BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No.CC/10/ 786 of 13.9.2010 Decided on: 29.9.2011 Harpal Kaur aged about 38 years wife of Ram Parkash Singh, resident of village Harya Khurd, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala. Complaint No.CC/10/ 787 of 13.9.2010 Decided on: 29.9.2011 Ram Parkash Singh aged about 41 years son of Teja Singh, resident of village Harya Khurd, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala. Complaint No.CC/10/ 788 of 13.9.2010 Decided on: 29.9.2011 Nirmal Singh aged about 50 years son of Gurcharan Singh, resident of village Harya Khurd, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala. Complaint No.CC/10/ 789 of 13.9.2010 Decided on: 29.9.2011 Mewa Singh aged about 45 years son of Ajmer Singh, resident of village Harya Khurd, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala. Complaint No.CC/10/ 790 of 13.9.2010 Decided on: 29.9.2011 Gursimran Singh aged about 29 years son of Nahar Singh, resident of village Harya Khurd, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala. Complaint No.CC/10/ 791 of 13.9.2010 Decided on: 29.9.2011 Ajit Singh aged about 35 years son of Ram Singh, resident of Patran, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala. Complaint No.CC/10/ 792 of 13.9.2010 Decided on: 29.9.2011 Harpreet Singh aged about 35 years son of Dyal Singh resident of village Harya Khurd, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala. -----------Complainants Versus 1. Saraogi Insurance Brokers Limited, K-3/106, 1st Floor, DLF Phase-II, Gurgaon 122002, through its Managing Director. 2. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited, SCO 64-65, Bhutal, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager. ----------Opposite parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.D.R.Arora, President Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Present: For the complainants: Sh.Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate For op no.2: Sh.D.P.S.Anand , Advocate ORDER D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT This is to dispose of the above noted 7 complaints by one order because in all the complaints the questions of facts and law involved are the same and all the complaints can be disposed of conteminatly by one order. 2. The facts of the complaint No.CC/10/786 of 13.9.2010 Harpal Kaur Vs. Saraogi Insurance Brokers Limited and others are that the complainant had purchased the Weather Insurance Scheme through op no.1 for the period 17.7.2008 upto a period of 90 days i.e. upto 17.10.2008 in respect of her paddy crop sown in an area of five acres . 3. The complainant got her crop insured @ Rs.8000/- per acre having paid the premium @ Rs.573/- per acre and thus the crop of the complainant was insured for Rs.40,000 and she made the payment of the premium of Rs.2865/-. 4. It was represented by the official of op no.1 that op no.2 will make the payment of the claim dependant upon the less or excess rain as compared to the normal rain. Accordingly she was issued cover note No.148 dated 17.7.2008.Except the said cover note no other document or any terms and conditions were issued to the complainant. 5. As per the insurance policy op no.2 had to pay the claim of its own without any application to be filed by the complainant on the basis of the information to be derived from Reference Weather Station(RWS). 6. During the paddy season of 2008, there had been a low rain fall as compared to the normal, as a result of which the crop of the complainant had been affected and ultimately the complainant suffered pecuniary loss and consequently the mental agony. 7. After loss of the crop, the complainant approached op no.2 through op no.1 for settlement of the claim but op no.2 failed to pay any heed to the request of the complainant. 8. Describing the act of the ops in not having settled the claim of the complainant to be a deficiency in service as also an unfair trade practice, she approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986( for short the Act) for a direction to the ops to pay her the insurance amount of Rs.40,000/- with interest @18% per annum from the date of the insurance; to pay her Rs.50,000/- on account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by her at the hands of the ops and further to award Rs.5500/- as the expenses of the litigation. 9. Here, it may be noted that the complainant had withdrawn the complaint again opno.1 as per the statement suffered by the learned counsel for the complainant on 30.11.2010 and accordingly the complaint against op no.1 was filed as withdrawn in each complaint 10. On notice, op no.2 appered and filed its written version having raised certain preliminary objections, interalia, that the complainant has got no cause of action/locus standai to file the complaint against the op; that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from the Forum; that the complainant is not a consumer of the op; that the complaint is bad for non joinder of J.K.Risk Managers and Insurance Brokers Ltd,Link House 4th Floor,3,Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi through whom ‘Varsha Bima-Kharif 2008 Season’ had been marketed ; that the complaint is also bad for mis joinder of op no.1 and that the Forum lacks the jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with special costs. As regards the facts of the complaint, it is averred that J.K.Risk Managers and Insurance Brokers Ltd.Link House 4th Floor,3 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,New Delhi is the empanelled insurance broker of the op and that the Varsha Bima-Kharif 2008 had been marketed by the said broker in the selected districts of Punjab namely Amritsar, Gurdaspur,Hoshiarpu, Moga, Patiala & Sangrur during Kharif 2008 .The scheme was extended for the period 15.6.2008 to 15.11.2008.The terms and conditions of the Varsha Bima-Kharif 2008 season, its premium and pay out structure etc. were made known and apprised to the complainant and thereafter the complainant had approached for the scheme for the coverage of her five acre of land situate in village Harya Khurd block Patran District Patiala and she paid the premium amount of Rs.2865/- through J.K.Risk Managers and Insurance Brokers and not through op no.1. 11. It is averred by the op that the scheme compensates insured cultivators against the likelihood of financial loss on account of anticipated loss in the crop yield resulting from adverse weather incidence, such as Deficit and Excess rainfall. In this manner the insurance cover was available for the following components: 1. Deficit Rainfall 1A. Rainfall Volume 1B.Rainfall Distribution(Consecutive Dry Days) 2. Excess Rainfall(Multiple Events) 12. Deficit Rainfall component provides cover against loss in paddy production/yield due to deficit rain as provided hereunder: 1A.Rainfall Value provides cover against anticipated loss in Paddy production/yield due to deficit rain ( at district level) and pay out becomes payable if the rainfall volume during the three specified Phases of time period w.e.f.15 June to 30 September, as recorded at Reference Weather Station(RWS), at district level, is lesser than the specified trigger level as per parameters mentioned in the term sheet. 1B.Rainfall Distribution provides cover against anticipated loss in Paddy production/yield due to specified Consecutive Dry Days(i.e. days without rainfall) and pay out becomes payable if during the time period w.e.f.16 July to 15 September there is no rainfall recorded at Reference Weather Station(RWS) at district level as per parameters mentioned in the term sheet. 2. Excess Rainfall component provides cover against anticipated loss in Paddy production/yield due to excess rain(at district level) and pay out becomes payable if the actual daily rainfall during the period 15 June to 15 November, as recorded at Reference Weather Station(RWS) at district level, is higher than the specified trigger level as per parameters mentioned in the term sheet. 13. It is further averred that the pay out arises only in case of ‘Adverse weather incidence’ which is equivalent to the deviation between ‘Trigger Weather’ and ‘Actual Weather’ data recorded at the ‘Reference Weather Station’ during the specified time period mentioned in the term sheet, which was obtained from NCMSL.The op had received weather data(rainfall data) from the respective weather station of independent agency namely NCMSL, which was declared in the term sheet and found that in respect of all the above mentioned components, the rain fall had been normal i.e. in respect of cover 1A. Rainfall Volume under deficit rainfall, during the Phase-1.There were two different pay out rates, if the actual rainfall volume would have been lesser than the corresponding two rainfall volume trigger levels i.e.80mm +30mm as per term sheet and during Phase-II, these two rainfall valume trigger levels were 120mm and 50mm; and during Phase-III such two rainfall volume trigger levels were 50mm and 20mm but the actual rainfall volume as recorded at RWS during Phase-I was 178.23mm, during Phase-II was 173.61mm and during Phase-II was 213.33mm which have been more than the corresponding triggers of these phases. 14. In respect of cover IB Rainfall Distribution under deficit rainfall, there were three pay out levels, if there would have been no rainfall or there would have been consecutive dry days equal to & greater than the corresponding prescribed number of trigger days i.e. 25 days,30 days and 35 days as per term sheet but as per the actual rainfall as recorded at RWS, there were consecutive dry days not more than 15 days which was lesser than the said specified days. 15. In respect of cover of excess rainfall: during the Phase-I, there were two different pay out rates, if the actual daily rainfall would have been more than the corresponding two daily rainfall trigger levels i.e. 100mm & 200mm as per term sheet and during Phase-II such two daily trigger levels were 30mm and 130mm but the actual daily rain fall as recorded at RWS during the said three phases had never exceeded the corresponding triggers. 16. Therefore, no claims/payout had become payable under any of all the above mentioned insurance covers of the (Varsha Bima Kharif season 2008) as per said rainfall data scheme term sheet and terms of the cover issued. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, going against the op, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint. 17. Now coming to the facts of complaint No.CC/10/787 of 13.9.2010 Ram Parkash Singh Vs. Saraogi Insurance Brokers Limited and others, all other facts remain the same except that the complainant got his paddy crop insured in respect of 20acres of land for Rs.1,60,000/-@ Rs.8000/- per acre having made the payment of Rs.11460/- as the premium @ Rs.573/- per acre. The complainant was issued cover note no.154 dated 17.7.2008. 18. In the case of the complaint no. CC/10/788 of 13.9.2010 Nirmal Singh Vs. Saraogi Insurance Brokers Limited and others, the facts remain the same except that this complainant got his paddy crop sown in 15 acres of land insured for Rs.4,00,000/- @ Rs.8000/- per acre having paid the payment of the premium of Rs.28650/- @ Rs.573/- per acre. He was issued cover note No.92 dated 17.7.2008. 19. In respect of complaint No. CC/10/789 of 13.9.2010 Mewa Singh Vs. Saraogi Insurance Brokers Limited and others, the facts remain the same except that this complaint got his paddy crop sown in 20 acres of land insured for Rs.1,60,000/- @ Rs.8000/- per acre having paid the premium of Rs.11460/- @ Rs.573/- per acre. He was issued cover note No.144 dated 17.7.2008. 20. In respect of complaint No. CC/10/790 of 13.9.2010 Gursimran Singh Vs. Saraogi Insurance Brokers Limited and others, the facts remain the same except that this complaint got his paddy crop sown in 46 acres of land insured for Rs.4,00,000/-@ Rs.8000/- per acre having paid the premium of Rs.28650/- @ Rs.573/- per acre. He was issued cover note No.91 dated 17.7.2008. 21. In respect of complaint No. CC/10/791 of 13.9.2010 Ajit Singh Vs. Saraogi Insurance Brokers Limited and others, the facts remain the same except that this complaint got his paddy crop sown in 10 acres of land insured for Rs.80,000/-@ Rs.8000/- per acre having paid the premium of Rs.5730/- @ Rs.573/- per acre. He was issued cover note No.143 dated 17.7.2008. 22. In respect of complaint No. CC/10/792 of 13.9.2010 Harpreet Singh Vs. Saraogi Insurance Brokers Limited and others, the facts remain the same except that this complaint got his paddy crop sown in 49 acres of land insured for Rs.3,92,000/- @ Rs.8000/- per acre having paid the premium of Rs.28077/- @ Rs.573/- per acre. He was issued cover note No.6 dated 17.7.2008. 23. The written version in all the said complaints on behalf of op no.2 has remained the same and ultimately in all the complaints, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint. 24. The parties led the evidence in all the complaints. Op no.2 filed written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record. 25. At the time of the arguments, Sh.Sanjeev Goyal, the learned counsel for the complainants submitted that as per the communication Ex.R9 dated 5.6.2008 made by op no.2, to the Area Manager, Punjab J.K.Risk Managers and Insurance Brokers Ltd. Ferozepur Market,Ludhiana Varsha Bima-Kharif 2008 season had been implemented in Haryana and Punjab in respect of the crop of Paddy in the Districts of Patiala,Sangrur, Amritsar, Gurdaspur,Moga and Hoshiarpur and the last date for buying the insurance was 14.6.2008 but the cover note in respect of Varsha Bima(VB) –Kharif 2008 season ,Ex.C2 was issued on 17.7.2008. This amounted to an unfair trade practice on the part of op no.2. 26. On the other hand Sh.D.P.S.Anand, the learned counsel for the op submitted that back dating of the insurance cover was an added benefit given to the complainant and it was a risk of op no.2 and therefore, it could not be argued that it was an unfair trade practice on the part of op. It was submitted that there was nothing wrong in having issued the cover note on 17.7.2008 even though the last date for buying the policy was 14.6.2008 because ultimately under Ex.R9 it is provided that risk period varied from crop to crop and state to state and may commence from 2nd half of June to October and broadly correspond to crop growth period. It is also provided in Ex.R9 that risk is accepted till a date before the commencement of the risk period and is State/District/Block and crop specific. Therefore, as per the weather based CRCP insurance scheme i.e. Varsha Bima-Kharif 2008, a term sheet,Ex.R2 Deficit Rainfall i.e. 1A Rainfall Volume covered three phases i.e. 15 June to 20 July, 21July to 25 August and 26 August to 30 September and Rainfall Distribution 1B covered the period 16 July to 15 September and Excess Rainfall covered two phases i.e. 1st 15June to 31 July and 2nd 1 October to 15 November. It was submitted that once a farmer purchased the policy, the benefit had to be provided to the farmer as per termsheet irrespective of the fact that the cover note was issued on a later date because back dating of the policy is a normal practice with the Insurance Companies. 27. It was also submitted by Sh.Anand that it is very much provided in Ex.R9 that the scheme shall compensate insured farmer against the likelihood of the financial loss on account of anticipated loss in crop yield resulting from adverse weather incidence, such as Deficit & Excess Rainfall. Therefore, it hardly matters in case the cover note was issued on 17.7.2008 because the policy had to cover the likelihood of financial loss on account of anticipated loss in crop yield resulting from adverse weather incidence such as Deficit & Excess Rainfall. All this had to be assessed by op no.2 of its own after obtaining weather data from NCMSL i.e. National Collateral Management Services Ltd applying the uniform rate of rainfall in respect of the particular district to assess the amount of the claim based on less and excess rain as compared in normal. 28. We have considered the submissions and find that there is no substance in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the complainant that there was any unfair trade practice on the part of op no.2, in having issued the cover note on 17.7.2008 although the last date for purchasing the policy was 14.6.2008 because op no.2 having accepted the officer of the complainant by way of issuing the cover note,the parties were bound by the terms and conditions of the insurance scheme applicable to all the farmers alike. 29. However, the learned counsel for the complainant could not raise any point to find any fault in recording of the Deficit Rainfall, period of the dry days and Excess rainfall by op no.2 vide Ex.R6, which is based on the data,Ex.R8 collected from National Collateral Management Services Ltd., the independent agency of op no.2. 30. Ex.R2 is the term sheet which provides the criteria for determining the pay outs. Ex.R7 is the certificate issued by NCMSL on 24.9.2010 with regard to the authenticity of the data supplied by the company to AIC of India Ltd. for one location in Punjab State viz. Patiala through its network of automatic weather station for the period 15.6.2008 to 15.11.2008 in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 10.7.2005. 31. As per term sheet,Ex.R2 in respect of IA Rainfall Volume under Deficit Rainfall during Phase 1, there were three different pay out rates, if the actual rainfall volume would have been less than the corresponding two rainfall volume trigger levels i.e. 80mm and 30mm as per termsheet. During Phase II these two rainfall trigger levels were 120mm and 50mm.During Phase III said two rainfalls trigger levels were 50mm and 20mm.The actual rainfall volume as recorded at RWS during Phase I was 178.33 mm during Phase II was 173.61mm and during Phase III it was 213.33mm as can be seen from Ex.R6. 32. In respect of cover 1B under Deficit Rainfall, as per termsheet, there were three pay out levels, if there would have been no rainfall or there would have been consecutive dry days equal to and greater than the corresponding prescribed number of trigger days i.e. 25 days, 30 days and 35 days but as per the actual rainfall, as recorded at RWS, there were consecutive dry days and not more than 15 days which were less than the days specified trigger days as can be seen from Ex.R6.The case of the complainant is not that there was any loss to his/her crop because of excess rainfall. Therefore, we need not discuss excess rainfall cover as per termsheet,Ex.R2. 33. The learned counsel for the complainant could not challenge the authenticity of the rain fall recorded in Ex.R6, with the help of Ex.R8, a data supplied by National Collateral Management Services Ltd.Hyderabad to op no.2.The complainant could rebut the data Ex.R6 by producing its independent data obtained from the Meterological Department of the District Patiala but no such evidence has been led by the complainants. Therefore, the case of the complainants having not been covered by the parameters of the termsheet,Ex.R2, with reference to the low Rainfall recorded in the termsheet,Ex.R6, the claim of the complainant was rightly not made out for being considered by op no.2 and accordingly we also do not find any substance in the complaints and the same are hereby dismissed. Copy of the order be placed in the file of the other complaints. Pronounced. Dated:29.9.2011 Neelam Gupta Amarjit Singh Dhindsa D.R.Arora Member Member President
| | Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member | HONABLE MR. D.R.Arora, PRESIDENT | Mr. Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member | | 
