By Smt. Beena. M, Member

This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2. Brief facts of the case:- The case of the complainant is that he had availed an agricultural loan of Rs.75,000/- in the year 2014 from the first Opposite Party’s Bank to cultivate plantain on his 1.50 acres of agricultural land.  He had cultivated plantain in the year 2014-2015 and 2016-2017. During the year 2014-2015 the 1^st Opposite Party paid Rs.1961/- for   crop   insurance   protection and for the year  2016-2017 the 1^st Opposite Party paid Rs.1,440/- towards crop insurance premium to 2^nd Opposite Party and the amount had debited to the Complainants loan account. The plantain crop was insured as per the direction and information given by the 1^st Opposite Party as to the fact that if any weather based crop damage arises the second Opposite Party shall compensate  to the complainant. As per the brochure for crop insurance scheme  issued by the second Opposite Party, banana cultivation in Wayanad District shall come under insurance protection.  After that, on 15^th and 19^th of February 2017, 1000 plantains fell down and sustained huge loss due to heavy rain and wind. As per the insurance protection scheme declared by the second Opposite Party the protection coverage for the banana cultivation is Rs.1,00,000/-. The Complainant intimated the loss caused to  banana cultivation to

the second Opposite Party and asked for Rs.60,000/- as loss of crops, but the 2^nd Opposite Party neither inspected the place nor paid any amount as compensation. The 2^nd Opposite Party received an amount of Rs. 1,961/- for the year 2014-15 Rs.1440/- for the year 2016-17 towards the crop insurance premium from the account maintained by the complainant at 1^st opposite party bank. So there has been deficiency of service from the side of the opposite parties.  Hence the complainant claims Rs.60,000/- towards crop damage and Rs.10,000/- as personal damages.

           3. Upon notice, Opposite Parties appeared, version was filed and contested the matter. 1^st opposite party bank challenged the jurisdiction of the Commission and maintainability of the complaint.  The 1^st Opposite Party admitted the loan transaction and deduction of insurance premium as stated in the complaint.  The first Opposite Party further stated that he has no liability to compensate the complainant and the 2^nd Opposite Party is the sole authority to compensate if any damages occurred to the Complainant. 

          4. The second Opposite Party also filed detailed version.  They challenged the maintainability and further narrated the method of WBCIS claim and settlement of compensation.  The second Opposite Party admitted the acceptance of premium. It is submitted that Complainant is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for, as there there is no negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd Opposite Party and prayed dismissal of the complaint.    

5. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Commission raised the following points for consideration:-

  1.  Whether there is any deficiency of service from the Opposite Party’s

        side?

            2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any compensation to the loss

                 of  crops ?

  3. Whether the Opposite Party is liable to pay any amount as compensation

        for deficiency of service

           4.  Relief and cost.

6. Point No. 1 to 4 :-  For the sake of convenience and brevity all points are considered together.

          The complainant adduced oral evidence.  He was examined as PW-1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext. A-1, A-2 and X-1.   Opposite Party No.1 was examined as OPW-1, Opposite Party No.2 was examined as OPW-2 and documents were marked as Ext. B-1 to B-10.

            7. Admittedly the insurance is a whether based Crop Insurance Scheme, a Governmental scheme which will be settled on Area Approach basis, only based on Weather data of Notified Reference Weather Station pertaining to the risk period applicable against each notified reference unit area.  On the perusal of brochure (Ext.B-11), the operational guidelines (Ext.B-6),Weather based FAQ  (Ext. B-7), the extract of news paper (Ext. B-10) it is very clear that the terms and conditions apply for the scheme. The wind speed noticed by the Regional Agricultural Research Station, Ambalavayal is marked as Ext. X-1 document, it reveals that the wind velocity on the particular days of the alleged incident happened are 13.96 km/hr and 10.91 km/hr.  The trigger weather and actual weather data recorded at the notified reference weather station during the specified time shows that the velocity is much lesser compared to the  value for the selected whether parameter for Banana cultivation notified by the State Government in the term sheet (Ext. B-5) is 40 km/hr. Under this coverage, the claim becomes payable only if the wind speed exceeds 40 km/hr.

          8. On page No.5 in column No. XV of Ext.B-6, operational guidelines for restructured weather based crop insurance scheme clearly describes the claim assessment and settlement.  As per the weather data recorded at Meenagadi Weather Station the wind speed did not cross at any point of time 40 Km/hr during insurance period.  The other method of calculation of damages can’t be permitted and therefore, the report of independent agency’s sole document on which the compensation to be awarded can be considered.  Hence the non consideration of the claim application does not amount to negligence in service.  The NCML is independent agency appointed as per Government Notification  therefore the report submitted by NCML (Ext.B-8) is an expert report which is binding on the parties.

          9. As per Government Notification, it is evident that the compensation should be strictly in terms of aforesaid scheme and compensation of the complainant is depending upon the weather in the reference unit area as per data provided by the concerned reference station and not other data can  be considered to award the compensation.  Therefore, the rejection of insurance claim does not amounts to deficiency in service and hence the complaint  deserves no merits and hence dismissed as follows.   

The complaint stands dismissed. No order as to cost.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Commission Forum on this the 27^th day of February 2021.

Date of filing:13.10.2017.

                                                          PRESIDENT   :   Sd/-

                                                          MEMBER       :   Sd/-

                                                          MEMBER       :   Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witnesses for the complainant:

PW1.          T.M. Baby.                     Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1.                 Aswin. R.                       Branch Manager,

OPW2.                 Vimal C.V.                     Asst. Manager, Agriculture 

Insurance Co.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1.    Statement of Account for the period from 27.10.2014 to 17.07.2017.

A2.    Brochure .

X1(a)   Average wind velocity (Km/hr) in the month of February 2017. 

             dt:20.02.2018. 

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

B1.    Copy of  Letter.                                  dt:23.02.2016.

B2.    Copy of Letter.                                   dt:23.03.2016.

B3.    Copy of GO(Rt) No.602/2016/Agri.  dt:21.07.2016.

B4.    Copy of Letter.                                   dt:21.07.2016.

B5.    Copy of  Weather based Crop Insurance scheme (Kharif 2016)   Term sheet.

B6.    Copy of  Operational Guidelines.

B7.    Copy of Weather Based  Crop Insurance Scheme – Frequently Asked

           Questions (FAQS).

B8.    Copy of Certification of Weather data provided by NCMSL to AIC.

B9.    Copy of Claim Calculation for banana.

B10. Copy of Brochure.