Date of filing : 22.06.2011
Date of Order: 29.04.2022
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VELLORE AT VELLORE DISTRICT.
PRESENT: THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A., B.L PRESIDENT
THIRU. R. ASGHAR KHAN, B.Sc. B.L. MEMBER – I
SELVI. I. MARIAN RAJAM ANUGRAHA, M.B.A. MEMBER - II
FRIDAY THIS 29 th DAY OF APRIL 2022
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.2 / 2011
R. Balaji,
S/o. Ramachandra Naidu,
Residing at Sengundram Village & Post,
Gudiyatham Taluk,
Vellore District. … Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Secretary, Primary Agricultural
Co-op Society C 2507, S. Mottur Village,
Modikuppam Post, Gudiyatham Taluk,
Vellore District.
2 The Special Officer,
Vellore District Central Co-op Bank Limited,
Officer’s Line, Vellore -1.
3. The Regional Manager,
Agricultural Insurance Company of India,
1st floor Andhra Insurance,
Building, Old No.156, (New No. 323)
Thambu Chetty Street,
Chennai – 1. … Opposite parties.
Counsel for complainant : Thiru. T.S. Kannaiyan
Counsel for 1st & 2nd opposite parties : Thiru. M. R. Ramanan
Counsel for 3rd Opposite party : Thiru. R.J. Mohan
ORDER
THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has prayed to direct the opposite parties to pay sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.50,000/- for mental agony with cost Rs.2000/-
1. The case of the complaint is briefly as follows:
The complainant is a farmer. He has cultivated the Banana crops in an extent of 2 acres of his land in S.No.122/3, of Sengundram Village, Gudiyatham Taluk. He is the Member of the first opposite party. He has availed a crop loan of Rs.62,700/- from the first opposite party. He has paid a sum of Rs.1881/- towards crop insurance premium for National Agricultural Insurance Scheme NAIS with the first opposite party. The first opposite party has issued the receipt for the same. The second opposite party is the head of the first opposite party. The third opposite party is the insurer for the crops of the complainant. As per the Scheme, the first opposite party is authorized to collect the crop Insurance premium from the farmer. The said premium will be forwarded to third opposite party through the second opposite party. In the event of the failure of crops due to natural calamities, the third opposite party will compensate the farmer in accordance with the Scheme. This procedure is followed as per the direction of both Central and State Government.
2. According to the complainant, he has invested the entire crop loan for growing his banana crops. During March and April 2010, almost 1200 of his banana crops were ripe for harvest. Accordingly, he has harvested 32 thars of banana and sold in Gudiyatham mundy and earned Rs.3,540/-. He has filed receipts to that effect. Unfortunately, on 19.4.2010 heavy rains and storms destroyed his remaining banana crops. As a result, he has sustained a loss of Rs.1,50,000/-. Assistant Director of Horticulture had also inspected the damaged banana crops but assessed the damage as Rs.45,680/- only. On 19.11.2010, the complainant has issued a legal notice to the first and second opposite parties and NABARD. The first, second opposite parties and NABARD gave reply notice dated 9.12.2010. The complainant has also issued a legal notice to the third opposite party. The third opposite party also gave a reply notice dated 3.1.2011 repudiating the claim of the complainant. The complainant states that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay crop insurance compensation. In spite of notices and demands, the opposite parties did not release the compensation amount as per the scheme. Hence, the opposite parties have committed the deficiency in service. Further, he alleged that he has also suffered great mental agony due to their non-performance by the opposite parties. Hence this complaint is filed.
3. The first opposite party has filed the written version and second opposite party adopted the same. Written version of opposite parties 1 and 2 are as follows:
The first and second opposite parties are Co-operative Societies. They are only an agent of third opposite party. First and second opposite parties are two independent and separate Co-operative societies and are not necessary parties. According to them, under the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme only for certain food crops will be insured in defined area on the basis of such as Taluk, Firka, Panchayat, as notified by the respective State Government. It could be insured against the risk of only mass natural calamity such as fire, Lightening storm, Cyclone Floods, drought etc., The areas, insurance premium rates, seasonality, cutoff date for receipt of premium, cutoff date for receipt of actual yield data are to be notified before the season by the State Government. As per the Scheme, to meet such catastrophic losses, on corpus fund has been created by the Insurance Company with contributions from Government on 50: 50 basis. This Scheme is monitored by the Chairman and the District Collector and District Monitoring Committee on crops Insurance Scheme. The loss assessment and indemnity, and levels of indemnity are all stipulated in the scheme made known to all members of this opposite party society. The first and second opposite parties’ states that neither insurance was given nor taken to the crops of any individual. Similarly, no insurance policy was issued to the complainant or anyone individually. The very fact that the complainant did not file any insurance policy covering the crops mentioned in the complaint.
4. On 26.09.2009, the complainant has availed a loan of Rs.62,700/- for raising his plantain crops from first opposite party. He has not repaid the said loan with interest. Therefore, this opposite party has issued the notice calling upon him to pay to repay the said loan with interest. But, he has not paid. According to them, though the complainant has estimated his loss as Rs.1,50,000/-, the report of the Deputy Director of Horticulture is shown damage to the banana crops only Rs.45,680/-. Therefore, there are contradictions in the complaint. This opposite party does not admit that the complainant incurred loss of Rs.1,50,000/-. This opposite party at any rate is not liable to pay any damages. The third opposite party has also informed that the complainant does not fall within the ambit scheme and is not covered by the scheme. Hence, the complainant is not entitled to amount claimed in the complaint. Therefore, this opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Written version of third opposite party is as follows:
Third opposite party is Agriculture Insurance Company of India. They are the implementing agency for National Agriculture Insurance Scheme. The scheme was framed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. The object of the Scheme is as follows:-
(i) To provide a measure of financial support to the farmers in the event of failure of any of the notified crops as a result of natural calamities, pest and diseases.
(ii) To encourage the farmers to adopt progressive farming practices, high value inputs and higher technologies and
(iii) To help stabilize farm income in disaster years.
According to this opposite party, they are not aware that whether the premium paid by the complainant, duly sent to this opposite party through the first and second opposite party. They are also not aware as to the season in which said crops have been covered and in which notified frika the complainant land is situated, whether the said crops have been lost due to heavy rains and storms. Based on the letter of second opposite party only dated 31.3.2011, this opposite party came to know that the complainant’s lands are located at Gudiyatham (East). As per the Notification issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu for kharif -2009 season, Gudiyatham (East) Frika is not notified for banana crops. Hence, the second opposite party did not submit any declaration and premium to this third opposite party. Hence, as per the Scheme, this opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation at all. It is also mentioned that as per the scheme, claim cannot be settled on individual basis, but only on the basis of area approach only. The Government of India has formulated the Scheme to mitigate the hardship caused to farmers in the event of crop failure. Claims cannot be settled in deviation of the Scheme. The scheme is being implemented in the overall interest of the farming community at large. This opposite party did not violated any guidelines under the Scheme and hence, there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party.
6. Proof affidavit of complainant filed. Exhibits A-1 to A-11 were marked. Proof affidavit of first and second opposite parties filed. Exhibits B-1 and B-2 were marked. Proof affidavit of third opposite party filed. Exhibits B-3 to B-5 were marked. Written argument on behalf of the complainant and opposite parties is being filed and oral arguments of both sides heard.
7. The Points that arises for consideration are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
parties ?
- To what relief, the complainant is entitled to?
8. POINT NO :- 1 The case of the complainant is that he has cultivated the banana crops in an extent of 2 acres in survey No.122/3 of Sengundram Village, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District. He has look after the said crops with due care. On perusal of Exhibit B-2, the complainant had availed a crop loan of Rs.62,700/- on 26.9.2009 from the first opposite party. He has paid insurance premium on 07.10.2009 as Exhibit A-2. He was under the impression that the said premium was duly sent to third opposite party and his crop was insured. The payment of the insurance premium not denied by the first and second opposite parties in their written version. Further, this was also confirmed by the second opposite party in their letter dated 31.03.2011 i.e. Exhibit B-4 sent to the third opposite party. According to the complainant, he has harvested the bananas two times prior to the damage of said crops and earned Rs.3540/-.
9. That being so, unfortunately on 19.4.2010 and 20.4.2010 heavy rains and storms destroyed his banana crops. The said damaged banana crops was inspected and the damage was quantified as Rs.45,680/-by the Deputy Director of Horticulture in Exhibit A-4. This was not disputed by the opposite parties. But, the opposite parties stating that the area in which the complainant cultivated the banana crops was not notified and hence the complainant is not entitled for any compensation as per the scheme.
10. On perusal of the notification issued by the State Government for Kharif 2009, it is pertinent note that Gudiyatham [West] alone notified for cultivation of Banana Crops. But, the complainant’s land is situated in Gudiyatham [East]. If at all the first and second opposite parties informed to the complainant that as per the notification complainant land not eligible for crop insurance scheme, he would not have paid the premium. He is layman as to the scheme. The first and second opposite party did not file any document to show that the complainant have been put on notice that his land was not comes under the notified area. They simply collect the premium and kept with them. This fact has also come to know only after calling for by the third opposite party. It is a reasonable expectation of an ordinary prudent man like complainant that he will be suitably compensated in the event of his crops failure for the reasons stated in the scheme. It is well known fact that as per notification, the complainant’s area was not eligible for crop insurance. He has been compelled to pay the premium for crop insurance. The complainant reasonably expected that in the event of any failure on the yield due to natural calamities, he would be compensated. Though the premium was collected from the complainant but not remitted to the third opposite party. The reason given by the third opposite party is that the area was not notified for banana crops. If so, the first and second opposite parties should have rejected the crop insurance application of the complainant and refunded the premium to the complainant. The purpose of the crop insurance is mitigating the loss incurred by the farmer due to natural calamities. It is duty of the first and second opposite parties to explain the nature and applicability of the scheme to the farmer. Because, most of our farmers are illiterate and not familiar with insurance scheme. The third opposite party simply washed off their hands saying that the area was not covered and premium not received by them and hence the complainant not entitled for compensation under the crop insurance scheme.
11. The counsel for the first and second opposite parties submitted that as per the Scheme individual loss were not covered and he has produced the Judgment of Hon’ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram reported in
2013 (1) CPR 173: Agriculture Insurance Company
(Vs)
Lookose.
On perusal of the said Judgment, it reveals that the complainant did not avail any loan from the bank. In the present case, the complainant has availed the loan from the Bank. Therefore the said Judgment is not relevant to this case. He has also produced another Judgment of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. reported in
2017 (1) CPR 545 (NC); Agricultural Insurance Co. of India Ltd.
(Vs)
Hem Shankar and Ors.
As per the judgment, the claim will be settled only based on the scheme. The parties are governed by Scheme. In the present case, first and second opposite parties having received the premium from the complainant but not paid to the third opposite party. Neither paid the premium to the third opposite party nor rejected his application on the ground of the area was not notified. Therefore, this case also not relevant to the present case. He has also produced an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P. No. 3967-4021 of 2008 and 628-683 of 2009. The said case is also not applicable to the present case.
12. It is not disputed that the application for crop insurance was received and insurance premium of Rs.1881/- was deducted by the first opposite party. It is also not disputed that the said premium was not paid to the third opposite party. It is the admitted fact that both parties governed by the insurance scheme Exhibit B-1. It is true that the term of the scheme have to be construed as it is and we cannot add or subtract something. This scheme is a contract between the parties. Both parties are bound by the terms of the scheme. On perusal of the Exhibit B-5 notification issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu for the relevant period, it reveals that Gudiyatham (West) alone is covered. Whereas the complainant’s lands are situated in the Gudiyatham (East). Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to claim compensation as per the scheme. But, the first and second opposite parties should have informed to the complainant before deducting the insurance premium to verify whether his land was notified for the cultivation of the notified crop or not. The first and second opposite parties without verifying the same mechanically deducted the premium and kept with them without forwarding the same to the third opposite party. The amount of Rs.1881/- deducted towards crop insurance was neither refunded nor adjusted towards his loan despite knowing that the complainant’s land is not situated under the notified area. We found that the acts of the first and second parties are amounts to deficiency of service in their part. Therefore the complainant would have suffered mental agony. This point No. 1 is answered accordingly.
13. POINT NO.:-2
We have already decided in point No.1, that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2. Hence the opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to refund a sum of Rs.1881/- (Rupees One thousand eight hundred and eighty one only) with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 07.10.2009 ( premium paid date ) to till the date of realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony. This point No.2 is also answered accordingly.
In the result this complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to refund a sum of Rs.1881/- (Rupees One thousand eight hundred and eighty one only) with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of premium paid on 07.10.2009 to till the date of realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards cost of this proceedings, within one month from the date of this order, failing which the above compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order to till the date of realization. Regarding third opposite party, this complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 29th April, 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER – I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
List of Complainant Side Documents:
Ex.A1 - - Copy of the patta standing in the name of the complainant
Ex.A2- 7.10.2009 - Copy of the receipt issued by the 1st opposite party
for receiving the share capital of Rs.1,690/- and
insurance premium amount of Rs.1,881/- totally Rs.3,571/-
Ex.A3 - 15.3.2010} - The receipts issued by Gopinath Plantain commission mundy
7.4.2010 }
Ex.A4 - 21.9.2010 - Original copy of the Certificates issued by Director of
30.09.2010 – Horticulture
Ex.A5 - - - Original copy of the letter sent by the 1st opposite party
Ex.A6 -: 17.8.2010 - The notice sent by the 1st opposite party
Ex.A7 -: 19.11.2010 - Office copy of the legal notice
Ex.A8 -: 09.12.2010 - Reply notice issued by 1st opposite party
Ex.A9-: 09.12.2010 - Reply notice issued by 2nd opposite party
Ex.A10-: 22.12.2010 - Copy of legal notice
Ex.A11- 03.01.2011 - Reply notice
List of First and Second Opposite parties side Documents:
Ex.B1 - - Copy of National Agricultural Insurance Scheme
(NAIS)
Ex.B2-: 19.9.2009 - Copy of Loan documents
List of Third Opposite party side Documents:
Ex.B3 - - Copy of the National Agricultural Insurance
Scheme (NHIS)
Ex.B4 -31.3.2011 - Copy of letter received from 2nd opposite party
Ex.B5 -21.5.2009 - Notification Booklet for Kharif -2009 -10 season
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER – I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
