Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/21/2014

Endluri Thulasirama Naidu, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager - Opp.Party(s)

K.Chandra Sekhar Naidu

20 Apr 2016

ORDER

                                                                                                Filing Date:-19-04-2014                                                                                                               Order Date: -20-04-2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present: - Sri. Ramakrishnaiah, President

                                                       Smt. T. Anitha, Member

          WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND

                                                             AND SIXTEEN

C.C.No.21/2014

Between

Endluri Thulasirama Naidu,

Aged about 56 years,

S/o. Late Nagaiah Naidu,

Hindu, cultivation,

Residing at Kamathampalli,

Pakala post and Mandalam,

Chittoor District.                                                                         …. Complainant

 

And

1.The Manager,

National Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd.,

Hyderabad Region, represented by its Dy. General Manager,

Holding his office at 8^th Floor, United India Towers,

Basheerabagh, Hyderabad-500 029.   

 

2) The Joint Director of Agriculture,

Chittoor, Chittoor District.

 

3) The Agriculture Officer, Pakala Mandal,

Holding his office in the campus of M.P.D.O.,

Pakala Post and Mandal, Chittoor District.                           ….  Opposite parties

 

         This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 16.03.2016 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and written arguments of the complainant and opposite parties and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri.K.Chandrasekhar Naidu, counsel for the complainant and Sri.M. Subramanyam Reddy, counsel for the opposite party no.1 and Sri. B. Narahari Reddy, counsel for the opposite party no.3 and opposite party no.2 is remained exparte having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

          This complaint is filed under Sections -12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, complaining the deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties and prayed this forum to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- being the damages caused to the sugar cane crop insured  with the 1^st opposite party through the 3^rd opposite party, by directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service caused by the opposite parties to the complainant and to pay the costs of this complaint.

          2. The brief facts of the case are: The complainant who is an agriculturist purely depending upon the income deriving from his landed property and he raised sugarcane crop in his landed property in an extent of Ac.1.28 cents in survey no. 2151/1 during the years 2010-2011 and he insured the above said sugar cane crop with the 1^st opposite party through the 3^rd opposite party and also obtain crop loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Central Bank of India, Pakala Branch, Chittoor District. The above said sugar cane crop raised in wealthy condition and on 14.02.2011 at about 10 a.m. the sugar cane crop which is in harvest stage met with a fire accident and entire crop is damaged. Thus the total loss and damage of the yield of 75 tonnes of the sugar cane crop of the  value of Rs.1,50,000/- as on the date of the accident, the rate per ton is about 2,000/-. The agricultural officer, pakala also intimated the matter with regard to the above said accident to the Pakala Central Bank of India through written intimation.

          3. The complainant further submits that he submitted requisition before the District Collector, Chittoor but they have not taken any action about his submission. Hence on 19.04.2012 the complainant sent a registered legal notice to the 1^st opposite party and also marked the copy to the District Collector, Chittoor. After receipt of the said legal notice the 1^st opposite party on 10.05.2012 has issued a reply letter stating that the claims will be settled only on the basis of yield data and no other methodology is permissible as per the NAIS provisions. The news of the above said fire accident was published in the District edition of Enadu news paper dated 15.02.2011. Hence the complainant submits that reasons given by the 1^st opposite party in repudiating the claim of the complainant is against law and principles of natural justice, in violation of insurance policy which is nothing but deficiency of service. Thus the opposite parties are liable to pay the value of the loss of sugar cane crop of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant.

          4.  The complainant further submits that the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 are being the facilitators they are bound to inspect the sugarcane crop of the complainant and to assess and estimate the loss caused to the complainant and to recommend to the 1^st opposite party to pay the compensation to the complainant. But they failed to do so even though the complainant brought the subject matter to the notice of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties which is nothing but deficiency of service on part of them. Hence they are also liable to pay compensation. Hence there is deliberate and willful deficiency of service on part of the all the opposite parties for paying the compensation to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence the present complaint.

          5.   The written version of opposite party no.3 filed along with adoption memo of opposite party no.2 by denying all the allegations made in the complaint except those  are specifically admitted , that they are having very limited role to play in the incident i.e., to inspect the field and issuing the crop damage certificate to the farmer. Accordingly this opposite party has visited the field and issued crop damage certificate to the farmer. This opposite party has nothing to do with the 1^st opposite party whether they pay damages to the complainant or not.  This opposite party has done their job strictly as per procedure and the complainant unnecessarily impleaded them as the parties in the above said complaint and hence there is no deficiency of service on part of them. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed against them.

           6. The opposite party no.1 filed the written version by denying the allegations made in the complaint and it is stated that they issued reply to the notice of the complainant dated 10.05.2012 that he is not entitled for the sum and repudiate the claim because, the scheme provisions will not applicable for the loss are not assessed individual farmer wise and based on the crop yield data in respect of insured area, according to the data provided by the Government Department. The claims calculations is done by AIC which is implementing agency of the programme. The claims are payable if the actual yield of particular unit area is less than the guaranteed yield.

          7.  For Khariff season of 2010, threshold yield Pakala Mandal for sugar cane crop is 83 tons per hector for actual yield for the same is 82 tons per hector and for sugar cane (Ratoon) crop threshold yield (guaranteed yield) 60 tons per hector and actual yield is 54 tons per hector. Hence as actual yield is more than threshold yield for this Mandal and not eligible for claims. Hence the alleged accident mentioned by the complainant is not true and correct and the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant has paid insured amount on 04.08.2009 for the crop that is raised during the 2010 and 2011. But the present complaint was filed by the complainant on 19.04.2014 which is more than 4years. Hence on this ground also the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complaint is barred by limitation. In these circumstances also the complainant is not entitled any claim. Hence as per the terms and conditions of NAIS policy the opposite parties rightly repudiated the claim and informed the same to the complainant without any cause of delay in its service. Hence the opposite parties committing deficiency of service does not arise. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with exemplary costs.

           8.  The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and got marked  Exs. A1 to A8. On behalf of opposite party no.1 one Smt. M.Rajeswari Singh, W/o. Sridhar Singh, Chief Regional Manager, Agriculture of India Limited filed her evidence  affidavit and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked. Chief affidavit of opposite party no.3 filed but no documents were filed on behalf of them.

          9.  Now the points for consideration are:

              (i)  Whether there is any deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties?               

              (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for? If so? To

                   what extent?            

              (iii)  To what Result?

           10. Point No:-(i). The main case of the complainant is that he raised the sugar cane crop in his landed property in an extent of AC.1.28cents in the year 2010-2011 and on 14.02.2011 at about 10a.m. due to fire accident the entire sugar cane crop was completely damaged which is in harvest stage. The value of the damaged sugar cane crop is Rs.1,50,000/-  with yield of 75 tons. Hence he has submitted requisition letter to the 3^rd opposite party but they have not taken any action hence he sent a legal notice on 19.04.2012 Ex.A5. After receipt of the said legal notice the opposite party no.1 sent a reply notice on 10.05.2012 Ex.A7 stating that the claims will be settled only on the basis of yield data and no other methodology is permissible as per the NAIS provisions. The reasons given by the opposite party no.1 in repudiating the claim of the complainant is against law and principles of natural justice in violation of insurance policy which is nothing but deficiency of service. Once the opposite parties collected the premium by indemnifying the complainant   

          11. But the opposite parties submit that they have acted as per the conditions specified in Ex.B1 hence the claim of the complainant is not a bonafide one. Because the learned councel for the opposite party no.1 has contended that the national agricultural insurance scheme operates on an “Area Approach” basis. The compensation paid to the farmers on group basis will not be exactly equal to the loss suffered by every individual farmer. The actual yield of the particular notified area for a particular notified crop for the insured season is assessed through crop cutting experiments by the State Government.  The threshold yield is calculated on the basis of past 5 years average yield( for sugar cane crop) multiplied by level of indemnity for a particular notified area.

    Claims are calculated as per the following formula:-

                  Claim Amount  =  Short fall in yield/ threshold yield  x sum insured.

         12.   It is an admitted fact that the complainant is a farmer and he raised sugar cane crop and obtained insurance with the opposite party no.1. But the above sugarcane crop which is comprised in the Pakala Mandal is not notified under NAI scheme has adopted a drought principle of equity and has deal with the farmers on group basis to provide compensation on the basis of average production in a defined area. This concept has lead to the formation notified area and a system of establishing the actual average yield in the defined area through the crop cutting experiments, which was scientifically to reflect the average yield of the area. Claims are payable only when there is short fall in the yield in the current seasons actual yield as against threshold yield (guaranteed yield) for a particular crop/ unit of insurance under Ex.B1. And also in order to prove their contention the opposite parties relied a decision under EX.B5 the decision of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in F.A.No.1380/07 again C.C. No. 43&44/2007 of consumer forum-II, Vijayawada in Agricultural Insurance Company of India by its General Manager & Gorepathy Veera Raghavulu and another.

         13. The complainant in order to establish his case he filed Exs.A1 to A8 were marked on behalf of him. The Ex.A1 the Xerox copy of the letter dated 29.03.2011 which is addressed  by the Central Bank of India to the Mandal Officer that the complainant availed loan of Rs.1,00,000/-. The Ex.A2 xerox copy of statement of VRO of Pakala was filed in the above statement the letters are not at all legible to read and also the said document was not attested by any competent authority. Hence it cannot be considered. The Ex.A4 xerox copy of the letter issued by the 3^rd opposite party i.e Agricultural Officer to the bank manager of central bank of India about the intimation of the damage and loss occurred to the complainant due to fire accident of his sugarcane crop and Ex.A7 the repudiation letter issued by the opposite party no.1. Except the above said document Ex.A7 all the other documents are Xerox copies which are not attested by any competent authorities which draws adverse inference against the complainant. Hence they are not considered. Hence the complainant failed to establish his case with cogent evidence to prove that there is a deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties. Hence the complainant miserably failed to establish his case. Accordingly this point is answered against the complainant.

          As already the opposite parties no.2 and 3 contended that they are having limited role to play in the incident to inspect the field and issuing the crop damage certificate to the farmer. Accordingly they issued the same. But the complainant unnecessarily impleaded them as parties. Hence as they are the nominal parties the question of deficiency of service on part of the opposite party 2 and 3 would not arise.       

         14. Point:(ii).    As already point no.1 is discussed against the complainant the question of entitlement would not arise.

        15.Point (iv):-    In the result the complaint is dismissed. No Costs.

            Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 20^th day of April, 2016.

         Sd/-                                                                                                               Sd/-

  Lady Member                                                                                                             President

 

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF BOTH SIDES

 

PW-1: Endluri Thulasirama Naidu (Chief Affidavit filed)

 

RW-1: Smt. M.Rajeshwari Singh (Chief Affidavit filed)

RW-2: B.Haritha Kumari (Chief Affidavit filed)

 

              EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.A1.	Served a photo copy of letter Dt: 21.03.2011 issued by the Central Bank of India, Pakala and Chittoor District.
2.	A Photo copy of Statement of V.R.O. Upperapalli Dt.14.02.2011.
3.	Eenadu News daily publication Dt. 15.02.2011.
4.	Photo copy of letter issued by the 3rd Opposite Party to the Bank Manager, Central bank, Pakala.
5.	Office copy of legal notice Dt. 19.04.2012 with postal receipts.
6.	Postal acknowledgement. Dt: 07.05.2012.
7.	Reply letter Dt. 10.05.2012.
8.	Postal acknowledgement of District Collector, Chittoor. Dt: 23.04.2012.

 

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.B1.	A photo copy of booklet Containing the scheme and Guidelines of NAIS.
2.	A photo copy of Judgments / citations barred on the grounds of Limitation.
3.	A true copy of Government Notification G.O.Rt.No.658 for Khariff 2010.
4.	A true copy of Yield Data submitted by DES.
5.	A photo copy of State Commission Order of F.A.No.1380/2007 against C.C.No.43/2007.

 

 

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                                                                                President

 

 

// TRUE COPY //

                                                     // BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to:  The Complainant.

                   The Opposite parties.