Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/22/2014

V.Thyagaraja 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.22/2014

Between

V.Thyagaraja Naidu,

Aged about 71 years,

S/o. Late Gurrappa Naidu,

Hindu, cultivation,

Residing at Vankayalapativaripalli Village,

H/o. 104 Devalampeta, Pulicherla 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, Pulicherla  Mandal,

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

Pulicherla 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 2&3 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. 5,00,000/- 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  raised the sugar cane crop in his landed property during the years 2009-2010 and he insured the above said sugar cane crop with the 1^st opposite party through the 3^rd opposite party on 04.08.2009 by paying insurance premium amount of Rs.3,000/- by way of demand draft in the name of AIC of India, Axis Bank Account no.008010200023922, Hyderabad drawn an Indian Bank, Kallur Branch, Chittoor District. The Xerox copy of crop and area sown confirmation certificate duly issued by VRO, Devalampet, Pulicherla Mandalam, dated 04.08.2011 are here with filed for better particulars. The complainant submits that due to lack of water facility the sugar cane crop raised by him in his lands has been completely dried up and withered away, causing loss at about Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant. Hence he approached the opposite party no.2&3 requesting to pay the damage caused to his sugar cane crop as per the terms and conditions of the insurance scheme. But there is no reply from them, on 21.06.2011 the complainant sent an application to the District Collector, Chittoor to compensate him for the loss sustained to his sugar cane crop. But they failed to take any action hence on 19.04.2011 he sent a registered  legal notice to all the opposite parties and also marking the copy to the District Collector, Chittoor but the same was served to opposite party 2&3 but the notice of the opposite party no.1 was returned un served due to insufficient address. The complainant  further submits that again he issued a legal notice to the opposite party no.1 on 15.05.2012 and the same is served and the opposites party no.1 issued reply notice on 25.05.2012 stating that “For kharif  season-2009, threshold yield of Pulicherla mandal for sugar cane (Plant) crops is 83 tonnes/hec and actual yield for same is 92 tonnes per hectare and for sugar cane (ratoon) crop threshold yield 65 tonnes/ hec and actual yield is more than threshold yield for this mandal and not elilgible for claims”.  

          3. The complainant submits that the reasons mentioned by the first opposite party for 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.5,00,000/- 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 asses 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 here in, and stated that the complainant raised the sugar cane crop during the years 2009-2010 and insured the said crop with the first opposite party for the same year. If any loss caused to the crop the complainant has to approach the insurance company and also the concerned authorities during the period when the dried crop was in the field. But the complainant never made any correspondence with the opposite party 2&3 during the said period and he made requisitions after lapse of one year. If at all there are bonafides, he has to made a claim within one year period only. Hence after lapse of one year there is no possibility to assess the loss caused to the complainant due to the dried crop. Hence there were no chances for them to inspect the field and to give any report to the complainant. Hence the complainant unnecessarily impleaded them as the parties in the above said complaint and there is no deficiency of service on part of them. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

         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 25.05.2012 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 are 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 Kharif season of 2009, threshold yield of pulicherla mandal for sugar cane crop is 83 tonnes per hector for actual yield for the same is 92 tonnes per hector and for sugar cane (Ratoon) crop threshold yield (guaranteed yield) 65 tonnes per hectare and actual yield is 67 tonnes per hectare. Hence as actual yield is more than threshold yield for this mandal and not eligible for claims. Hence the reason 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 the premium on 04.08.2009 for the crop that are raised during 2009 and 2010. 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 for 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 A11. 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 the years 2009-2010 and he insured the above said sugar cane crop with the 1^st opposite party through the 3^rd opposite party on 04.08.2009 by paying insurance premium amount of Rs.3,000/-. The complainant submits that due to lack of water facility the sugar cane crop raised by him in his lands has been completely dried up and withered away, causing loss of Rs.5,00,000/- to him. He approached the   opposite parties no.2 & 3 personally requesting to pay the damages for the loss occurred  to the sugar cane , as they have not taken any action he sent a letter to the District Collector on 21-06-2011 for the compensation for his loss of crop, but they have not taken any action to compensate him.  Hence he sent a legal notice on 15.05.2012 under Ex.A7. After receipt of the said legal notice the opposite party no.1 sent a reply notice on 25.05.2012 Ex.A9 stating that the claims will be settled only on the basis of “Area Approach” and as per the scheme provisions the losses are not assessed individual farmer wise and based on the crop yield data in respect of the insured unit area according to the data provided by the Government.  The claims calculation is done by AIC which is the implementing agency of the programme.  The claims are payable if the actual yield of the particular unit area is less than the guaranteed yield.  Hence as actual yield is more than threshold yield for this mandal and complainant is not eligible for claims. 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 party no.1 submits 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 counsel for the opposite party no.1 has contended that the national agricultural insurance scheme operates on an “Area Approach” basis.  As per the Ex.A9 in the repudiation letter they clearly communicated to the complainant that the compensation paid to the farmers if the actual yield of the particular unit area is less than the guaranteed yield.

           For kharif-2009, threshold yield of Pulicherla Mandal for sugar cane (Plant ) crop is 83 tonnes/hec and actual yield for the same is 92 tonnes /hec and for sugar cane(ratoon) crop threshold yield (guaranteed yield) 65 tonnes/hec and actual yield is 67 tonnes/hec. Hence as actual yield is more than the threshold yield for this mandal as he is not eligible for the claims.

         Claims are calculated as per the following formula:-

                  Claim Amount  =   Guaranteed 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 Pulicherla Mandal is not notified under NAI scheme has adopted a principle of equity and have 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. There is no dispute regarding the cultivation of the sugar cane crop by the complainant in his fields because in order to prove the same he filed Ex.A2 i.e. the certificate issued by the VRO by confirming the crop and area sown by the complainant and also in order to prove the same he filed Ex.A10 pattadhar pass book of the complainant but in absence of any cogent evidence by way of documents we cannot come to the conclusion that there is deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties because they have followed  the guidelines and terms and conditions mentioned in Ex.B1 and also the yield data Ex.B3 clearly shows that the actual yield is more than the threshold yield. Hence the complainant failed 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.

         13. The opposite parties no.2&3 stated that the complainant made a requisition to inspect the field after lapse of one year of the crop. If at all there are any bonafides on part of him he has to approach them when the dried crop was in the field, then only they can inspect the field and issue the report. But in this particular case the complainant made a requisition after one year of the crop which is of no use and not possible for them to file the report.  Hence there are latches on part of the complainant and throwing blame on the opposite parties unnecessarily. Hence we cannot hold the deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties 2&3. Accordingly this point is answered against the complainant.

         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 Complainant.

 

PW-1: V. Thyagaraja Naidu (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite Parties.

 

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

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of Demand Draft for Rs.3,000/- under D.D.No.051355 payable in the name of A.I.C of India, Axis Bank, Hyderabad obtained by the complainant drawn on Indian Bank, Kallur Branch, Chittoor. Dt: 04.08.2009.
	Xerox copy of Crop and Area Sown Confirmation Certificate issued by V.R.O., Devalampet, Pucherla Mandal, Showing the crop and area of the Complaint. Dt: 04.08.2009.
	Office copy of legal notice. Dt: 19.04.2012 with postal receipts.
	Postal acknowledgement of 2nd Opposite Party. Dt: 21.04.2012.
	Postal acknowledgement of 3rd Opposite Party. Dt: 28.04.2012.
	Return Regd. Post Cover issued to the 1st Opposite Party.
	Office copy of Legal Notice Dt: 15.05.2012 issued to the 1st Opposite Party.
	Postal acknowledgement of the 1st Opposite Party. Dt: 24.05.2012.
	Served (Original) copy of reply letter Dt: 25.05.2012 issued by the 1st Opposite Party.
	Photo copy of pattadar pass book of complainant.
	Postal acknowledgement of the District Collector, Chittoor. Dt: 25.04.2012.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTYs

 

Exhibits   (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
1.	Photo copy of booklet containing the Scheme and Guidelines of NAIS.
2.	Photo copy of Judgments/ Citations barred on the grounds of limitation.
3.	True copy of Yield Data submitted by DES.
4.	True copy of Government Notification G.O.Rt.No.658 for Khariff-2009.
5.	Photo copy of Order of F.A.NO.1380/07.

 

 

 

                                                                                                        Sd/-                                                     

                                                                                                        President

 

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

              Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to:  The Complainant.

                   The Opposite parties.