DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD Dated this the 17th Day of January 2012 Present : Smt.Seena H, President : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing : 21/01/2009 (C.C.No.10/2009) A.K.Sankaranarayanan, Aruvamoola Veedu, Gandhisevasadanam, P.O.Peroor – 679 302 Palakkad (Party in Person) - Complainant V/s 1.General Manager, District Co-operative Bank, Palakkad – 678 001. (By Adv.M.Damodaran & Varun.R) 2.Secretary, Vadavannur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vadavannur – 678 504 (By Adv.M.Damodaran & Varun.R) 3.Regional Manager, Agricultural Insurance Company of India, TC 14/1765, Ground Floor, Bakery Junction, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 014. (By Adv.K.Lakshminarayanan) - Opposite parties O R D E R By Smt.SEENA.H, PRESIDENT The facts leading to the complaint is as follows: Complaint is filed claiming insurance amount following destruction of paddy crop during Rabi season 2008, which was insured under National Agricultural Insurance Scheme. That on 25/01/2008, complainant availed a loan for Rs.20,000/- from the 2nd opposite party for the Rabi season. That the complainant was asked to insure the crop under National Agricultural Insurance Scheme and accordingly Rs.360/- was paid towards premium . That during March 2008, due to heavy rain, and resulted flood, the entire crop got destroyed. On 24/03/2008 itself the matter was reported to the 2nd opposite party Bank as well as the Agricultural Office of Vadavannur Krishi Bhavan. The Agricultural Officer visited the spot and certified that 90-100% crops was destroyed. Complainant expected minimum of 4500 kg yield from the land and submits that as a result of the peril, complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs.45,000/-. According to the complainant he is entitled to be indemnified for the said amount from the insurance company. According to the complainant the act of opposite parties amounts to clear deficiency in service. Hence the complaint. Complainant claims Rs.45,000/- being the Insurance amount and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered. All opposite parties entered appearance and filed version. 1st and 2nd opposite parties admits that the complainant availed a loan for an amount of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.360/- was paid as premium for insurance. Opposite parties deny the say of the complainant that they assured the complainant that they would make good the loss sustained to his crop on account of any natural calamities like drought, flood etc. Further submitted that 1st opposite party is only a nodal agency who acts as a collection agent to implement the scheme adopted by the Central Government of India through its agent the Agricultural Insurance Company of India. The aforementioned scheme makes all the farmers growing paddy in Kerala who avail crop loans from commercial banks, co-operative credit institution and regional rural banks automatically and compulsorily to be covered under the scheme provided they grow paddy in the areas notified by State Government. 2nd opposite party submitted that it has collected the premium from the complainant as per the instruction of 1st opposite party who in turn had remitted it to the 3rd opposite party following the instructions and norms formulated by the government of National Agricultural Insurance Scheme. 1st and 2nd Opposite parties submits that they do no have any liability or responsibility regarding crop insurance coverage and hence they may be exonerated. 3rd opposite party filed version contending the following That the Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd is acting merely as an agent of Central Government for the purpose of administrating the scheme. Further 3rd opposite party has narrated the objectives of the said scheme, the foremost being providing a measure of financial support to the farmers in the event of crop failure as a result of drought, flood etc. 3rd opposite party further narrated the salient features of the scheme. 3rd Opposite party contented that the complainant has no locustandi to file complaint and is not a consumer. Further 3rd opposite party has not rendered any service to the complainant. 3rd opposite party collects premium from Nodal Banks and other financial institutions in terms of provisions of the scheme and hold money in trust or deposit on behalf of the government. The insurance cover given to farmers is governed by National Agricultural Insurance scheme framed by the Central Government and the liability is not contractual on the basis of the services hired for consideration, but on the basis of the scheme itself. Therefore complainant is not a consumer. 3rd opposite party further contented that since the complainant has not furnished details regarding season under which the crop has been insured, the sum insured amount, name of the notified Panchayat and other relevant details of the declaration by which the complainants crop had been insured etc, 3rd opposite party is not in a position to state whether the said crop has been insured as per National Agricultural Insurance Scheme norms and if insured whether he is eligible for compensation. It is further stated that collection of premium as well as payment of claims under National Agricultural Insurance scheme will be done on a seasonal basis. 3rd opposite party submits the data forwarded by Department of Economics and statistics, Government of Kerala, under the scheme for the notified Panchayat of Koduvayur and Vadavannur in respect of Kharif 2007 season, for which the loan and coverage period is from 01/04/2007 to 30/09/2007, Rabi-I 2007-08 season for which the loaning and coverage period is from 01/10/2007 to 31/12/2007 and Rabi II 2007-08 season for which the loaning and coverage period is from 01/01/2008-31/03/2008 and the respective season wise threshold yield rate for the notified area is as follows. Threshold year Actual yield Shortfall in yield Season (Kg/Hec) (Kg/Hec) (Kg/Hec) Kharif 2007 3799 3563 236 Rabi-I 07-08 3573 3635 Nil Rabi-II 07-08 2612 3524 Nil As per the said date, there is a shortfall in yield to the tune of 236 Kg/Hec for the particular notified area for Kharif 2007 season and hence claim is payable as per norms. Whereas for Rabi I 2007-08 season as well as Rabi II 2007-08 season, there is no short fall in actual seasonal yield submitted as against the respective threshold yield and hence no claim is payable to any of the insured farmers in that notified area. It is further submitted that during kharif season, 1st opposite party has submitted ten crop insurance declarations for the notified zone comprising of Koduvayoor and Vadavannaur Panchayats. As per the eligibility, claim of Rs.8,14,489.47 out of which Rs.1,63,031.94 was granted to Vadavannur notified zone nodal Bank. Similarly eligible claims for all Nodal Banks for Rabi I (2007-08) and Rabi – II (2007-08) seasons insured paddy crop has already been paid as per the declaration submitted by all the Nodal banks in the state including that of the 1st Opposite party Bank being the Nodal Bank for 2nd opposite party. 3rd Opposite party further submits that it only received consolidated declarations from the Nodal Banks giving only the total number of farmers, total area, name of the notified zone, total sum insured etc. and does not receive any details regarding names of individual insured farmers, names of villages of individual farmers or name of the Bank branches where the loans were actually disbursed. 3rd opposite party submits there is no deficiency in service on their part. The evidence adduced by the parties comprises their respective affidavits and Exhibit A1 to A3. marked on the side of the complainant and Exhibit B1 to B5 and Exhibit B6 to B20 marked on the side of opposite parties respectively. Issues for consideration are: 1. Whether the complainant is a consumer or not ? 2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. 3. If so what is the relief and cost? Issue No.I Heard the complainant and learned counsels for opposite parties. 3rd opposite party has raised a contention that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and hence has no locustandi to file the complaint. We do not find any merit in the said argument as Sec 2(1)(0) of the Consumer Protection Act specifically includes Insurance in the definition of service. Complainant herein has availed Insurance policy by paying premium. Hence complainant is a consumer. Issue No. 2 & 3 The Forum has once allowed the complaint and ordered 3rd opposite party to reassess the loss suffered by complainant and sanction claim applying Clause 13A. 3rd opposite party has taken up the matter and Hon’ble State Commission has remanded the matter directing to give opportunity to both parties to adduce fresh evidence. Hon’ble State Commission while set asiding the order has noted that clause 13A refers to loss assessment of localized risk on individual basis will be experimented in limited areas initially and shall be extended in the light of operational experience gained and no evidence is adduced by the complainant to show that his area was included in the limited area. After the case was remanded back also complainant has not adduced any evidence with respect to this aspect. So without any clarification as to this aspect 3rd opposite party will not be in a position to sanction the claim. Further complainant herself has a case that claim ought to have been considered under clause 14. Before the Forum opportunity was again given for both parties to adduce further evidence. Complainant has not produced any piece of evidence to show that his land was one included in the limited area as per any notification. Further case of the complainant is that claim would have been settled under clause 14. In clause 14 it stated that ‘In the contest of localized phenomenon viz. Hailstorm, landslide, cyclone and flood, the IA shall evolve a procedure to estimate such losses at individual farmers level in consultation with DAC/State /UT. Settlement of such claim will be on individual basis between IA and insured’. Clause 14 deals with procedure for approval and settlement of claims. By the combined reading of clause 13A and clause 14, we understand that loss assessment in case of localized risk in individual basis will be experimented in limited areas only. There is no evidence to show that his property was included in the limited area. Hon’ble National Commission has noted that in Agriculture insurance of India Ltd. V/s. Devara Shetty & Others that compensation must be calculated as per the formulas contained in the scheme and provisions of the scheme has to be strictly complied with. The amount arrived at as per the scheme is already seen deposited in the bank account of the complainant. In view of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that complainant failed to prove a case in his favour. In the result complaint dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this the 17th day of January 2012 Sd/- Seena.H President Sd/- Preetha G Nair Member Sd/- Bhanumathi.A.K. Member APPENDIX Witness examined on the side of Complainant Nil Witness examined on the side of Opposite party Nil Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant 1. Ext. A1 – Copy of letter dated 25/03/08 of Vadavannur Service Co-op. Bank Ltd 2. Ext. A2 – Copy of letter dated 02/04/2008 of The Palakkad District Co-operative Bank Ltd 3. Ext. A3 – Copy of certificate issued by Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Vadavannur Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party 1. Ext B1 – Copy of notification of Agricultural Insurance Company of India Limited dated 27/04/07 2. Ext. B2 - Copy of Circular dated 10/05/07 of Palakkad District Co-opertive Bank Ltd 3. Ext. B3 - Copy of letter dated 14/05/2009 of the Palakkad District Co- opertive Bank Ltd 4. Ext. B4 – Copy of Final Order dated 21/05/2009 5. Ext. B5 – Copy of letter dated 02/04/2008 of Palakkad District Co-opertive Bank Ltd 6. Ext. B6 - Copy of G.O.(MS)No.304/99/AD dated 274/10/1999 7. Ext. B7 - Copy of letter No.13011/15/99-Credit II 8. Ext. B8 - Copy of Declaration Form – Loanee Farmers 9. Ext. B9 - Copy of Declaration Form – Loanee Farmers 10. Ext. B10 - Copy of Declaration Form – Loanee Farmers 11. Ext. B11 - Copy of Declaration Form – Loanee Farmers 12. Ext. B12 - Copy of Declaration Form – Loanee Farmers 13. Ext. B13. Copy of Declaration Form – Loanee Farmers 14. Ext. B14 - Copy of Declaration Form – Loanee Farmers 15. Ext. B15 - Copy of Declaration Form – Loanee Farmers 16. Ext. B16 - Copy of Declaration Form – Loanee Farmers 17. Ext. B17 - Copy of Declaration Form – Loanee Farmers 18. Ext. B18 - Copy of Declaration Form – Loanee Farmers 19. Ext. B19 - Copy of letter dated 25/03/2009 of Agricultural Insurance Co.of India Ltd. 20. Ext. B20 - Copy of claim letter Forum Exhibits Nil Cost Allowed No cost allowed. |
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD Dated this the 31st day of August 2010 .
Present : Smt. Seena.H, President : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member
C.C.No.10/2009 A.K. Sankaranarayanan Aruvamoola Veedu Gandhisevasadanam P.O. Peroor – 679 302 Palakkad - Complainant (Party in person) Vs 1. General Manager District Co-operative Bank Palakkad – 678 001. (Adv. M. Damodaran & Varun) 2. Secretary Vadavannur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd Vadavannur – 678 504 Palakkad. (Adv M. Damodaran & Varun) 3. Regional Manager Agricultural Insurance Company of India T C Bo.14/1765, Ground Floor, Bakery Junction Thiruvananthapuram – 695 014. - Opposite parties (Adv.K. Lakshminarayanan) O R D E R
By Smt. Seena.H, President
The facts leading to the complaint is as follows:
Complaint is filed claiming insurance amount following destruction of paddy crop during Rabi season 2008, which was insured under National Agricultural Insurance Scheme. That on 25/01/2008, complainant availed a loan for Rs.20,000/- from the 2nd opposite party for the Rabi season. That the complainant was asked to insure the crop under National Agricultural Insurance Scheme and accordingly Rs.360/- was paid towards premium . That during March 2008, due to heavy rain, and resulted flood, the entire crop got destroyed. On 24/03/2008 itself the matter was reported to the 2nd opposite party Bank as well as the - 2 - Agricultural Office of Vadavannur Krishi Bhavan. The Agricultural Officer visited the spot and certified that 90-100% crops was destroyed. Complainant expected minimum of 4500 kg yield from the land and submits that as a result of the peril, complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs.45,000/-. According to the complainant he is entitled to be indemnified for the said amount from the insurance company. According to the complainant the act of opposite parties amounts to clear deficiency in service. Hence the complaint. Complainant claims Rs.45,000/- being the Insurance amount and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered.
All opposite parties entered appearance and filed version. 1st and 2nd opposite parties admits that the complainant availed a loan for an amount of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.360/- was paid as premium for insurance. Opposite parties deny the say of the complainant that they assured the complainant that they would make good the loss sustained to his crop on account of any natural calamities like drought, flood etc. Further submitted that 1st opposite party is only a nodal agency who acts as a collection agent to implement the scheme adopted by the Central Government of India through its agent the Agricultual Insurance Company of India.
The aforementioned scheme makes all the farmers growing paddy in Kerala who avail crop loans from commercial banks, co-operative credit institution and regional rural banks automatically and compulsorily to be covered under the scheme provided they grow paddy in the areas notified by State Government. 2nd opposite party submitted that it has collected the premium from the complainant as per the instruction of 1st opposite party who in turn had remitted it to the 3rd opposite party following the instructions and norms formulated by the government of National Agricultural Insurance Scheme. 1st and 2nd Opposite parties submits that they do no have any liability or responsibility regarding crop insurance coverage and hence they may be exonerated.
3rd opposite party filed version contending the following That the Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd is acting merely as an agent of Central Government for the purpose of administrating the scheme. Further 3rd opposite party has narrated the objectives of the said scheme, the foremost being providing a - 3 - measure of financial support to the farmers in the event of crop failure as a result of drought, flood etc. 3rd opposite party further narrated the salient features of the scheme. 3rd Opposite party contented that the complainant has no locustandi to file complaint and is not a consumer. Further 3rd opposite party has not rendered any service to the complainant. 3rd opposite party collects premium from Nodal Banks and other financial institutions in terms of provisions of the scheme and hold money in trust or deposit on behalf of the government. The insurance cover given to farmers is governed by National Agricultural Insurance scheme framed by the Central Government and the liability is not contractual on the basis of the services hired for consideration, but on the basis of the scheme itself. Therefore complainant is not a consumer. 3rd opposite party further contended that since the complainant has not furnished details regarding season under which the crop has been insured, the sum insured amount, name of the notified Panchayat and other relevant details of the declaration by which the complainants crop had been insured etc, 3rd opposite party is not in a position to state whether the said crop has been insured as per National Agricultural Insurance Scheme norms and if insured whether he is eligible for compensation. It is further stated that collection of premium as well as payment of claims under National Agricultural Insurance scheme will be done on a seasonal basis. 3rd opposite party submits the data forwarded by Department of Economics and statistics, Government of Kerala, under the scheme for the notified Panchayat of Koduvayur and Vadavannur in respect of Kharif 2007 season, for which the loan and coverage period is from 01/04/2007 to 30/09/2007, Rabi-I 2007-08 season for which the loaning and coverage period is from 01/10/2007 to 31/12/2007 and Rabi II 2007-08 season for which the loaning and coverage period is from 01/01/2008-31/03/2008 and the respective season wise threshold yield rate for the notified area is as follows.
Threshold year Actual yield Shortfall in yield Season (Kg/Hec) (Kg/Hec) (Kg/Hec) Kharif 2007 3799 3563 236 Rabi-I 07-08 3573 3635 Nil Rabi-II 07-08 2612 3524 Nil
- 4 - As per the said date, there is a shortfall in yield to the tune of 236 Kg/Hec for the particular notified area for Kharif 2007 season and hence claim is payable as per norms. Whereas for Rabi I 2007-08 season as well as Rabi II 2007-08 season, there is no short fall in actual seasonal yield submitted as against the respective threshold yield and hence no claim is payable to any of the insured farmers in that notified area. It is further submitted that during kharif season, 1st opposite party has submitted ten crop insurance declarations for the notified zone comprising of Koduvayoor and Vadavannaur Panchayats. As per the eligibility, claim of Rs.8,14,489.47 out of which Rs.1,63,031.94 was granted to Vadavannur notified zone nodal Bank. Similarly eligible claims for all Nodal Banks for Rabi I (2007-08) and Rabi – II (2007-08) seasons insured paddy crop has already been paid as per the declaration submitted by all the Nodal banks in the state including that of the 1st Opposite party Bank being the Nodal Bank for 2nd opposite party. 3rd Opposite party further submits that it only received consolidated declarations from the Nodal Banks giving only the total number of farmers, total area, name of the notified zone, total sum insured etc and does not receive any details regarding names of individual insured farmers, names of villages of individual farmers or name of the Bank branches where the loans were actually disbursed. 3rd opposite party submits there is no deficiency in service on their part.
The evidence adduced by the parties comprises their respective affidavits and Exhibit A1 to A3. marked on the side of the complainant and Exhibit B1 to B5 and Exhibit B6 to B20 marked on the side of opposite parties respectively.
Issues for consideration are: 1. Whether the complainant is a consumer or not ? 2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. 3. If so what is the relief and cost?
Issue No.I Heard the complainant and learned counsels for opposite parties. 3rd opposite party has raised a contention that the complainant is not a consumer as - 5 - defined under the Consumer Protection Act and hence has no locusstandi to file the complaint. We do not find any merit in the said argument as Sec 2(1)(0) of the Consumer Protection Act specifically includes Insurance in the definition of service. Complainant herein has availed Insurance policy by paying premium. Hence complainant is a consumer.
Issue No.2 & 3 The definite case of the complainant is that the has availed loan from 1st Opposite party for agricultural purpose and at the time of availing loan there is a scheme for compulsory registeration of insurance with the 3rd Opposite party. Complainant thereby paid premium of Rs.360/- to 3rd opposite party and insured his crop. Thereafter by heavy rainfall and resultant flood the entire crops were destroyed. Complainant claimed insurance amount from 3rd opposite party through 1st and 2nd opposite parties, but the same was not honoured.
On the other hand 1st and 2nd opposite parties contented that they are only the collecting agents of the premium and they have nothing to do with the loss of the crop. 3rd opposite party has narrated the objectives and working of scheme. It is stated that the scheme operates on an area approach and if there is a shortfall in yield in any particular notified area each of the eligible insured farmer in that notified area will be eligible for indemnification, which amount is calculated as
Shortfall in yield X Sum insured. Threshold yield
It is also stated that in view of the specific mandate of the scheme, no other certificate or assessment/procedure for loss assessment by any authority shall hold good for indemnification under the scheme. It is submitted by the 3rd opposite party that during Kharif season, 1st opposite party has submitted ten crop insurance declaration for the notified zone comprising of Koduvayur and Vadanannur Panchayats. As per the eligibility, claims were worked out for all the notified zones and an amount of Rs.1,63,031.94 pertaining to the Vadavannur notified zone has been remitted to the Nodal Bank. According to 3rd opposite party all the claims of insured paddy crop as per the scheme provisions has already been paid. - 6 - 2nd opposite party has submitted that from the total claim amount received, an amount of Rs.1,243/- was credited to the account of the complainant.
It is true that Exhibit B1 to B20 documents produced by the opposite parties substantiated the contentions put forward by them. Exhibit B3 clearly reveals that an amount of Rs.1,243/- was credited to the account of the complainant. But as per the argument of the complainant, the whole calculation on the basis of the area approach itself is wrong. According to him, 3rd opposite party ought to have assessed loss on individual basis in case of localized phenomenon.
Complainant has submitted that due to flood, he has suffered a loss of Rs.45,000/-. But no evidence is forthcoming on the part of complainant to prove the same. It is seen that the Agricultural Officer of the Vadavannur Krishi Bhavan has issued a certificate (Exhibit A3) stating the complainant has suffered paddy crop loss due to natural calamity.
It is relevant to note clause 13 A of the scheme which read as follows: Loss assessment and modified indemnity procedures in case of occurrance of localized perils, such as hailstorm, landslide, cyclone and flood where settlement of claims will be on individual basis shall be formulated by IA in co-ordination with state/UT Government.
We are also of the view that the claim of the complainant being the result of a localized risk, calculation of loss should be on individual basis. Further an amount of Rs.1,243/- is not at all an adequate relief for the loss suffered.
In view of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, we find 3rd opposite party deficient in service. No deficiency in service is established on the part of 1st and 2nd opposite parties and hence they are exonerated from liability.
In the result complaint partly allowed and we order the following. 1. 3rd Opposite party shall reassess the loss suffered by the complainant from the available records as per clause 13A of the scheme and sanction the claim of the - 7 -
complainant as per the assessment. 3rd Opposite party is also directed to pay complainant an amount of Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
2. Order to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order. 3. On failure of complying the order within the stipulated period, 3rd opposite party shall pay complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/-.
Pronounced in the open court on the 31st day of August 2010 PRESIDENT (SD)
MEMBER (SD)
MEMBER (SD) APPENDIX Date of filing : 21/01/2009 Witness examined on the side of Complainant
Witness examined on the side of Opposite party
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant 1. Ext. A1 – Copy of letter darted 25/03/08 of Vadavannur Service Co-op. Bank Ltd 2. Ext. A2 – Copy of letter dated 02/04/2008 of The Palakkad District Co-operative Bank Ltd 3. Ext. A3 – Copy of certificate issued by Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Vadavannur
Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party 1. Ext B1 – Copy of notification of Agricultural Insurance Company of India Limited dated 27/04/07 2. Ext. B2 - Copy of Circular dated 10/05/07 of Palakkad District Co-opertive Bank Ltd 3. Ext. B3 - Copy of letter dated 14/05/2009 of the Palakkad District Co-opertive Bank Ltd 4. Ext. B4 – Copy of Final Order dated 21/05/2009 5. Ext. B5 – Copy of letter dated 02/04/2008 of Palakkad District Co-opertive Bank Ltd 6. Ext. B6 - Copy of G.O.(MS)No.304/99/AD dated 274/10/1999 7. Ext. B7 - Copy of letter No.13011/15/99-Credit II 8. Ext. B8 - Copy of Declaration Form – Loanee Farmers 9. Ext. B9 - Copy of Declaration Form – Loanee Farmers 10. Ext. B10 - Copy of Declaration Form – Loanee Farmers 11. Ext. B11 - Copy of Declaration Form – Loanee Farmers 12. Ext. B12 - Copy of Declaration Form – Loanee Farmers 13. Ext. B13. Copy of Declaration Form – Loanee Farmers - 8 -
14. Ext. B14 - Copy of Declaration Form – Loanee Farmers 15. Ext. B15 - Copy of Declaration Form – Loanee Farmers 16. Ext. B16 - Copy of Declaration Form – Loanee Farmers 17. Ext. B17 - Copy of Declaration Form – Loanee Farmers 18. Ext. B18 - Copy of Declaration Form – Loanee Farmers 19. Ext. B19 - Copy of letter dated 25/03/2009 of Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd 20. Ext. B20 - Copy of claim letter
Forums Exhibits Nil Cost (allowed) Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) | 
