Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/175/2017

Mr.S.Murgaiyan S/o.Late.Chinnappa Gounder - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Bharathi Vajravelu Senior Zonal Manager Agricaltural Insurance company of India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

K.Sudha

03 Sep 2018

ORDER

                                                             Complaint presented on:  24.11.2017

                                                                Order pronounced on:  03.09.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

 PRESENT: TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM,B.Sc.,B.L.,DTL.,DCL.,DL &AL  : PRESIDENT

              THIRU. D.BABU VARADHARAJAN B.Sc.,B.L.,  :    MEMBER - I

 

MONDAY THE  03^rd  DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018

 

C.C.NO.175/2017

 

 

Mr.S.Murugaiyan,

S/o. Late.Chinnappa Gounder,

16, Kallapuram Kottai,

Thattampalayam Post,

Sivagiri – 638 109,

Kodumudi Taluk,

Eroade District.

                                                                                           ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

M/s. Bharathi Vajravelu,

Senior Zonal Manager,

Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd.,

1.  

Old No.156, (New No.323), Thambu Chetty Street,

Parrys Corner, Chennai - 600 001.

….Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 28.11.2017

Counsel for Complainant                      : K.Sudha

 

Counsel for  opposite party                      : T.Ravi Kumar

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.3,69,250/- a sum of also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and physical strain with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

        The complainant is the owner of the land measuring an extent of 3 Acre and 79 cents in S.No.298/8, 300/1, 2,4, 301/02 at Konthalam village. He cultivated 262 coconut trees in the land  which is aged about 15 to 60 years . These trees were insured with the opposite party insurance company along with relevant documents . Premium amount paid was Rs.3.50 per tree and the total amount is Rs.917/- The policy copy was not given to the complainant even after the request. Due to drought without rainfall and dried well, out of 262 trees 211 are dried out. As per the insurance plan, the opposite party company is agreed to give Rs.1,750/- per tree if the insured trees are dried. The complainant sent a letter to the opposite party  for the claim  and it was replied stating that they are going to  appoint  Agricultural officer for revaluing  the trees and assured for the  issuance of the certificate. After their visit, there was no reply till November and there was no response from the opposite party. The complainant sent a letter on 20.10.2017 and it was received by the opposite party.  Then the complaint was given before the  Insurance ombudsman, who   directed the complainant  to file the claim application along with the initial approval or rejection letter, along with policy documents. The complainant obtained a certificate from VAO of Konthalam, kodumudivattum mentioning the number of dried and undried trees. The certificate from VAO will clearly prove the case of the complainant. Therefore the complaint is filed.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

        The govt. of India has formulated  an Insurance scheme called Coconut trees Insurance scheme which is operational from 2013. The Scheme shall cover all healthy trees with Insurable age group from 4^th year to 60 years and split into 4-15years and 16-60 years of coconut trees. The complainant had not informed the opposite party within 15 days of drying of coconut trees  which is mandatory under clause 16 of the policy. In the instant case, Assistant Director of agriculture  has sent a report that only 70 coconut trees  have dried up and only eligible insurance amount is only Rs.1,22,500/-  is alone payable and the opposite party is waiting for the sanction from the Head office. The complainant has to prove that 211 trees are dried up. The claim of the complainant is erroneous not supported by any document and the complaint is to be dismissed.        

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

04. POINT NO :1

           The complainant   is the owner of the land measuring an extent of 3 Acre and 79 cents in S.No.298/8, 300/1, 2,4, 301/02 at Konthalam village had cultivated 262 coconut trees in the above said property and the insurance taken for all the trees and paid a sum of Rs.3.50 per tree  and totally paid Rs.917/- and as per insurance plan   the opposite party has agreed to give Rs.1,750/- per tree are all admitted facts.

         05.  Without rainfall and all the water sources like well, deep well are dried , out of 262 trees, 211 were dried up as per the complaint. Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are the policy plan and premium details with the receipt issued by the opposite party. The case of the complainant is that  the coconut trees, which are covered under the insurance scheme, out of 262 trees, 211 trees got dried up due to drought and the claim amount of Rs.3,69,250/- was not accepted by the opposite party, in view of the submission of report after spot visit by Agricultural officer as 70 trees only got dried up.

         06. The opposite party would submit that the claim is filed belatedly and the opposite party is willing to pay only Rs.1,22,500/- for the 70 trees as per the report of their Agriculture officer and  the claim of the complainant is not supported by any document and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

        07.  Ex.B1 reveals that the  date of occurrence of damage was  on 10.05.2017  the loss of intimation was on 11.05.2017. Even after the receipt of letters from the complainant,  there is no reply from the opposite party pointing out the delay.  If  really  the delay had  occurred , the opposite party would have rejected the claim at the initial stage itself and would not have proceeded with. Whereas, the opposite party  had repeatedly replied regarding their visit to the field  ensuring their re-visit. Therefore,  the contention of the op  that the intimation of damage  was  intimated  belatedly cannot be accepted by this forum as correct.

       08. Ex.A4 and Ex.A5are the letters   sent by the opposite party to the complainant, regarding the visit of Agricultural officer and assurance of sending Insurance certificate. Again a letter dated 20.10.2017 in Ex.A7 was sent to the opposite party  requesting  to pay compensation for the dries trees. The letter addressed by the complainant to the Ombudsman was replied through mail in Ex.A8 directing the complainant  to file the claim application along with the initial approval/rejection along with related documents.

        09.  Ex.A6 is the certificate given by VAO of konthalam, kodumudivattam mentioning the details of total trees cultivated and also the details of dried and un dried trees on enquiry. There is a news in the daily news paper at Chennai, regarding the quick disposal of disbursement of insurance amount for paddy cultivated farmers is Ex.A9 paper cutting.  The policy copy along with related documents are Ex.A12. The letter  sent by the opposite party to the complainant for the re-visit of the land is Ex.A13 and Photograph of the land with some trees are in Ex.A14.

      10.  Claim Assessment report is Ex.B1 is counter signed by Assistant Director of Agriculture and Ex.B2 is the claim assessment report by the office of the ADA concerned. Ex.B3 is Scheme document of coconut Insurance.

       11. The learned counsel for the complainant had argued  by putting forth the case of the complainant and  emphasised  the points regarding  the  news  in the daily paper  regarding the disbursement of insurance amount, and  VAO certificate  and also the photographs submitted.

        12. On the side of the  of the opposite party, it is pointed out  by the learned counsel for opposite party, as per the scheme document, the visit  and assessment was made by the  appropriate person and VAO certificate cannot be accepted, photos do not reveal the real picture of the  land belonging to the complainant, therefore the complainant’s case is not true.

        13. There is  no delay in  informing the damage by the  complainant  to the opposite party as discussed earlier. Whereas, the delay  in assessment is explained  by the opposite party  as  the time taken  for verification  regarding the claim , since the claim is within a short span of obtaining the policy is  reasonable  and acceptable one as evidenced from records.

          14. Now the only point to be discussed is to find out as to whose assessment is to be considered as correct among both. The complainant has submitted VAO certificate to substantiate his contention and also Photos, whereas the op relied upon the assessment submitted by the Agricultural officer. Even though  numbers are noted in the trees found in the photographs , the dried trees are scarcely seen and photos cannot be considered as   the conclusive proof for accepting the contention of the complainant. VAO   has given the certificate oncoming to know after enquiry that 211 trees are dried and 51 undried trees are  there  in the land of the complainant. He has even  not furnished the particulars of enquiry and  also  not submitted the enquiry report along with his report, raising the doubt of his  visit to the field. No other revenue records have been produced  to substantiate the case of the complainant. Therefore the report of the VAO is considered as not an authenticated one. Daily paper news in Chennai  is for  the disbursement of Insurance claim for the paddy growers  in the drought areas. Here is a case  claiming for the Insurance in proportionate to the  dried trees hence  it is has no relevancy to this present case.

            15. The report submitted by the opposite party  in Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 is based on the visit of the Agricultural officer to the land  with due information. The report is counter signed by the Assistant director of Agriculture and also by the officer who assessed the loss. As per the Scheme document of  Coconut Insurance in Ex.B3, the eligibility of indemnifying the loss is specified. The report in Ex.B1 & B2  reveals only 70 trees are dried up. Claim assessment and settlement procedure is  incorporated in the Scheme document in column 11. The claim is assessed  as per the procedure in the scheme document and the loss assessment certificate is issued as stated in the said document. The eligible Insurance amount would be for the 70 trees at Rs.1,750/- per tree, totalling to an amount of Rs.1,22,500/- after Inspection and certification by the appropriate authority.   It is also within the knowledge of the complainant. However, if the complainant is not satisfied, he could have sought for the court commissioner’s appointment to visit the spot to find out the dried trees. He failed to do the same also. Hence as discussed above, the plea of the complainant as to the large number of trees dried is not proved by the complainant.

         16. Even though opposite party has come to the conclusion of the claim settlement for Rs.1,22,500/-   to the complainant, it is admitted in the proof-affidavit of the opposite party that it could not be settled immediately since the approval of the Head-Office was required. Even at that point of time, the complainant is not satisfied with, there could have been a real offer of the amount by any mode immediately by the opposite party, therefore opposite party is entitled to settle the claim with interest.

17. POINT NO:2

        As admitted by the opposite party and as discussed above regarding the claim, the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,22,500/- with interest @ 9% from the date of loss intimation given i.e from May 2017 to till date of payment. Since, the complainant suffered physical strain and stress as a farmer without any source of income  without the early settlement he is entitled for Rs.25,000/- for his mental stress besides a sum of  Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

        In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,22,500/- (Rupees one lakh  twenty two thousand and five hundred only) with interest @ 9% from May 2017 to till the date of payment to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty  five thousand only) for mental agony besides, a sum of   Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.    

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 03^rd   day of September 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated NIL           Coconut Tree Insurance Plan details of the opposite party

Ex.A2 dated 07.01.2017         Premium Amount paid by the complainant

Ex.A3 dated 09.01.2017         Acknowledgement cum receipt issued the opposite party

Ex.A4 dated 17.07.2017         Letter from the opposite party to the complainant

Ex.A5 dated 07.09.2017         Letter from the opposite party to the complainant

Ex.A6 dated 12.10.2017         Certificate issued by the VAO, Konthalam

Ex.A7 dated 20.10.2017         Letter from the complainant to the opposite party

Ex.A8 dated NIL           Mail from the office of the insurance ombudsman

Ex.A9 dated NIL           Paper cutting related to the payment of the compensation

                                          to the Farmers

 

Ex.A10 dated NIL                   Copy of Patta in the name of the complainant

Ex.A11 dated NIL                   Copy of Joint Patta in the name of the complainant

Ex.A12 dated 09.01.2017       Policy copy along with related letters

Ex.A13 dated 06.11.2017                 Letter from the opposite party to the complainant

Ex.A14 dated NIL                             Photographs of the Trees       

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated 14.05.2017                   Claim Assessment report by Asst Director of

                                                    Agriculture Kodumudi

 

Ex.B2 dated 26.12.2017                   Claim Assessment report of officer of A/C

 

Ex.B3 dated 1.11.2013           Scheme document of Coconut Insurance   

 

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT