned, it had allowed the Complaint, preferred by the Petitioner, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties in not paying to him the full amount of compensation under the Scheme, styled as “Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme”, for the loss suffered by him on account of failure of apple crop due to deficient rain. The District Forum had, thus, directed the Respondents to jointly and severally pay to the Complainant a total sum of ₹99,050/- as claimed by him, along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of institution of the Complaint till realization. The District Forum had permitted the Respondents to account for the sum of ₹7,924/-, already paid to the Complainant under the said policy. The short ground, on which the legality and correctness of the order impugned in the Revision Petition is being questioned, is that the State Commission has committed a material irregularity in relying upon the weather report received from the Reference Weather Station at Naggar, situated about 27 kms. away from the Orchard of the Complainant. It is urged on behalf of the Petitioner that the loss to the crop on account of deficient rainfall between 1st June to 30th June, 2011 should have been determined on the basis of temperature, rain and snowfall data, maintained at Bahang by the Ministry of Defence, Defence R & D Organisation, Snow & Avalanche Study Estt., Chandigarh, vide their letter dated 16.06.2014, as Bahang is about 4 – 5 kms. away from the Orchard of the Complainant. Having perused the material on record, including the terms and conditions of the aforesaid Scheme, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with learned Counsel for the Complainant. The relevant paragraph of the said Scheme, laying down the basis, on which the compensation (payout) is to be made to an Insured, in terms of the said Scheme, reads as follows: “14. COMPENSATION (PAYOUT) (I) AIC shall be responsible for all Payouts arising out of “Adverse Weather Incidence” strictly in terms of the Scheme terms & conditions read with the relevant Premium & Payout tables. However, this responsibility of AIC shall attach only when the ‘Risk has incepted’, that is, AIC has duly received the FULL PREMIUM, directly from the Insured his own part, AND ALSO the corresponding Premium Subsidy part from the Governments. (II) Pay-out shall arise ONLY in case of Adverse Weather Incidence. Adverse Weather Incidence is equivalent to the deviation between “Trigger Weather” and “Actual Weather” Data recorded at a “Reference Weather Station” during the specified time-period. Trigger Weather is a pre-defined Weather Parameter applicable to a Notified Crop in a notified Reference Unit Area. In case of Adverse Weather Incidence (AWI), all the insured cultivators growing the Notified Crop in the Reference Unit Area shall be deemed to have suffered the same level of AWI and the same proportion of crop-loss, and become eligible for the same rate of Payouts.” (Emphasis added) It is manifest from the highlighted portion of the Scheme, in para (II), that the Payout in case of Adverse Weather Incidence has to be determined on the basis of the data recorded at a “Reference Weather Station” during the specified time period. On a pointed query, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner candidly admits that insofar as the Complainant’s Orchard is concerned, the relevant “Reference Weather Station” was Naggar and not Bahang. That being so, we are unable to read any material irregularity or illegality in the impugned order, wherein the compensation payable to the Complainant has been determined on the basis of the weather data recorded at the said “Reference Weather Station”. We are also unable to agree with the learned Counsel that the afore-noted stipulation in the Scheme is unfair to the Agriculturists. The vires of the terms and conditions of a public policy cannot be examined in a Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. For all the aforegoing reasons, we do not find merit in these Revision Petitions. The same are dismissed accordingly, with no order as to costs. Before parting, we deem it appropriate to observe that we have taken the afore-noted view on a strict interpretation of the aforesaid stipulation in the Scheme, with the hope and expectation that the loss suffered by the Complainant, to the tune of approximately ₹1,00,000/- in respect of a seasonal crop on account of vagaries of nature, not being in serious dispute, the Insurance Company, a Public Sector Undertaking, shall still consider the case of the Complainant sympathetically and make some ex-gratia amount to him to compensate for the loss. |
