Complaint presented on :20.02.2019           Date of disposal            :27.07.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

                PRESENT : THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                          :PRESIDENT

                                      TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,                         : MEMBER-I

                              THIRU.V.RAMAMURTHY,B.A.,B.L.,PGDLA.,    :MEMBER-II

C.C. No.62/2019

DATED WEDNESDAY THE 27^th  DAY JULY OF 2022

R.Sivakumar Aged 51 years,

S/o. Rathinam,

No.9, Thambiranvalasu,

Kasthurbagram,

Kodumudi Taluk,

Erode -638 101.

                                                                                      .…..Complainant

 ..Vs..

Ms. Bharathi Vajravel,

Rep. by its Senior Zonal manager,

Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd.,

1^st floor, Andhra Insurance Building,

Old No.156, New No.323, Thambuchetty street,

Parrys Corner, Chennai-600 001.                                                                                                                                             …..Opposite Party

Counsel for Complainant                           : M/s. S.Revathy and 3 others

Counsel for  opposite party                          : M/s. P.S. Kothandaraman and 2 others

ORDER

THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L., PRESIDENT :

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to direct the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.2,31,000/- with interest  9% from 01.11.2017 and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental agony and costs of this complaint.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant submitted that the insurance scheme for coconut trees in the name of coconut palm insurance scheme for the preservation of coconut trees from the agricultural risks. The complainant is a farmer and he is the absolute owner of the land measuring an extent of 4 Acre 94 cents in Survey no.295/1B2, at Kongudaiyampalayam village, Kodumudi taluk.  He has been cultivates 350 coconut trees in the said property which is aged about 15 to 60 years.  The complainant had insured the 350 trees  with the opposite party insurance company  and submitted the Patta Chitta, RSR Adangal, A register, FMB sketch, VAO certificate to show the insurer cultivated the coconut trees with premium amount of Rs.3.50 per tree aged 16-60 years and Rs.2.25 per tree aged 4-15 years.  A total trees of the complainant is 350 to be insured and total premium amount a sum of Rs.1225/- was paidby the way of Demand draft. The complainant further stated that without rain fall all the water sources like deep well, canal were dried in the above and said land out of 350 trees 132 trees were dried out (No.of trees aged 4-15 years-3  & No.of trees aged 16-60 years-34) and the same was intimated by the complainant to the Assistant Agricultural Officer,  Kodumudi Taluk. The complainant submitted that as per the insurance plan, the opposite party company has agreed to give compensation amount of Rs. 1750/-per tree aged 16-60 years and Rs.900/- per tree aged 4-15 years aged if the insured trees are dried by drought, natural calamities etc. Complainant requested an Assistant Agricultural Officer, Kodumudi to inspect the insurance coconut trees as per the claim assessment report. The Assistant Agricultural Officer inspected the cultivation of coconut trees of the farmer who has insured and he informed to the opposite party via letter Na.Ka.No.5/2017 dated :01.11.2017 regarding the CPIS 2017-18 insurance claim with the claim assessment report made by the ADO. The complainant submitted that according to the insurance plan the opposite party is liable to pay a amount of Rs.1750/- per tree aged 16-60 years total of 132 trees out of 350 to total amount of Rs.2,31,000/- as per inspection report submitted  by the ADO Kodumudi taluk. The complainant submitted that the opposite party replied that “ the pre-existing peril has been insured by you and you are not eligible for policy claim”.The complainant submitted that the Village Administrative Officer of Kongudaiyampalayam village, Kodumudi Taluk issued certificate on 12.04.2017 mentioning the details of the total trees cultivated by the complainant. ADO, kodumudi taluk sent a letter to the opposite party regarding the dried tress of the complainant who has insured and opposite party does not come forward to inspect the trees. The act of the opposite party is totally illegal, negligent and constitute gross deficiency of service.

2.WRITTENVERSION FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The opposite party denies all the allegations stated by the complainant except those, which are specifically admitted thereon. The opposite party submitted that Government of India had formulated an Insurance Scheme called coconut palm insurance scheme (CPIS) which is operational from the year 2013.  The scheme shall cover all healthy palms with insurable age group from 4^th year to 60 years and is split into 4-15 years and 16-60 years being the age of the coconut palm tree. The scheme details are more fully set out in the scheme document. Further submitted that the complainant did not inform this opposite party within 15 days of the drying of the coconut palm tree which is mandatory under clause sixteen of the policy.  Opposite party had taken time to verify the claims of the complainant. Further the complainant had made a claim within a short span of obtaining the policy which mandates that the verification of the claim should be done. The opposite party submitted that the complainant has insured 350 trees by paying requisite premium under the coconut palm insurance scheme.  It is submitted that the scheme the complainant’s eligibility for indemnifying any loss is specified.   The opposite party further submitted that the rainfall recorded during the claim period in kodumudi block is 609.43mm, which is much above for the same period during the last year, which is 212 mm.  Thus, an increase in rainfall when compared to previous year is 397.43 mm.  The opposite party submitted that it has been communicated to the complainant promptly informing the repudiation of the claim. This opposite party prayedto dismiss the complaint as devoid of merits.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part opposite party as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the complaint.     If, so to what extent?

Both side arguments heard. The complainant filed proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to A12 were marked on his side and written arguments.  The  opposite party filed proof affidavit and Ex.B1 to B3 were marked on the opposite party side and written arguments. 

4. POINT NO :1 :-

                   The complainant insured the coconut 350 trees under the insurance scheme in the name of coconut palm insurance scheme for preservation of coconut from agricultural trees with the opposite party by paying a premium amount of Rs.1225/- which was accepted  by the opposite party and the policy was issued in the name complainant, the trees were cultivated in the land owned by the complainant in the survey number and extent as mentioned in the complaint.  As per the insurance plan the opposite party agreed to give compensation amount of Rs.1750/- per tree aged 16 to 60 years and Rs.900/- per tree aged 4 to 15 years if the insured trees are dried due to drought natural calamities etc.  The complainant has filed proposal form and the  copy of demand draft given to the opposite party for the premium paid which were marked as Ex.A1 and A2.  The VAO certificate and patta in the name of complainant were marked as Ex.A9 and A10, the photos showing the dried coconut trees were marked as Ex.A11out of 350 trees, 132 trees were dried out and the same was intimated to the Assistant Agricultural Officer by the complainant and the letter by the Assistant Agricultural Director Dated:01.11.2017 along with his report stating that 132 coconut trees of the complainant were dried out and intimating to the opposite party insurance company which is marked as Ex.A5, the complainant has sent a letter to the opposite party under RTI act requesting to give the details about the payment of compensation amount for the dried trees which is marked as Ex.A6 and the reply by the opposite party repudiating the claim stating pre existing peril is marked as Ex.A8.

          5. According to the opposite partyas per the policy condition intimation must be given to the opposite party within 15 days of drying of coconut tree and further the complainant has to prove that 132 trees dried due to drought and contended that the rain fall recorded during the said period in Kodumudi block as per Ex.B2 is 397.43 mm higher that the previous year and therefore contended that the complainant has falsely claimed the insurance amount by suppressing pre existing peril and hence contended that the complainant is not entitled for the relief.

          6. It is found that the complainant has insured his trees with opposite party by paying a necessary premium it was not disputed by the opposite party.  It is found from Ex.A5 report submitted by the Assistant Agricultural Director of Kodumudi that the 132 coconut trees of complainant dried due to non availability of sufficient water and the said report was submitted to the opposite party on 01.11.2017, after due inspection of the trees but thereafter the opposite party has not made any assessment by inspecting the property and there is no document filed by the opposite party that an attempt was made by the opposite party to inspect  and verify the claim of the complainant . It is found from the documents filed by the complainant that the complainant has intimated regarding the drying the coconut trees within 15 days to the Assistant Agricultural Officer, Kodumudi.  But the opposite party simply relied upon the rain fall data given by the Assistant Director of Agriculture who is not a competent person to give report about rain fall therefore the Ex.B2 and the data found in the same cannot be relied upon.  At any event Ex.B2 is a data of average rain fall in Kodumudi Block.  But, the rain fall at the place where the complainants lands and trees are located may vary and at that place, there may be even a minimum rain fall level also.  Therefore, the contention of the opposite party by placing reliance on the basis of rain fall data cannot be accepted, on the otherhand Ex.A5 report submitted by the Assistant Agricultural  Director after due inspection clearly prove that the tree dried due to drought and the non payment of insurance amount by the opposite party inspite of demand made by the complainant and repudiating the claim by saying policy was taken suppressing the pre-existing peril which was not proved by the opposite partyamounted to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Point no 1 answered accordingly.

7. Point. No.2:-

          Based on findings given to point. No.1.  It is found that the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,31,000/- towards the loss sustained by the complainant for the drying of trees by drought.  Since the complainant was deprived of the above said amount from November 2017 the date of loss of intimation for which the complainant is also entitled for interest at 9% per annum and further the complainant entitled to get a sum of Rs.25,000 towards compensation for mental agony in addition to Rs.5,000/- litigation expenses.

          In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,31,000/- towards the loss sustained by the complainant for the drying of trees by drought with 9% interest from the year November 2017 the date of loss of intimation till the date of realization and  also pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- for litigation expenses.  The above said amount shall be paid to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.    

          Dictated  by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 27^th   day of  July 2022.

MEMBER – I                MEMBER – II                                 PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

MEMBER – I                MEMBER – II                                 PRESIDENT