By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant planted 600 bananas availing loan from North Malabar Gramine Bank branch at Vellamunda. The bananas were insured by the 2^nd Opposite Party implementation of the scheme was under help of the 1^st Opposite Party. The insurance coverage extent from 30.06.2006 to 30.06.2007 on 22/06/2007 400 bananas were destroyed in natural calamity for strong wind and rain. The Opposite Parties informed of the damages in time on 25.6.2007 and 28.6.2007. The Opposite Parties jointly inspected the site and surveyor of the 2^nd Opposite Party assessed the loss and damages and report was filed. The Opposite Party did not heed the request of the Complainant to compensate the loss. On 23.6.2009 the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties were requested in writing and the claim was not considered. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to give the Complainant Rs. 60/- per each plant towards the assured sum along with cost and compensation.

2. The petition for condoning the delay in filing the complaint I.A. No.126/2010 is allowed and notice was issued to the Opposite Parties.

3. The 1^st Opposite Party filed version in short it is as follows:- The claim of the Complainant that he is a policy holder of the 2^nd Opposite Party. The planting of the banana was 30.6.2006 and coverage of risk extend to the period of one year only. According to the Complainant destruction of banana took place on 22.6.2007. The terms of the policy is such that the policy is having the coverage of one year or till harvesting of the crop which ever occurs earlier. The Complainant had not well nurtured the crops. Apart from that proper care was not taken in proping plant and there was no effort from the side of the Complainant to lesson the damage if sufficient care was given in protecting the crop. The complaint does not deserve any merit it is to be dismissed with cost.

4. The 2^nd Opposite Party filed version it is in short as follows:- The Complainant herein forwarded the application to compensate the loss and damages effected in the natural calamity to the banana plants of the Complainant. For processing the claim the Assistant Manger of 1^st Opposite Party and the Surveyor of the 2^nd Opposite Party inspected the site and report was given to the 2^nd Opposite Party the insurer. The loss of banana if above 100 in number, the procedure for inspection was that the Assistant Manager of 1^st Opposite Party. The Manager and the Surveyor of the Insurance Company are to jointly inspect the site. Such joint inspection was effected and the claim was forwarded to 2^nd Opposite Party. The copy of the claim form along with the report and endorsement of the Surveyor is also produced.

5. Points in consideration are:-

1. Whether any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties in repudiation of the claim of the Complainant.

2. Relief and cost.

6. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the Complainant and 2^nd Opposite Party, Exts. A1, B1 to B3 are the documents produced.

7. The allegation of the Complainant is that as a holder of the policy covering the risk of

natural calamities for the banana plants. The policy was taken remitting the premium. The Complainant is a participant farmer of Vegetable Fruits Promotion Council, Kerala. The insurance of the policy is not denied by the 2^nd Opposite Party. The Vegetable Fruits Promotion Council Kerala (VFPCK) is also a party in settlement of the claim. According to the terms of settlement the complaint is to be launched within 3 days from the occurrence of peril. The plants which are more than 300 which succumbed to destruction to be intimated immediately to the Insurance Company by the VFPCK or the Bank Manager. In this case from the claim form it is cleared that the date of peril was 22.6.2007 and it was informed to the Vegetable Fruits Promotion Council Kerala on 23.6.2007. The number of bananas which were destroyed in natural calamity are 337. Those were non bunched also. The coverage of assurance extents to one year or harvesting of the crop which occurs yearly. Any how destruction effected 5 days prior to the completion of one year period. The compensation payable to the Complainant by the insured as per the scheme Rs.60/- for Nendran and Red banana deduction of Rs.10/- as salvage value is to be deduct for plants at least 8 months of age from the date of planting. In this case the bananas were presumed to be fully grown and bunches may be about to harvest. The repudiation of the claim by the 2^nd Opposite Party is a deficiency in service. The 1^st Opposite Party is only a promoter of the scheme. The Complainant would have received reasonable price for the bunches which were in the stage about to reap. Whether the Complainant is to be compensated the number of destroyed banana is 337 bunched plants. The 2^nd Opposite Party is directed to give Rs. 15/- per each banana plants considering 337 bunched banana plants were destroyed.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The 2^nd Opposite Party is directed to give Rs.5,055/- (Rupees Five thousand and Fifty Five only) to the Complainant towards the compensation of loss within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The Complainant is also entitled for the cost of Rs.5,00/- (Rupees Five hundred only). This is to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 28^th September 2010.

Date of filing: 02.01.2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEBBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1. Raju. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Copy of Claim Form. dt:25.06.2007.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Copy of Agreement.

B2. Claim Form. dt:25.06.2007.

B3. Copy of Letter. dt:07.12.2007.