By. Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President :

The complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
 

The Complaint in brief is as follows.

The Complainant cultivated plantain and it was insured by the 1^st Opposite Party through 3^rd Opposite Party who acted as an agent for promoting the insurance. The policy Number of the insurance is 100900/46/0639/0000/08. The premium paid by the Complainant was Rs.1,680/-.

2. The plantain cultivation of 150 numbers which bunched were destroyed in strong wind on 23.06.2007. 255 plantain were later destroyed due to the violent storm. The claim of the Complainant to get the compensation was not considered by the Opposite Parties. Moreover the request of the Complainant was illegally rejected. The lawyer notice send by the Complainant to honour the claim was not responded. There may be an order directing the Opposite Parties to:-

1. Settle the claim of the applicant.

2. To give Rs.40,000/- as damage with the interest @ 18% from 23.06.2007.

3. Pay Rs.5000/- as compensation along with cost of Rs.5000/-.

3. Opposite Parties 1 to 3 filed version interalia contenting the allegation of the Complainant. The sum up of the versions filed by the Opposite Parties are as follows. It is admitted that 600 banana plants of the complainant was insured by the 1^st Opposite Parties. The terms and conditions of policy, is that the policy will expire after 12 months from the date of cultivation, or the harvest of crop or till the expiry of policy which ever comes earlier. The well nurtured plants can give yield within a period of 10 months. The policy condition also stipulates that in case of any damage the farmer has to retain the damage plants as such at least 10 working days from the date of intimation of loss. The intimation of the loss shall be made within 3 days from the date of loss. The Complainant herein had not supported the plants with props or ropes. The loss was intimated to the Opposite Parties after the expiry of the policy period. Moreover the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties, the scheme implimentary Agency is vegetable and Fruits Promotion Council who is not arrayed as a party. The insured plants were not protected properly. The 1^st Opposite Party had received claim with respect to 150 plants the subsequent claim of the complainant for damage of 255 plants are not intimated. There is no deficiency in service. The Complaint is to be dismissed with cost. The reliefs prayed for are based on imaginary calculations and hence the complaint is to be dismissed with cost.

4. The gist of the version filed by the 2^nd Opposite party is as follows. The 2^nd Opposite Party is an unnecessary party in this proceedings. The responsibility lies upon the complainant to insure the plantain cultivation The cultivation was insured only for the benefit of the complainant. The premium amount required for the insurance was forwarded by the 2^nd Opposite Party collected from the complainant and that was already forwarded to the 1^st Opposite Party in time. In effect the compensation if necessitated that is, to be met by the 1^st Opposite Party who is the insurer. There is no negligence on the part of this Opposite Party. The complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs from the 2^nd Opposite Party and the Complaint is to be dismissed with cost.

5. The 3^rd Opposite Party was served notice and version was not filed and they are declared exparte.

6. The Points in consideration are.

1. If there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Reliefs and costs.

7. Point No.1 The Complainant and opposite Parties 1 and 2 swear their contentions and filed proof affidavit. Ext.A1 to A4 are marked for the complainant and Ext.B1to B5 are the documents produced by the Opposite Parties in support of their contentions.

8. The case of the complaint is that the plantain belonging to Nenthra variety were insured by the 1^st Opposite Party through the supplemented OP. No. 3 Vegitable and Fruit Promotion Council of Kerala. The number of plantain insured was 600. In two occasions in the strong wind 150 bunched plantains were damaged and later 255 plantain also succumbed to destruction. The Opposite Party was informed of the damage in time but the insurer was not ready to compensate the damages. According to the 1^st Opposite Party the claim was not initiated in time and formalities were not complied by the complainant in order to compensate the damages.

9. 1^st Opposite party admitted the policy of the complainant and it is further confirmed that in case of any damages effected as per the terms of the policy the insurer is absolutely responsible to compensate the damages. Ext.A1 is the photograph produced by the 1^st Opposite Party and Ext.A4 is an another set of photographs 3 in numbers produced by the complainant. In oral testimony the complainant rejected that Ext.B1 is not the photo of the destroyed plantain belonging to him. Where as Ext.A4 are the plantains which are bunched and the Nenthra. The contention of the Opposite Party that the plantain which were thrown into distruction are unbunched cannot be taken into the consideration. Ext.B4 is the claim form produced by the insurer the contents of the documents shows that the damage of plantains effected on 23.06.2007 because of the strong wind and the same was informed on 25.06.2007 there is no delay in intimating the destruction by the complainant caused in the strong wind. Another contention of 1^st Opposite Party is that there is delay of months and the loss was intimated on 16.11.2007 and this contention is not substantiated by any evidence. Ext. B4 itself shows that the claim form is stamped on 16.07.2007. The Vegitable and Fruit Promotion Council made an endorsement as such 29/06 and the loss assessed by them is 143 bunched plantains. The name of the person who made the visit to assess the loss is not mentioned. The oral testimony of the complainant it is admitted that filled up claim form was given only once and the loss of the bunched plantains recorded are 150 numbers. The claim of the complainant that he had a loss of 255 Nenthra plant subsequently is not brought in the evidence and no claim form was given to the insurer. From this discussion it is to be considered that the complainant had a loss 143 bunched banana plantains which were in the age of 11 months. This was also estimated by Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council of Kerala. The Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council who acted as an agency of Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council having Office at Kambalakkad is not even cared to disclose the facts which are necessary for the fair disposal of the complaint. It is considered that the complainant has intimated the loss of 150 Nenthra plantains in time. The Manager of State Bank of India, Anchukunnu Branch who is examined as OPW2 admitted that inspection of the field was done upon the intimation along with the representative of the insurer. The repudiation of the claim of the complainant for 143 banana plantain is deficiency in service and the Point No.1 is found accordingly.

10. Point No.2 As per the claim form forwarded by the Complainant the loss of bunched banana plantain are 143 in numbers. The proposal form exemplifies the scheme of compensation. The amount fixed for the loss of bunched banana plantain if evented the amount to be compensated is Rs.60/-. The Complainant had a loss of 143 bunched banana plantains the salvage charge deductable from each plantain is Rs.10/-. For the loss of each plantain the complainant is entitled to get Rs.50/- deducting the salvage charge in total the complainant is to be given Rs. 7,150/- towards the loss of 143 banana plantains.

11. 1^st Opposite Party admitted that if any loss effected as an insurer the responsibility of compensation sonly lies upon them. The Opposite Party 2^nd and 3^rd is are absolved from the liability.

In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The 1^st Opposite Party is directed to give the complainant Rs.7,150/-(Rupees Seven thousand and one fifty only). The insured sum as assured by them for 143 banana plantain along with the interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing this complaint till the payment is done. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as to cost from the 1^st Opposite Party. The order is to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 31^st day of March 2009.

PRESIDENT : Sd/-

MEMBER I : Sd/-

MEMBER II : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant :

PW1. M. Ammed Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Party :

OPW1. Pradeep kumar Manager, United India Insurance company.

OPW2. Sivaraman. M Manager, S.B.I Anchukunnu.

Exhibits for the Complainant :

A1.Series Copy of the registered lawyer

notice with postal receipt and dt. 22.05.2008

acknowledgment card.

A2. Copy of the reply notice dt. 2.06.2008

A3. Copy of the loan account Pass Book

A4. Photographs.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party :

B1. Photo

B2. Proposl form

B3. Insurance Policy

B4. Claim forum

B5. Insurance Scheme

B6. Letter dt. 28.07.2008

B7. Statement of Account dt. 21.07.2008

B8. Statement of Banana Plantation

advanced and Insurance Premium collected.