KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.564/12
JUDGMENT DATED 27/03/2013
PRESENT:
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd.,
Regional Office, T.C.14/1765,
Vazhuthacaud, Bakery Junction,
Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv: Sri. Sreevaraham G. Satheesh)
Vs
RESPONDENTS:
1) K.T. Rejimon,
Kunchakkeriyil, Kumarakom East P.O.,
Kottayam.
(By Adv: S/S. S. Ravi & V.S. Adarsh)
2) Secretary,
Kumarakom Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.2298
Kumarakom.
3) Secretary,
Kottayam District Co-operative Bank,
Kottayam.
APPEAL NO.564/12
JUDGEMENT DATED, 27/03/2013
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER
The appellant is the first opposite party who preferred this appeal against the order dated 29/05/2012 in C.C.NO.145/09 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam.
2. The complainant is an agriculturist having agricultural land which was insured with the first opposite party through second opposite party. He availed a loan for Rs.25,000/- for the cultivation from the second opposite party. Due to the natural calamities, the entire cultivation of the complainant lost and this was informed to the first opposite party and produced the certificate issued by the Agricultural Officer regarding the loss of crop. On February 2009 the second opposite party issued a Notice to re-pay the agricultural loan, on failure of repayment the complainant had to suffer consequences. Even after giving a Certificate from the Agricultural Officer the complainant was compelled to repay the entire loan amount due to the Bank. It is the allegation of the complainant that the first opposite party is liable to indemnify and compensate the complainant for the loss of cultivation. It is also alleged that the repudiation of the claim by the first opposite party amounted to deficiency in service and filed this complaint. The complaint is filed for Rs.25,000/- along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost.
3. The first opposite party in their version contended that the petition is bad for non-jointer of necessary party and is not sustainable as the 3rd opposite party was not impleaded by the complainant. The Government of Kerala by its order accepted the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme propounded by the Central Government. The said scheme was formulated for providing insurance coverage and support to the farmers. During natural calamities the areas are notified before a season by the State Government as decided by the State Level Co-ordination Committee for crop insurance. The premium is collected on a seasonal basis. The season prevalent in Kerala for paddy crop was under the scheme Kharif (Autumn). The crop loans are automatically covered under the scheme and the primary Agricultural Co-operative Societies have to submit the details of crop loans disbursed under the crop insurance coverage. The first opposite party was not responsible for the details regarding the name of farmers/villagers or the Bank through whom actually disbursed the loan. It is the department of Economics and Statistics notify the area and assess the crop yield per hectare. Threshold yield per hectare are first calculated for each such area before every season by multiplying indemnity with the average yield during preceding 3 years in that notified area. If there is a short fall in yield in any particular notified area in a season, each of the eligible insured farmers in that notified area will be eligible for indemnification. The complainant cultivated paddy crop in 21/2 acres of land availing crop loan of Rs.25,000/- and remitted the premium of Rs.599/-. Due to rain and bund damage the complainant’s crop fully lost. The details of the declaration by which the complainant’s crop had been insured under the scheme were not furnished by the 3rd opposite party. As per the data furnished by the Kerala Government through its department of Economics and Statistics there had no short fall in actual yield of paddy for the notified area of the complainant for Kharif 2008 season and no claim payable under the scheme to any of the insured farmers in that notified area. As evidenced by the relevant crop insurance declaration in this regard, no claim is payable to the complainant as per the scheme. It is also stated that there is no role for the second opposite party for disbursal or in the repayment of loan to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of first opposite party and the complainant is not entitled for any relief.
4. In the version filed by the second opposite party it is stated that the complainant took a loan for Rs.25,000/- under the interest- free agricultural loan scheme of Kerala State Government. The insurance premium was remitted through the first opposite party bank for getting the benefit of the scheme. It is also stated that the complainant cleared the loan amount. The claim application received from the complainant was forwarded to the first opposite party. The second opposite party has nothing to do with the loan amount nor with any compensation. No deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of second opposite party.
5. The 3rd opposite party filed version contenting that the dispute raised in this case is barred Under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act. The forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case. There is no privity of contract with the complainant and the additionally impleaded 3rd opposite party and the 3rd opposite party was wrongly impleaded in the case. It is true that the complainant had availed a loan from the 2nd party for agricultural purpose on 05/09/2008. The complainant’s crop was insured with the first opposite party on payment of premium. The required declaration was given without delay. No relief is entitled to receive from the additional 3rd opposite party and the relief prayed by the complainant is to be dismissed.
6. Both the parties filed Affidavit and documents in support of their case. Exbts A1 to A5 and Exbts.B1 to B4 were marked on the side of the complainant and opposite parties respectively. The Forum below held that the first opposite party is liable to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service and Rs.1,000/- as cost of proceedings.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant/1st opposite party argued that the agricultural loan availed by the respondent was towards the natural calamities and paid the insurance premium through the second opposite party. The insurance coverage given to the farmer was governed by the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme framed by the Government and the liability is not contractual. It is admitted that the scheme is for the benefit of the farmers including the petitioner who had already paid premium. It is also argued that if there is short fall in any particular notified area in a season each of eligible insured farmers in that notified area will be eligible for declaration. As per the reports submitted by the department of Economics & Statistics of Government of Kerala the Kharif 2008 season from 01/04/2008 to 30/09/2008 had no short fall yield. It is also pointed out that the 3rd respondent had not filed any details of declaration with regard to the cultivation. As per the statement the yield for the complainant had no short fall. The assessed yield for the particular season will have to be calculated though the actual yield had short fall. The total yield taken in the previous 3 consecutive years, no short fall is assessed by the department under the scheme. Hence the first opposite party is not in a position to consider complainant’s loss to be included in the agricultural loss. As per the scheme individual loss is not covered and what is material is the total yield for the particular area for a specified period. Hence no loss of cultivation can be compensated under this particular scheme and no deficiency can be attributed on part of first opposite party. The National Agricultural Insurance Scheme is a countrywide crop insurance scheme of Government of India and the appellant/first opposite party is only an agent for implementing the scheme as per Government Notification. No claim can be disbursed without the authority from Government of India or State Government. He also pointed out the forum below failed to consider the entire scheme and the intention of the scheme and procedures of its implementation. The Certificate from the Agricultural Officer was intended only for that particular complainant which is not acceptable by the appellant. The report assessed by the department of Economics & Statistics can only be accepted by the appellant as per rules. The policy scheme was misconstrued and the order to pay compensation and cost are to be set aside.
8. Though the R1 and R2 entered appearance through the counsels there had no representation. R3 was served notice and was absent. This Commission heard the appellant in detail and had gone through the entire records available. The National Agricultural Insurance Scheme was intended to cover the loss of paddy cultivation due to natural calamities. The complainant/respondent availed a loan of Rs.25,000/- from the 2nd opposite party through the first opposite party and remitted the premium also to cover any loss. The respondent produced the certificate from the Agricultural Officer regarding the loss of crop during Kharif. This was not considered by the 1st opposite party on the ground that the individual loss cannot be considered for compensation under the scheme envisaged by the Government of India through the State Government. This particular scheme is intended to file declaration by the 3rd respondent before the Economics & Statistics Department of Government of Kerala. The scheme is to provide benefit for the loss for the yield. It is also to be pointed out that as per the scheme the short fall is taken to the entire yield of that area for the consecutive 3 years as per the reports of the Economics and Statistics Department. The yield of the specified area covered by the complainant’s crop yield does not come under short fall of yield. Hence it cannot be considered for the short fall of crop loss and the benefit under the scheme cannot be extended to the respondent/complainant. Hence the repudiation of the claim by the appellant/first opposite party is in order and there is no deficiency in service and is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondent/complainant.
In the result, appeal is allowed and this Commission upturn the order passed by the forum below. The order is to comply within 30 days on receipt of the copy of the order.
The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum below along with LCR.
A. RADHA : MEMBER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.564/12
JUDGMENT DATED, 27/03/2013
sa
