By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member:
The gist of the complaint is as follows:-
The Complainant had insured his cultivation of 1000 plantains with the 1st Opposite Party. The cultivation was financed by the 2nd Opposite Party and the insurance premium was paid by 2nd Opposite Party for and on behalf of the Complainant after deducting the premium amount from the loan amount.
2. On 12.07.2008 the plantains were destroyed due to heavy rain and storm. The loss was about Rs.1,00,000/-. The surveyor of 3rd Opposite party came to the spot and assessed the loss and found that there is total loss.
3. Even though the Complainant approached the Opposite Party several times for the insurance amount, they were not ready to grant the request of the Complainant. The denial of insurance amount is a deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Therefore the Complainant prays for an order directing the 1st Opposite Party to compensate the loss of Rs.1,00,000/- and to give a compensation of Rs.25,000/-.
4. The 1st Opposite Party filed version and stated that they could not locate the file of the Complainant since the policy number is not mentioned in the complaint. There is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint is to be dismissed.
5. The 2nd Opposite Party filed version and stated that the 1st Opposite Party had insured the plantain cultivation of the Complainant. The NMGB, Kattimoola Branch sanctioned a loan of Rs.25,000/- to the Complainant for the cultivation. The premium amount of Rs.3,500/- for insuring the crops was collected by the bank and remitted to the 1st Opposite Party within time. The demand draft No.53713 dated 10.11.2007 along with the credit disbursement and crop insurance premium report 2007-2008 with respect to the Complainant and six other loanees have been forwarded to the 1st Opposite Party on 10.11.2007. There is no deficiency in service on the side of the 2nd Opposite Party. If the Complainant is eligible for getting any compensation, the 1st Opposite Party alone is liable for the same.
6. The 3rd Opposite Party filed version and stated that the plantain cultivation of the Complainant is insured with the 1st Opposite Party through the 3rd Opposite Party. The claim form is directly filed by the Surveyor in the insurance Company. The address of the Surveyor is also submitted by the 3rd Opposite Party.
7. The matters to be decided are:-
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the Opposite Parties?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief?
8. The Complainant adduced evidence as PW1. Documents were marked as Exts.A1 and A2. The Surveyor was examined as PW2 and copy of survey report was marked as Ext.X1. Another witness on the side of the Complainant was examined as PW3. 1st Opposite Party was examined as OPW1, 2nd Opposite Party was examined as OPW2. Documents were marked as Exts.B1 to B12. On the application of 2nd Opposite Party, 1st Opposite Party was ordered to produce documents and that were marked as Ext.X2.
9. Point No.1:- The 2nd Opposite Party admits that they have collected premium and send proposal form of the Complainant to the 1st Opposite Party. Ext.X2 also show that the proposal is received by 1st Opposite Party. On the proposal form of the Complainant, it is written that 'short premium Rs.3,500/-. Ext.X2 itself shows a communication from the bank to the insurance company to adjust the premium of Rs.3,500/- from the D.D. No.053712 send along with 5 other proposal forms. To that letter, insurance company replied that such a D.D is not received at their end. The bank affirmed that D.D. No.053712 is received and encashed by the insurance company. Again the insurance company wrote the instruction to collect the shortage premium of 3,500/- from the bank. This instruction is not seen communicated to the bank.
10. How ever, in the Ext.X2 policy, the name of the Complainant is not seen. Ext.B4 is the credit disbursement and crop insurance premium report 2007-08. This document clearly shows that premium of Rs.3,500/- is deducted from the loan by the bank. Ext.B1 is the receipt for payment of only Rs.16,363/-. This payment is exactly accounted towards the policy of 5 persons in which the Complainant is not included. Ext.B2 shows payment of Rs.1,225/- towards the premium and this amount is exactly accounted by the insurance company towards the policy of one Mr. Varghese. The premium is not paid by the bank to the insurance company for insuring the Complainant. After collecting the premium amount from the account of the Complainant, it is the duty of the bank to see that amount promptly sent to the insurance company and get the Complainant's crop insured. The bank has neglected to do this. Hence point No.1 is found against the bank Opposite Party No.2.
11. Point No.2:- There is no policy in the name of the Complainant with the 1st Opposite Party because no premium is paid by the 2nd Opposite Party. So, the Complainant has not received the insurance amount. However, inspection was conducted by PW2 on the assumption that there was policy, X1 shows the damage of 972 bunched plantain. The Complainant would have received the insurance amount for this loss if the policy was there. So, the Complainant deserves to get an amount appropriate to the insurance amount as compensation from the bank. As per the master agreement seen in Ext.X1, the insured is entitled to get Rs.60-10 per each bunched banana plantain. So the Complainant is entitled to get Rs.48,600/- as compensation
Hence, the complaint is partly allowed and the 2nd Opposite Party is directed to give the Complainant a compensation of Rs.48,600/- (Rupees Forty Eight thousand and Six hundred only) within 30 days of the receipt of this order. The 2nd Opposite Party also directed to give interest on this amount at rate of 10% per annum from the date of this order till payment. No order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30th March 2011.
Date of filing:05.04.2010.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
A P P E N D I X
Witnesses for the Complainant:
PW1. A.J. Ouseph. Complainant.
PW2. K.V. Janardhanan. Independent Surveyor.
PW3. Mohandas. Agriculture.
Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:
OPW1. Vijayan C.K. Branch Manager United Insurance Company.
OPW2. P.K. Johny Branch Manager, North Malabar Gramin Bank.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Copy of Letter.
A2. Copy of Letter. dt:14.08.2009.
Exhibit for the Opposite Parties:
B1. Copy of Receipt.
B2. Copy of Receipt.
B3. Copy of Credit Disbursement & Crop Insurance Premium Report 2007 – 2008.
B4. Copy of Credit Disbursement & Crop Insurance Premium Report 2007 – 2008.
B5. Copy of Letter dt:15.11.2007.
B6. Copy of Proposal.
B7. Copy of Proposal.
B8. Copy of Proposal.
B9. Copy of Proposal.
B10. Copy of Proposal.
B11. Copy of Proposal.
B12. Copy of Proposal.
X1. Miscellaneous: Natural Calamity: Investigation Report. dt:08.09.2008.
X2 series (11 Nos) Copy of Proposal.
