Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/457/2011

Prem Chand Kamboj S/o Ramji Dass - Complainant(s)

Versus

J.K.Risk Manager And Insurance Brokers Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Anil Aggarwal

24 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                    Complaint No.  457  of  2011.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 09.05.2011

                                                                                    Date of decision: 24.08.2016.

Shri Prem Chand Kamboj aged about 65 years son of Ramji Dass, resident of House No. 618, Honian Street, Jagadhri. 

 

                                                                                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. J.K.Risk Manager & Insurance Brokers Limited, 4^th Floor Link House, 3 Bahadursha Jaffar Marg, New Delhi 110002.
2. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Regional Office, Ground Floor, SCO No.64-65, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             …Opposite parties.  

           

CORAM:          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Anil Kamboj, Advocate, counsel for complainant.    

              Sh. Anuj Jain, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1

              Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2.  

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the consumer Protection Act 1986.  

2.                     Brief facts, as alleged in the complaint, are that the complainant got insured Mango garden of 2.5 acres of land from respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred as OP No.2) on the recommendation and advise of OP No.1 vide cover note No. 6 dated 05.05.2010. As per scheme of the government, 50% of the premium was paid by the complainant/farmer and remaining 50% by the State Government and Central Government in equal shares. The insurance policy covered the risk of anticipated yield loss in the event of high temperature, excess rain fall and high wind speed to the tune of R. 20,000/- per acre. During the year 2010, the crop of the complainant was damaged as there was high temperature and subsequently there was heavy rains and entire crop of the Mango became waste due to which the complainant suffered total loss so he was entitled to compensate of Rs. 50,000/- ( 2.5 x 20,000 per acre). The complainant informed the OPs well in time but the OPs assured the complainant that after September 2010, the OPs will inspect the spot and send the cheque of claim amount to the complainant by post. However, the OPs sent only a cheque of Rs. 7520/- to the complainant whereas complainant was entitled to get Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. Complainant made so many requests to the OPs to make the payment of remaining amount but all in vain. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement separately. OP No.1 filed its written statement by mentioning therein that the OpNo.1 is neither a proper or a necessary party as there is no privity of contract between the complainant and Op No.1. Op No.1 is only a broker and inter alia its function is to render service on appropriate insurance cover and terms to the clients. Accordingly, in the instant case, the Op No.1 has only rendered advise to purchase the insurance policy from OpNo.2 directly and Op No.1 has no concern whatsoever in purchasing the insurance policy from Op No.2. It has been further mentioned that however, as per information, the Op No.2 has paid the damage of Rs. 7520/- vide cheque No. 120593 dated 12.11.2010 for his 2.5 acres of land as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy to the complainant as full and final settlement of eligible claim and lastly has prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     OP No.2 also filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as no cause of action; no locus standi; there is no deficiency in service; the present complaint has been filed with ulterior motive and to derive unlawful gains; complainant has suppressed, concealed and twisted the true and material facts from this Forum; complaint is not maintainable and without jurisdiction. On merit, it has been mentioned that Government of India has issued administrative instructions dated 11.09.2009 for implementation of pilot Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme (hereinafter referred as WBCIS) and Horticulture Department, Government of Haryana has implemented Weather Based Crop Insurance  Scheme on pilot basis in Yamuna Nagar District during the year 2009-10 for Mango crop through  respondent (OP No.2) and issued notification dated 28.01.2010 in this regard. OP No.1 J.K.Risk Manager and Insurance Broker ltd., New Delhi was empanelled as Insurance Broker of the OP No.2 during the year 2009-10 for Mango Crop in Yamuna Nagar District. The scheme was extended for the period w.e.f. 07.05.2010 to 31.07.2010. As per terms and conditions of the WBCIS, its premium and payout structure etc. were made known and understandable to the complainant/ farmer and thereafter the complainant had opted for the scheme for coverage of his 2.5 acres of land situated in village Tejli, Block/Tehsil, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar and paid the corresponding his share in premium amounting to Rs. 3309/- through J.K. Risk Manager and Insurance Broker Ltd. OP No.1. OP No.2 i.e. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. ( Hereinafter referred as AIC) has received the complainant’s proposal form together with said premium amount and on the said proposal form, the complainant has given declaration that he had the knowledge of terms and conditions of the policy. On the basis of proposal form and premium amount, a cover note bearing No. 6 dated 08.06.2010 was issued to the complainant with copy of terms sheet of scheme. As per scheme term sheet, out of total premium of Rs. 2647.20 per acre, 50% was payable by the farmer and 50% was subsidized by the State and Central Government of India to mitigate hardship of insured farmers against likelihood of financial loss on account of anticipated loss in crop yield resulting from adverse weather incidence of adverse condition of weather as per para meters like deficit and excess rain fall, frost ( low temperature), heat (temperature), relative humidity etc. “The brief functioning of the weather based crop insurance scheme  implemented during 2009-10 season for Mango Crop in Yamuna Nagar District for insurance cover was available on the following conditions:

For High Temperature at the rate of Rs. 8000/- per acre,   For Excess rain fall at the rate of Rs. 8000/- per acre, For High Wind speed  at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per acre i.e. total Rs. 20,000/- per acre subject to other condition which was incorporated  in the Insurance policy in detail/ term sheet and has been reproduced in written statement.  It has been submitted that payout arises only in case of ‘Adverse weather incidence’ which is equivalent to the deviation level from ‘Triggers weather’ and ‘Actual Weather’ data recorded at notified ‘Reference Weather Station’ (RWS) during the specified time period mentioned in the term sheet which was National Collateral Management Services Limited (NCMSL’s) AWS at Chhachhrauli for the present case. It has been further mentioned that as per data received from the concerned weather station of the independent agency namely NSMSL’s which was notified by the State Government and as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy claims/pay out become payable only Under Category 2 i.e. Excess rain fall at the rate of 3008/- per acre under WBCIS implemented in District Yamuna Nagar for Mango Crop as per weather data received for the notified Reference Weather Station (RWS) Scheme according to term sheet and in the terms of Insurance Cover Note issued. Accordingly, pay out to the tune of Rs. 7520/- was released to the complainant vide cheque No. 120593 dated 12.11.2010 for his 2.5 acre of land under the said scheme. Certified weather data for the risk period, letter dated 13.10.2010 (Annexure R2/12) provided by the NCMSL, claim calculation sheet (Annexure R2/10 , R2/11 and R2/13) and premium and pay out structure together with the State Government Notification are attached herewith as Annexure R2/1 to R2/8. Lastly, it has been prayed that the eligible payout has already been paid as full and final, hence, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

5.                     To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and photo copies of documents i.e. premium receipt issued by Op No.1 as Annexure C-1, proposal form as Annexure C-2, weather based crop insurance scheme Kharif 2010 i.e. term sheet as Annexure C-3, reply to legal notice as Annexure C-4, News Paper Yamuna Nagar Jagaran City dated 27.05.2010 as Annexure C-5 and closed his evidence.

6.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Anurag Kaul, Chief Executive and Principal Officer of Op No.1 as Annexure RW/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.

7.                     Learned counsel for OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajesh D. Regional Manager, AIC Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. as Annexure RW2/A and photo copies of documents such as scheme of Government of India as Annexure R2/1, letter of Director of Horticulture as Annexure R2/2, Notification of Haryana Government as Annexure R2/3, Letter from Director of Horticulture as Annexure R2/4, Instructions for implementation of weather waste group insurance scheme as Annexure R2/5, letter dated 23.04.2010 as Annexure R2/6, Letter dated 15.04.2010 as Annexure R2/7, Term sheet for Yamuna Nagar District as Annexure R2/8, Proposal form as Annexure R2/9, Insurance Cover note as Annexure R2/10, Calculation sheet as Annexure R2/11, Certificate of NCMSL dated 13.10.2010 alongwith weather data sheet as Annexure R2/12 and r2/13, Forwarding letter for sending cheque of Rs. 7520/- dated 19.11.2010 as Annexure R2/14, Legal notice as Annexure R2/15, Reply to the Legal Notice as Annexure R2/16 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

8.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for the opposite party reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for its dismissal.

9.                     After hearing the parties at length and going through the complaint, reply and documents placed on file, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and the claim of the complainant has been rightly settled by the OPs Insurance Company as per  term sheet i.e. terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question and as per weather data recorded at Notified Reference Weather Station at Yamuna Nagar and also based on approved and notified term sheet of coverage of Mango Crop in Yamuna Nagar by the Department of Horticulture Government of Haryana. As per insurance policy and data provided by the Notified Reference Weather Station, the claim of the complainant was arises only on account of excess rain fall and as per calculation, it becomes at the rate of Rs. 3008/- per acre i.e. Rs. 7520/- for 2.5 acres which has been already received by the complainant without any protest.  The plea of the complainant that the OPs insurance Company has made the payment on account of only excess rain fall whereas there was high temperature also and the complainant was also entitled to get the compensation on account of high temperature as in the News  published in the News Paper of dated 27.05.2010 Jagaran City, temperature crossed 46 .

10.                    On the other hand, counsel for the  OPs hotly argued that news published in the News paper is not authenticated whereas the claim of the complainant has been settled correctly as per data provided by the approved weather station in Yamuna Nagar which is more authentic and reliable as it has been collected by the Government Approved Agency and further there was no ill will on the part of official of that agency. The arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant is not tenable as the complainant wants to get the benefits only on the ground of news item published in the news paper (Annexure C-5) whereas the claim of the complainant has been settled on the basis of data provided by the approved Government Agency. The complainant has totally failed to point out any discrepancy in the calculation sheet for assessing the amount on account of loss. Even, the complainant has also not placed any documentary/ cogent evidence to prove that he has actually suffered the loss on account of high temperature or otherwise. Further, the present complaint has been filed on 09.05.2011 i.e. after near about 6 months after getting the amount of Rs. 7520/- vide cheque No. 120593 dated 12.11.2010 as full and final payment and it is not the case of the complainant that he has accepted the payment under protest. Further, the complainant has also failed to prove that data provided by the National Collateral Management Service Limited ( NCMSL) which is national level institution set up to empower the stake holder in commodities and inventories to deal with associated risks is not correct and the claim of the complainant has not been correctly calculated.

11                    In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that the claim of the complainant has been rightly settled by the OPs and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence, the complainant is not entitled for any another relief.

12                    Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 24.08.2016.

                                   

                                                                                          ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER