KERAL A STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.527/11

JUDGMENT DATED 17.9.12

PRESENT

SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR            --  JUDICIAL MEMBER

The Regional Manager

Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd,

Regional Office, T.C.14/1765,

Bakery junction, Trivandrum.                              --  APPELLANT 

   (By  Adv.Sreevaraham G.Satheesh.

                   Vs.

1.      P.J.Lookose, Kochuthundiyil veedu

          Pulinkunnu P.O, Kayalappuram (via)

          Alappuzha.

2.      Rosamma Mathew, Kochuthundiyil

Pulinkunnu P.O, Kayalappuram (via)        --  RESPONDENTS

          Alappuzha.

3.      Nithin Lookose,

Pulinkunnu P.O, Kayalappuram (via)

          Alappuzha.

4.      Joseph Mathew, Kochuthundiyil

Pulinkunnu P.O, Kayalappuram (via)

          Alappuzha.

5.      Lishamol Lookose, Kochuthundiyil

Pulinkunnu P.O, Kayalappuram (via)

          Alappuzha.

6.      The Secretary, Vadakke Angadi

          Service Co-operative Bank Ltd,

          Pulinkunnu.

7.      The General Manager

          Alappuzha District Co-operative Bank Ltd;

          Head office, Alappuzha.

              (R7 By Adv.C.Parameswaran)

JUDGMENT

SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR-JUDICIAL MEMBER

          The appellant was the first  opposite party in CC.No.139/08 in the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha.  Respondents 1 to 5 were the complainants therein.   They were farmers in Alappuzha.   Their grievance was that   during 2006-2007 each complainant had  raised Punja crops over 5 acres of paddy filed and   the crop was insured with the first opposite party.  There was un-expected infestation of the crop and more than 50% of  the yield was damaged.  The complainants were remitting the insurance premium in the District Co-operative Bank, Alappuzha.    They lodged a claim for the sum assured with the opposite party.  The first opposite party without valid reason repudiated their claim.  The complainants claimed the assured amount of Rs.15,000/- per acre and Rs.10,000/- as compensation

          2. The appellant/first opposite party filed detailed version  and additional version.  Based on their contention    opposite parties 2 and 3 were impleaded.  Thereafter, the third opposite party filed version.  The main contention of the appellant/first opposite party was that the complainants were covered by the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS)   as per the declaration dated 31.1.07.  As per the declaration the 5 complainants and 10 others had voluntarily insured under NAIS their paddy crop raised in Pulincunnu notified area during Rabi II 2006 season as Non  loanees.  The actual assessed yield data for the paddy crops as supplied to the first respondent by the Department of Economics and Statistics, Government of Kerala for the notified   zone comprising of Pulincunnu Panchayath of Alappuzha District  in respect of Rabbi II 2006 season as well as the respective threshold yield rate for the same notified zone showed no shortfall during the period,   as the actual assessed yield was 5248 kgms per hectare  as against the threshold yield of 2791 kgms per hectare  when worked out as  provided under Clause 13 of the scheme.   There was no short fall in the yield for the relevant crop in the Pulincunnu Panchayath including the complainants.  Under the above circumstances, the complainants were not entitled to any relief.

          3. The third opposite party contended that the complainants were not its consumers.  The second opposite party collected insurance premium from the complainants to remit the same with the third opposite party.  It duly forwarded the same to the first opposite party.  The third opposite party has acted only as a nodal bank   collecting  and transmitting  the insurance premium.  The claim applications received from the complainants were also promptly forwarded to the first opposite party.  The third opposite party has nothing to do with the row   between the complainants and the opposite parties.

          4. Before the Forum, the first complainant gave oral evidence as PW1.  An officer attached to the Pulincunnu Agricultural office during 2007 was examined as PW2.  Exts. A1 to A15 were marked on the side of the complainants.  The Regional Manager of the first opposite party gave oral evidence as RW1.  Exts. B1 to B9 were marked on the side of the first opposite party.  The Forum mainly relying on the evidence of PW2 and Ext A7 issued by him held that the claims of the complainants were repudiated on un-tenable grounds and accordingly allowed their complaint.  Hence the appeal  by the  aggrieved   first opposite party.    The short question that arises for consideration is whether the findings of the CDRF, Alappuzha can be supported in light of Ext.B9 Claim Form of National Agricultural Insurance and the consequent insurance. 

          5. The contention urged  by the learned counsel for the appellant/first opposite party relying on the decision of the Hon. Supreme Court of India in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Harchand Rai Chandanlal (2004) CPJ 15  is  that it is not open to interpret an expression appearing in a policy in terms of common law but it has to give meaning to the expression as defined in the policy.  The act that causes the loss must fall within the definition in the policy and it cannot take the cover and contents of the definition  as laid down in the criminal law.  The learned counsel submitted that though the decision was rendered in a claim based on burglary and/ or house breaking policy  the principle equally applies to the present case.  He pointed out  relying on Ext.B9, National Agricultural Insurance Scheme that provisions are made for sharing of risk and the area where the scheme is applicable.  The way in which shortfall for the purpose of indemnity is to be  calculated  is also provided in the scheme.  The actual assessed yield for  the particular season will have to be calculated as indicated in the scheme after doing a number of crop cutting experiments.  Similarly  the threshold yield is also defined in the scheme.   The short fall would be the threshold yield minus    actual yield for the defined area.  It is true that there is nothing to show that the  department of economics and statistics was notified as the authority to assess  the actual yield or the threshold yield.  But there is no justification in placing  reliance on the  evidence of PW2 or Ext.A7 issued by him.  It is true that PW2 was an officer   attached to the Pulinkunnu Agricultural Office.  Ext.A7 issued by PW2 mentions   the complainants as non loanee agriculturists in the  Padasekharam.  It is further mentioned that there was considerable reduction in the yield due to infestation in the paddy fields of the complainants.  Even the extent of reduction in the yield is not indicated  in Ext.A7.  Apparently Ext.A7 is issued without doing any crop cutting experiments as indicated in the scheme.  Apparently      he was not authorized to do crop cutting experiments as per the scheme.  The Forum also relied on his version as PW2 that breach occurred  in the bund when the Padasekharam was prepared for cultivation.  Thus agricultural operations were delayed.    He has issued Ext.A7 on visiting the Padasekharam on 24.7.07.  This version shows that he  issued Ext.A7 after a single day visit.  Not only that if as a matter of fact breach occurred in the bund agricultural operations in the entire Padasekharam  would have been delayed. It is as against this evidence,  the first opposite party produced Exts.B4 to B6 yield data of Kharif 2006 Rabi 1, 2006-2007 and for Rabi II, 2006-2007.  It is mentioned  that the data is submitted based on a single series of crop cutting experiments which are being used both for general crop estimation survey and National Agricultural Insurance Scheme.  The actual yield for the relevant crop relating to the Pulinkunnu Panchayath is also given in the documents.  Relying on the statistics, it was pointed out  that as far as the Pulincunnu area was concerned there was  no shortfall  for the relevant crop.  The National Agricultural Insurance Scheme was intended to cover loss to farmers as a whole in the area.   Indemnity in the case of localized risk is yet to be formulated as indicated in Clause 13 (a) of the scheme.  The complainants have  raised individual claims.    As per the scheme under which the complainants contributed premium, individual consideration has no place.  What was material   was the actual yield from  the paddy crops in the area covered as a whole.  There were farmers who were mandatorily covered under the scheme.  Those were farmers   who availed loan from the Agricultural bank.  The complainants did not avail any loan from the bank.  So, it was optional for them to join the  scheme and they did in fact join  the scheme.  But as per the scheme individual losses were not covered and what was material was the actual yield for a particular season and the threshold yield as calculated in the manner indicated by the scheme.  It is not at all disputed that there was no short fall for the Pulincunnu area in the relevant season.  If  that be so, the conclusion of the forum that risks   of the complainants were covered cannot be sustained based on Ext.A7 or the evidence of PW2.  The complainants are not entitled to any relief.

            Accordingly the appeal is allowed.  The order of CDRF, Alappuzha in CC.139/08 dated 5.7.08 is set aside.  The complaint is dismissed and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case without costs.

              SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR -- JUDICIAL MEMBER