Date of filing: 17.06.2019
Date of disposal : 27.04.2023
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR., B.Sc., B.L., .....MEMBER-I
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.ICWA(Inter),B.L., ....MEMBER-II
RBT/CC. No.102/2022
THIS THURSDAY, THE 27th DAY OF APRIL 2023
(CC.No.95/2019 sent from DCDRC, Chennai North)
Mr.K.Mahalingam, S/o.Kuttiappa Gounder,
No.2, Kumarapuram, Vallipuram,
Kodumudi Taluk,
Erode District 638 109. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
The Regional Manager,
Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited,
Regional Office, 1st Floor,
Andhra Insurance Building,
Old No.156, (New No.323), Thambu Chetty Street,
Parrys Corner, Chennai 600 001. .......Opposite party.
Counsel for the complainant : Mr.A.Adithya, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite party : M/s.P.S.Kothandaraman, Advocate.
This complaint has been filed before DCDRC, Chennai (North) as CC.No.95/2019 and transferred to this commission by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and taken on file as CC.No.102/2022 and this complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 18.04.2023 and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service non-issuance of policy documents along with a prayer to pay a sum of Rs.637/- paid by the complainant as first premium towards the Coconut Plant Insurance Scheme insured by the opposite party and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant along with cost of the proceedings.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
Being aggrieved by non-processing the insurance claim the present complaint was filed. Complainant an agriculturist owns land to an extent of 3.00 acres in Survey Numbers 5/2 and 12/1, 3 at Vallipuram Village, Kodumudi Taluk, Erode District. The 'Complainant submits that he had cultivated 210 coconut trees over a period of 5 to 30 years and he was getting good yield from the same. He has also insured the said crops under the Coconut Plant Insurance Scheme with the Opposite Party Insurance Company during the year 2017 wherein the funds were allotted by the Union Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare. The Opposite Party is a Government of India undertaking engaged in crop and agriculture insurance business providing crop insurance facilities and other services to the farmers. Based on promises and assurances of the Opposite Party that in the event of any damage to the crops in future he was eligible to claim compensation under the Coconut Plant Insurance Scheme offered by the Opposite Party, the Complainant subscribed the said insurance scheme by paying the requisite first premium amount to a sum of Rs.637/-. In the proposal form issued by the Opposite Party it was stated that the total insured amount is Rs.3,25,000/ . The Complainant submits that pursuant to the payment of the premium amount the Opposite Party did not issue the necessary policy document nor any receipt in proof of the payment made by the Complainant towards the Coconut Plant Insurance Scheme which certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party. The Opposite Party did not even inform about the policy number in respect of the said plant insurance policy taken by the Complainant. The Complainant was kept in complete dark as to the status of the policy opted by him and also about the premium paid by him. The Opposite Party did not bother to issue at least the receipt in acknowledgment of the premium paid by the Complainant. The proposal form submitted by him was duly endorsed by the Deputy Agricultural Officer, Sivagiri on 28.06.2017 and forwarded to the office of Assistant Director of Agriculture, Kodumudi who in turn had forwarded the same to the Opposite Party along with the application form duly signed by the Complainant. Certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer, Konthalam 'A' Village, Kodumudi Taluk dated 23.06.2017 in proof of the possession of the said cultivated land of the Complainant in Survey Numbers 5/2 and 12/1, 3. The Complainant submits that on 28.04.2018 he has given a Claim Form to the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Kodumudi informing the fact that out of the 210 coconut trees 116 trees got damaged due to draught. The Complainant submits that he has sought his damaged trees to be inspected and forward the Claim Form to Opposite Party. Accordingly an inspection was conducted and a report along with Claim Form and the particulars of the trees were forwarded to the Opposite Party as early in the month of April 2018. The Complainant submits that thereafter since there was no reply forthcoming from the Opposite Party, the Complainant sent an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 on 16.07.2018 seeking to furnish certain information relating to the policy number, copy of inspection report etc. Despite receipt of the said application the Opposite Party did not furnish the information as sought for and rather did not give any reasons till date for not furnishing the information as sought for by the Complainant. The Opposite Party has prima facie committed an act of deficiency in service in a manner by not issuing any policy document to the Complainant insofar as the premium paid as early on 28.06.2017 towards the Coconut Plant Insurance Scheme. Apart from deficiency in service the entire acts of not issuing the policy document to the Complainant till date and not keeping him informed of the present status of the policy or at the least the policy number and other vital particulars that are sine qua non for every policy holder who has paid a valuable consideration will squarely amounts to unfair trade practice for which the Opposite Party as a service provider is solely liable to compensate under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Complainant submits that he is a consumer within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and he had paid the premium amount towards the Coconut Plant Insurance Scheme.Thus the complaint is filed for the following reliefs
To pay a sum of Rs.637/- paid by the complainant as first premium towards the coconut plant insurance scheme insured by the opposite party;
To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant along with cost of the proceedings.
Crux of the defence put forth by the opposite party:-
The Government of India had formulated an Insurance Scheme called Coconut Palm Insurance Scheme which is operational from the year 2013. The Scheme shall cover all healthy palm with Insurable age group from 4th year to 60 years and is split into 4-15 years at 16-60 years being the age of the Coconut palm tree. Complainant has taken insurance policy under CPIS Scheme by paying the premium amount of a sum of Rs. 637/- vide Demand Draft dated 20.06.2017 as farmer's share of premium for 210 trees. The Opposite party received Complainant's premium amount on 03.07.2017 only and as per CPIS Guidelines, the complainant's Insurance policy would commence from 01/08/2017 for a period of one year. After receiving the premium amount, the opposite party has issued the Policy on 10/08/2017 commencing from 01/08/2017 to the complainant. Complainant made a claim petition on 28.04.2018 i.e., within a short span of 80 days with an ulterior motive by misusing the Scheme norms as stated by the opposite party. As per the claim petition that 116 trees have damaged due to draught is totally false and the Complainant has to prove the same. The Rainfall recorded during the claim period in Kodumudi Block is 609.43 mm, which is much above for the same period during the last year, which is 212 mm. Thus an increase in rainfall when compared to previous year is 397 43mm. Rainfall data pertaining to Kodumudi Block as certified by the concerned Assistant Director of Agriculture certifies that there is “NO DROUGHT” in the said period as claimed by the complainant. Hence the opposite party had intimated to the complainant by post promptly that the repudiation of his claim vide a letter of intimation dated 03.07.2018 with in a reference No.8404/18 as such there is no drought during the claim period and such the claim of compensation is misconceived and vexations. Thus sought for the complaint to be dismissed.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A17. On the side of the opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B10 were filed by them.
Points for consideration:
Whether the complaint allegations as to non-issuance of policy documents by the opposite party has been proved by the complainant?
Whether the repudiation of the claim by the opposite party with regard to the claim made by the complainant under the Coconut Plant Insurance Scheme for the loss of 116 coconut trees amounts to deficiency in service and whether the same has been proved by the complainant by admissible evidence?
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point Nos.1 & 2:-
The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of his contentions;
Copy of Patta was marked as Ex.A1;
A Register Extract dated 15.06.2017 was marked as Ex.A2;
Possession certificate issued by VAO, Kodumudi Taluk dated 17.06.2017 was marked as Ex.A3;
Land Register Extract dated 17.06.2017 was marked as Ex.A4;
Requisition letter submitted by the complainant dated 20.06.2017 was marked as Ex.A5;
Proposal Form submitted to opposite party under coconut plant insurance scheme dated 20.06.2017 was marked as Ex.A6;
Copy of Demand Draft dated 20.06.2017 was marked as Ex.A7;
Map for Field No.5 & 12 was marked as Ex.A8;
Claim petition sent by the complainant along with particulars of damaged trees dated 28.04.2018 was marked as Ex.A9;
Bank Pass Book of the complainant was marked as Ex.A10;
Legal notice sent by the complainant dated 03.04.2019 was marked as Ex.A11;
Postal receipt was marked as Ex.A12;
Postal acknowledgement card was marked as Ex.A13;
“Brief of drought and drought monitoring” issued by the Department of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation dated 16.08.2017 was marked as Ex.A14;
Amendment of Drought Manual 2016 by the Drought Management Division, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Agriculture, Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India dated 29.05.2018 was marked as Ex.A15;
National level Crisis Management Plan for Drought formulated by Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare was marked as Ex.A16;
Research Paper published by the Symbiosis international University on Drought Management Policy of India dated 01.08.2020 was marked as Ex.A17;
On the side of opposite party the following documents were submitted in support of their defence;
Copy of Coconut Palm Insurance Scheme was marked as Ex.B1;
The relevant Indian Meteorological Department definition on drought was marked as Ex.AB2;
The relevant Rainfall Deviation classification from Indian Metrological Department was marked as Ex.B3;
The rainfall data furnished by Assistant Director of Kodumudi Block of Erode District was marked as Ex.B4;
The actual Rainfall of Kodumudi Block received from Department of Economics and statistics for the said policy period was marked as Ex.B5;
The actual rainfall and normal rainfall of the Erode District for the said policy period as per IMD was marked as Ex.B6;
The actual and normal rainfall date for the previous year (Jan 2016 to Dec.2016) in Erode District as per IMD was marked as Ex.B7;
The relevant actual and normal rainfall data of Kudumudi Block for the same period as furnished for the previous year (Jan 2016 to Dec.2016) by Department of Economics and Statistics was marked as ExB8;
The policy copy/cover note issued to the complainant by the opposite party was marked as Ex.B9;
Repudiation letter was marked as Ex.B10;
Both parties filed written arguments and it is represented by them that their written arguments may be treated as oral arguments.
The crux of the written arguments filed by the complainant is that the complainant was an agriculturist and owns land to an extent of 3.00 acres in Survey numbers 5/2 and 12/1, 3 at Villipuram Village, Kodumudi Taluk, Erode District and had cultivated 210 coconut trees over a period of 5 to 30 years. By paying a premium of Rs.673/- he insured his trees under Coconut Plant Insurance Scheme with the opposite party. Under the proposal issued by the opposite party it was stated that the total insured amount is Rs.3,25,000/-. Even after payment of the premium and receipt of the same no policy number was intimated and no policy document was issued. The complainant however had submitted all the relevant documents including the certificate issued by the VAO, Konthalam ‘A’ Village, Kodumudi Taluk dated23.06.2017. The complainant sought his damaged trees to be inspected and submitted a Claim Form to the opposite party and accordingly the trees were inspected and a report along with Claim Form was forwarded to the opposite party as early as in the month of April 2018. But till this day no reply was given by the opposite parties. The complainant sent an Application under RTI which was also not replied. Further it is submitted that the opposite party never issued the necessary document to the complainant and had kept the complainant in dark till today about the claim process made by him. The Coconut Plant Insurance Scheme not only covers the damages caused to the trees due to low rain fall situation but also covers the damage due to heavy rain. Thus he sought for complaint to be allowed.
On the other hand, the written arguments filed by the opposite party provides that the complainant had insured his trees for a period of one year from 01.08.2017 to 31.07.2018. Further the complainant had filed the claim intimation for total loss of 116 trees due to drought. However, it is submitted that the related peril specified under the Coconut Plant Insurance Scheme is severe drought and consequential total loss of palms and not mere deficiency in rain fall received or moderate drought during the policy period in the insured location. As per the data received from Assistant Director of Agriculture of Kodumudi Block the actual rain fall recorded during the policy period is 609.43mm against the normal of 717mm which shows that 85% of rain fall is received which cannot be termed as drought situation. Further no rain fall deficiency was seen any time during the said insurance cover period in the Kodumudi Block. Thus it is submitted that the claim of the complainant is misconceived as the reported loss was due to the drought occurred prior to the insurance policy period and thus he sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
On appreciation of the entire pleadings and material evidences it is seen that the payment of premium and the drawing of the policy by the complainant is admitted by both parties. The dispute arises with non-issuance of policy by the opposite party. Though it is submitted by the opposite party that the policy document has been issued it is disputed by the complainant states that in the Certificate of Insurance, no signature was found. It is their contention that as signature was missing it is a system generated document and it cannot termed as a Certificate of Insurance and more over the opposite party failed to state that how the Certificate of Insurance was delivered to the complainant. Therefore, we find the allegation of the complainant acceptable as when it is disputed by the complainant that no policy document was issued on them, it is the duty of the opposite party to produce the proof for the delivery of same like acknowledgment card. In the absence of any evidence we accept the complainant‘s allegation that no policy document was issued to him after receipt of premium.
With regard to processing the claim it is found that the claim made by the complainant was very well with the policy period. It is also an admitted fact that the peril/claim does not come under the exclusion clause of the policy. However, the only dispute raised by the opposite party with regard to the honouring of claim is that there is no drought during the particular period as per the record of Assistant Director of Agriculture of Kodumudi Block. The complainant had submitted additional documents marked as Ex.A14 to Ex.A17, in Ex.A14 as per the brief on drought issued by the Department of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation on 16.08.2017 the drought has been classified into three types – Meteorological droughts, Hydrological droughts and Agricultural drought. In the instant case, the opposite party had categorically mentioned in their written version that the rainfall recorded during the claim period in Kodumudi Block is 609.43mm which automatically falls under the chronically drought prone area as per the research carried out by Department of Water Resources. In the light of the above Brief of Drought issued by the Government, the stand of the opposite party that the Kodumudi Block has no drought is baseless. When the claim was made very well within the policy period if the contention of the complainant is accepted we have no other option but to hold that the repudiation of the complainant’s claim by the opposite party is not proper. Further it is the case of the complainant that till this day no information was given by the opposite party with regard to the status of the claim. Though it is stated by the opposite party that the repudiation letter (Ex.B10) was issued to the petitioner, when the issuance was disputed by the complainant no proof was submitted by the opposite party in proof of delivery of the same. Further it is also seen that in the repudiation letter, no reason was found for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The claim was rejected on a bald statement as follows;
“On perusal of the records submitted and underlying facts it is observed that pre-existing peril has been insured. Hence it is conveyed that the claims sought by you under CIPS 2017 – 2018 is not admissible as per the provision of CIPS.”
Thus this commission comes to a conclusion that the rejection of the claim of the opposite party without any basis amounts to clear deficiency in service. Thus we answer the point accordingly holding that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service.
Point No.3:
The complainant had sought for in the complaint for the refund of the premium amount along with Rs.50,000/- as compensation. However, in the interest of the complainant/consumer, The Consumer Protection Act being an Social Welfare Legislation we modify the prayer and award a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service committed by the opposite party along with a direction to consider the claim petition of the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We also direct the opposite party to pay cost of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against opposite party directing them;
a) To consider the claim petition of the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;
b) To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant;
c) To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 27th day of April 2023.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 15.06.2017 Copy of Patta. Xerox
Ex.A2 15.06.2017 A Register Extract. Xerox
Ex.A3 17.06.2017 Possession certificate issued by VAO, Kodumudi Taluk. Xerox
Ex.A4 17.06.2017 Land Register Extract. Xerox
Ex.A5 20.06.2017 Requisition letter submitted by the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A6 20.06.2017 Proposal Form submitted to opposite party under coconut plant insurance scheme. Xerox
Ex.A7 20.06.2017 Demand Draft. Xerox
Ex.A8 .................. Map for Field No.5 &12. Xerox
Ex.A9 28.04.2018 Claim petition sent by the complainant along with particulars of damaged trees. Xerox
Ex.A10 ............... Bank Pass Book of the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A11 03.04.2019 Legal notice sent by the complainant’s counsel. Xerox
Ex.A12 03.04.2019 Postal Receipt. Xerox
Ex.A13 04.04.2019 Postal Acknowledgement. Xerox
Ex.A14 16.08.2017 “Brief of drought and drought monitoring” issued by the Department of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation Xerox
Ex.A15 29.05.2018 Amendment of Drought Manual 2016 by the Drought Management Division, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Agriculture, Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India Xerox
Ex.A16 ............. National level Crisis Management Plan for Drought formulated by Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Xerox
Ex.A17 01.08.2020 Research Paper published by the Symbiosis international University on Drought Management Policy of India Xerox
List of documents filed by the opposite party:-
Ex.B1 ............. Copy of Cocount Plam Insurance Scheme. Xerox
Ex.B2 .............. The relevant Indian Metrological Department definition on drought. Xerox
Ex.B3 ............ The relevant Rainfall Deviation classification from Indian Metorogical Department. Xerox
Ex.B4 ................ The rainfall data furhished by Assistant Director of Kodumudi Block of Erode District. Xerox
Ex.B5 ................ The actual Rainfall of Kodumudi Block received from Department of Economics and statistics for the said policy period. Xerox
Ex.B6 .............. The actual rainfall and normal rainfall of the Erode District for the said policy period as per IMD. Xerox
Ex.B7 ............ The actual and normal rainfall date for the previous year (Jan 2016 to Dec.2016) in Erode District as per IMD. Xerox
Ex.B8 ............ The relevent actual and normal rainfall data of Kudumudi Block for the same period as furnished for the previous year (Jan 2016 to Dec.2016) by Department of Economics and Statistics. Xerox
Ex.B9 .............. The policy copy/cover note issued to the complainant by the opposite party. Xerox
Ex.B10 ........... Repudiation letter. Xerox
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
