PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER 1. Revision Petitions No. 2607 of 2013, 2608 of 2013 and 2609 of 2013 have been filed by the Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited, Petitioner herein and Opposite Party before the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “the State Commission”), being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, which had allowed the complaints filed by the respondents of deficiency in service against it. Since the facts and the parties are common/similar in respect of all these revision petitions arising and out of the same consumer dispute, it is proposed to dispose them of through a single order by taking the facts from Revision Petition No. 2607 of 2013. 2. FACTS : In his complaint before the District Forum, Respondent had contended that on 5th February, 2009 he had taken an insurance cover for Rs.1,35,000/- from the Petitioner/Insurance Company in respect of the wheat crops cultivated by him in his agricultural land in Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi, Rajasthan. Unfortunately, because of severe thunderstorm accompanied by hailstones on 21st March, 2009 during the validity period of the insurance cover, his entire wheat crop got destroyed because of which he suffered heavy losses. He, therefore, filed a claim seeking payment of the insured amount with the petitioner/Insurance Company, to which despite repeated reminders there was no response. The respondent, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that the Petitioner/Insurance Company be directed to pay him Rs.1,35,000/- towards loss of crops covered under the insurance cover, Rs.5000/- for mental agony and Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation. 3. On being served, Petitioner/Insurance Company while admitting that the Respondent had taken an insurance policy from it in respect of his Rabi crop for the year 2008-09 under the Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme denied that there was any deficiency in service on their part. It was stated that the claim which was received through their authorized and licensed broker, namely Shridhar Insurance Broker (Pvt.) Ltd. was rightly repudiated since under the said insurance scheme the crops were insured only against damage caused due to increase in average temperatures and excess rainfall and not on account of hailstones. In this connection, it was further contended that “zero mm” rainfall was recorded on the date when the crops were destroyed. 4. The District Forum, after hearing the parties and on the basis of evidence produced before it, allowed the complaint by observing as follows : “In the present complaint, the contention of the complainant is that his crop was destroyed due to falling of hailstones and, therefore, the compensation of the insured crop was to be paid. While refuting the said contention, it is contended by the insurance company that loss was not liable to be paid on the basis of falling of hailstones, but from perusal of Para No.12 of the notification it is revealed that as per appendix-4, for covered risk of crop during the insurance period, district wise and crop wise compensation was to be calculated on the basis of applicable weather parameters of increase in average temperature, short or excess rainfall, humidity etc. From this it is revealed that the insured crop was covered for the risk of excess rain, humidity, increase or decrease in temperature etc. Opposite Party insurance company has stated that falling of hailstones is not included in the risk but this fact is not mentioned in the notification issued by the State Government, but the risk caused due to excess rainfall, humidity etc. is covered for insurance. In such circumstances, the claim for the abovesaid amount is not liable to be rejected by the Opposite Party insurance company.” The District Forum directed the Petitioner/Insurance Company to pay to the respondent the amount for which the crops were insured within a period of three months alongwith Rs.1000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation. 5. Being aggrieved, Petitioner/Insurance Company filed an appeal before the State Commission, which upheld the order of the District Forum by observing as under : “The Ld. District Forum has passed the order after detailed deliberation of the entire facts and evidences of the complaint. Hence, we find no justification to re-examine the entire facts and evidences of the complaint. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not find any error in the Order dated 20.01.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Bundi in Complaint No. 32/2010. Since the Ld. District Forum has granted proper relief to the complainant after correctly applying its mind on the facts brought on record the same calls for no interference. Therefore, there appears no merit in the present Appeal.” Hence, the present revision petition in which Petitioner/Insurance Company has requested for setting aside of the order of the State Commission on merits, as also on the ground that instead of applying its mind, the State Commission has passed a non-speaking order summarily rejecting their appeal. 6. Counsel for the Petitioner/Insurance Company and Respondents in person are present and made oral submissions. 7. Counsel for the petitioner/Insurance Company, while admitting that the respondent had taken an insurance policy in respect of his Rabi crop, has contended that as per the notification of the Rajasthan State Government issued under the Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme, only two risks, namely, increase in temperature and excessive rainfall, were covered and the risk of falling hailstones was not included in the said notification. It is well settled that the provisions of an insurance policy have to be strictly construed as per its wording and, therefore, the District Forum erred in presuming that the falling of hailstones amounted to excessive rainfall. On the other hand, there is documentary evidence from the Weather Station, NCMSL, Hindoli that there was no excess rainfall recorded on the date when the crops were destroyed. Further, the State Commission as a Court of fact as also the Court of first appeal instead of applying its mind and reanalyzing the facts and evidence of the case, as submitted in the appeal by the Petitioner/Insurance Company, merely disposed of the same in a cryptic and unsatisfactory manner through a non-speaking order without even discussing the grounds of appeal, as was required from a Court of first appeal. 8. Respondents, who were present in person, reiterated that since the crops were destroyed due to falling hailstones which like excessive rainfall is an adverse weather condition the Fora below had rightly concluded that keeping in view the objectives and provisions of the Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme the claim was wrongly repudiated. 9. We have carefully considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Insurance Company and the Respondents as also the evidence on record. 10. At the outset, we note that the State Commission has disposed of these Appeals through a non-speaking order although Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of judgments, including in S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India [(1990) 4 SCC 594] as also in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. [(2010) 9 SCC 496], has ruled that all judicial and quasi-judicial authorities are required to pass speaking orders since this would inter alia enable higher courts to effectively exercise appellate or supervisory powers, introduce clarity in its decision and minimize the chances of arbitrariness in decision making. Although these judgments had been brought to the notice of the State Commission, we note with regret and dismay that the State Commission continues to pass non-speaking orders. Therefore, instead of remanding the case back to the State Commission, we propose to dispose of the same by taking into account the evidence and concurrent findings of the Fora below. 11. It is not in dispute that the Respondents had insured their crops under the Government of India’s Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme as implemented by the Government of Rajasthan in 27 districts vide their notification dated 11th November, 2008. It is also a fact that although the loss to the insured wheat crops of the Respondents occurred during the validity of the insurance policy, the claim was repudiated by the Petitioner/Insurance Company on the ground that the crops were destroyed because of hailstones, which is not one of the covered risks as per the notification of the Rajasthan Government pertaining to the Scheme. In this connection, we have gone through the notification of the Government of India in respect of the Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme as also the notification of the Rajasthan Government. We note that the main objective of the Government of India Scheme is to mitigate the hardships of the insured farmers against likelihood of financial loss on account of anticipated crop loss resulting from incidents of adverse conditions of weather parameters like unseasonal rainfall, frost, heat (temperature) etc. The notification of the Rajasthan Government also reiterates this objective. Further, in para 12 of the notification it is clearly stated that the risks covered would be for weather related parameters like “increase in temperature, decrease in temperature, excess rainfall, humidity etc.”. Though the destruction of crops due to hailstones may not be specifically mentioned, it is also not excluded under the Scheme since the risks stated are illustrative and not comprehensive, as clearly indicated by the addition of the word “etc.” while listing out various adverse weather conditions. As stated earlier, the main objective of the Scheme is to protect the farmer/insured’s crops against adverse weather conditions. Under these circumstances, we are unable to comprehend how the Petitioner/Insurance Company concluded that hailstones, which is clearly an adverse weather condition, is not a covered risk. If such misguided and narrow interpretations of the Scheme are taken by the implementers of this important and beneficial Scheme, then its very objective and purpose will be defeated. Hailstones is admittedly an adverse weather condition and can often cause even more damage than excessive rainfall, increase in temperature, humidity etc. In the instant case, we are of the view that the Petitioner/Insurance Company unnecessarily harassed the Respondents by rejecting their bonafide claims. Under the circumstances, we have no option but to dismiss the present revision petitions and to uphold the order of the Fora below. 12. To sum up, Revision Petitions No. 2607 of 2013, 2608 of 2013 and 2609 of 2013 filed by the Petitioner/Insurance Company are dismissed. The Petitioner/Insurance Company is hereby directed to comply with the orders of the Fora below within a period of three months and pay each of the Respondents the amount so calculated against their claims besides Rs.1000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the State Commission. |
