DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

DATED THIS THE 25^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024.

PRESENT : SRI. VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.

         : SMT. VIDYA .A, MEMBER.

         : SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

                                                                                                   Date of filing: 15.07.2023.                                              

CC/183/2023

                Lakshmi Devan.C.V,                                                                                       - Complainant

Chorakode House, Thannissery,

Mannathukavu, Peruvemba, Palakkad.               

(Party-in-person)          

                                                                                VS

 1.           Rein Enterprises, Insurance Hub,                                                      -Opposite Parties

2^nd Floor, C.M.Complex,

Opp. Malabar Restaurant,

Coimbatore Road, Palakkad.

(Ex-parte)

2.            Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd,

                 8^th Floor, Carmel Towers,

                Cotton Hill (HO), Vazhuthacaud,

                Thiruvananthapuram.

                (By Adv.M.Krishnadas)

ORDER

BY SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.

1.       Pleadings of the complainant in brief

          The complainant remitted the crop insurance premium to the 1^st opposite party for insuring his 4 Acre rabi paddy crop and 0.418 hectare of Mango orchard under the Insurance scheme offered by the 2^nd opposite party.  The premium remitted was Rs.1,920/- for paddy and Rs.3,150/- for mango.  The complaint is that he lost insurance benefit due to the delayed payment of premium for paddy and non-payment of premium for mango crop to the 2^nd opposite party by the 1^st opposite party.  Hence, this complaint, seeking compensation towards the lost insurance benefit of Rs.1,20,000/- for paddy and Rs.60,000/- for mango.

2.      Notices were issued to the opposite parties.  The 1^st opposite party did not enter appearance or file version.  Hence, they were set ex-parte. The 2^nd opposite party filed version stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part as the failure of the 1^st opposite party to file the application along with the premium resulted in the rejection of application and non coverage of crops under insurance. 

3.      Based on the pleadings of the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party, the following issues were framed;

          1. Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party?

          2. Whether the premium was remitted within cut-off-date?

3. Whether there is an insurable interest over mango crop?

          4. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          5. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?

          6. Reliefs as to cost and compensation.

4.      The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts.A1 to A5 as evidence.  Ext.A1 is the letter issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant informing their inability to accept the insurance proposal as it was submitted after due date, Exts.A2 and A3 were the premium paid receipts issued by the 1^st opposite party for Rs.1,920/- (paddy) and Rs.3,150/- (mango) respectively.  Ext.A4 is the brochure issued by the 1^st opposite party showing the details of the Agricultural Insurance scheme and Ext.A5 is the letter sent to the 1^st opposite party by the complainant along with speed post receipt.

                      The 2^nd opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked Ext.B1 to B8 as evidence.  Ext.B1 is the GO issued by the Government of Kerala on RWBCIS, Ext.B2 is the operational guidelines of the scheme for RWBCIS, Ext.B3 is the Administrative approval of the scheme for Rabi 2022, Ext.B4 is the detailed notification sent to the FIS/stake holders, Ext.B5 is the FAQs on the said scheme, Ext.A6 is the entry in NPCI portal for paddy in the name of the complainant. Ext.B7 is the judgment in RP 4589/2013 of NCDRC and Ext.A8 is judgment in RP 2143-2148/2009 of NCDRC.

5.      Issue No.1

          The complainant remitted the insurance premium to the 1^st opposite party for the insurance cover offered by the 2^nd opposite party.  Hence, all necessary parties are arrayed in the complaint.

          Issue Nos.2 and 3

6.      Exts.A2 and A3 shows that the complainant had remitted Rs.1,920/- towards the crop insurance premium for 4.00 acre paddy and Rs.3,150/- towards 0.418 ha mango on 25.11.2022 ie. well before the cut-off-date ie 31.12.2022.  Ext.B6 is the entry appearing in the NPCI portal clearly depicting that the premium payment and submission of application were made on 15.01.2023 ie after the cut off date.  Further, the 2^nd opposite party has stated that they have not received any application or payment towards mango crop through the portal.  Hence, though the complainant remitted the premium for paddy to the first opposite party in time they failed to make the remittance to the 2^nd opposite party before the cut-off-date.  Further, no steps are seen taken by the first opposite party, to cover Mango crop.

7.      Issue No.4 and 5

Hence, it is evident that the 1^st opposite party failed to take necessary steps to provide insurance cover to the complainant’s crops by submitting the application and making the premium payment through the NPCI Portal before the cut off date to the 2^nd opposite party which resulted in the non-coverage of the crops under the insurance scheme of the 2^nd opposite party.  This is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.  Further, the 1^st opposite party, in spite of service of notice, did not make any effort to join the proceedings and defend their case raising their contentions if any.  As the non-coverage was due to the failure of the 1^st opposite party, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party.

8.      As per Ext,B5 (Q No.21 and 22), “insured cultivators would become eligible for payout if the “Actual weather” data recorded at a reference weather station (RWS) during the specified time period shows variations (Adverse Weather Incidence) as compared to “Trigger Weather”.  In such cases, the specified ‘crop’ in that particular incidence, and consequentially, the same proportion of loss of crop yield, and become eligible for same proportion of pay outs.  Payout/claim settlement is an automatic proceed based on weather readings recorded at RWS.  Insured cultivators are not required to make claim.”

Though the complainant lost insurance coverage to his crops as narrated above, he did not adduce any evidence to prove the financial loss suffered by the negligence/deficiency on the part of the 1^st opposite party.  Though total insurance coverage eligible for 4.00 acre paddy crop is Rs.1,28,000/- no records were made available to prove that the complainant suffered crop loss and how much claim amount he lost.  In the case of mango also, though the eligible insurance cover is for Rs.60,000/-, no details were made available on the claim eligibility of the complainant.  Hence, this Commission is not in a position to reach any conclusion on the loss suffered by the complainant due to deficiency in service of the 1^st opposite party.

9.      In the result, the complaint is allowed in part ordering the following reliefs;

          1. The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service.

          2. The 1^st opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- for financial loss mental agony suffered.

          3. The 1^st opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost.

                      The 2^nd opposite party is absolved of any liability as there is no deficiency in service on their part.

     Pronounced in open court on this the 25^th day of September, 2024.

                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                          VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.

                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                             KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.

                                                           APPENDIX

          Documents marked from the side of the complainant:

Ext.A1: Letter issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant informing their inability to accept the insurance proposal as it was submitted after due date.

Exts.A2 and A3: Premium paid receipts issued by the 1^st opposite party for Rs.1,920/- (paddy) and Rs.3,150/- (mango) respectively. 

Ext.A4: Brochure issued by the 1^st opposite party showing the details of the Agricultural Insurance scheme.

Ext.A5: Letter sent to the 1^st opposite party by the complainant along with speed post receipt.

Documents marked from the side of the opposite party:

Ext.B1: GO issued by the Government of Kerala on RWBCIS.

Ext.B2: Operational guidelines of the scheme (RWBCIS).

Ext.B3: Administrative approval of the scheme for Rabi 2022.

Ext.B4: Detailed notification sent to the FIS/stake holders.

Ext.B5: FAQs on RWBCIS.

Ext.A6: Entry of the complainant in NPCI portal for paddy.

Ext.B7: Judgment in RP 4589/2013 of NCDRC.

 Ext.A8: judgment in RP 2143-2148/2009 of NCDRC.

Document marked from the side of Court: Nil.

             Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil.

             Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:  Nil

            Court witness: Nil

              Cost : 5,000/-.

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5)of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.