Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/5/2015

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MANAGER - Complainant(s)

Versus

V. GIRI - Opp.Party(s)

S. RADHA DEVI

22 Apr 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH       ... PRESIDENT

            Thiru.R.VENKATESAPERUMAL … MEMBER

 

F.A. No.5 of 2015

(Against the Order, dated 30.09.2014, passed in C.C. No.63 of 2011, on the file of  the DCDRF, Nagapattinam)

                                                    

                                                                         Orders pronounced on: 22.04.2022

 

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

Kumbakonam,

rep. By its Branch Manager.                                                                                                            … Appellant / 3^rd OP

 

vs.

 

1. V.Girija,

W/o.Varatharajan,

No.28, Thirumanajana Veethi,

Thiruvizhandur,

Mayiladuthurai Town,

Nagapattinam District.                                                                                                                      … R1/Complainant

 

2. Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd.,

Thirumandagudi,

rep. by its authorized signatory.                                                                                                    … R2/1st Opp. Party

 

3. State Bank of India,

Mayiladuthurai,

rep. By its Branch Manager.                                                                                                      … R3/2nd Opp. Party

 

 

             For Appellant                   :  M/s.S.Radha Devi

             For 1^st Respondent          :  M/s.S.Raveendran

             For 2^nd Respondent          :  M/s.G.Ramamurthy

             R3, called absent.

 

This First Appeal came up for final hearing on    18 .04.2022 and, after hearing the arguments of the counsel for the parties and perusing the materials on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Commission passes the following:-

 

O R D E R

 

R.Subbiah, J. – President.

 

             This Appeal has been filed as against the Order, dated 30.09.2014, passed by the DCDRF, Nagapattinam, in C.C. No.63 of 2011, whereby, the complaint filed by the 1^st respondent herein came to be allowed in part, by directing the 3^rd OP-Insurance Company/appellant herein to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.1,14,000/- as compensation with interest @ 12% p.a. from 10.06.2010, the date of Ex.A4/Reminder Letter sent by the complainant to the Insurance Company, till the date of realization, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation costs.

 

             2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in the course of this order, as per their respective rankings before the District Forum.

             In brief, the case of the complainant, as given in the complaint filed before the District Forum, is as follows:-

             The complainant is engaged in agriculture along with her husband and, in respect of her nanja lands measuring to an extent of 7.80 acres in Kozhaiyur Village, she registered herself with the 1^st OP to raise sugarcane as Farmer No.1113064.   During February, 2009,  after getting loan from the 2^nd OP/Bank, she raised sugarcane crop in the above-mentioned land and the crop was insured with the 3^rd OP, who along with other OPs, visited the crop field and thereafter, issued the Insurance Policy vide No.721101/47.  As per the information given by the 2^nd OP/Bank, the policy amount was paid by them to the 3^rd OP under the Group Insurance Scheme, covering the complainant and other sugarcane growers as policy-holders. While the complainant grew the crop with utmost care, the same was fully damaged due to acute attack of root pest and upon intimation, the appropriate authorities including the subordinates of the 3^rd OP inspected the field and noted the extent of damage. The complainant submitted the claim form that was issued by the 3^rd OP on 21.05.2009 in bulk for future need through the 1^st OP.  As such, the crop registration, advancement of crop loan and crop insurance are interlinked with all the OPs through business tie-up.  While so, the 3^rd OP committed dereliction and negligence in performing their part of function properly. When the complainant sent a letter, dated 27.10.2010, to the 3^rd OP, claiming compensation, it was replied by them that the claim was under consideration and, on 02.11.2010, through a letter, they stated that the premium amount was paid belatedly, hence, no sum will be paid to the complainant.  While the complainant is no way responsible for any belated payment made by the 2^nd OP Bank that has business tie-up with the 3^rd OP, the repudiation is absolutely without any basis and the same indicates that the OPs indulged in unfair trade practice that resulted in mental agony to the complainant, hence, she sought the District Forum to direct the OPs to pay Rs.1,40,800/- jointly and severally with interest at the rate claimed by the 2^nd OP, as crop loan and Rs.1 lakh as damages for the mental agony caused to her, besides litigation costs.

 

 

             3. The 1^st OP/Sugar Mills resisted the said complaint by filing a written version, inter alia, contending thus:-

             Admittedly, the complainant is a sugarcane grower and the 1^st OP purchases sugarcane from the Farmers like the complainant for crushing the same in their factory to manufacture sugar; as such, there being a relationship between them as seller and purchaser, the 1^st OP itself is a consumer and the complainant is not so and hence, on that simple ground, the complaint against the 1^st OP is liable to be dismissed.  During the relevant season, the complainant sold 43.446 tons of sugarcane and obtained the value from the 1^st OP and the details thereof are not mentioned in the complaint. The complainant failed to mention the actual expenses in raising the crop in her land.  It is also not mentioned therein as to how the value of the crop is arrived at to make an exaggerated claim of Rs.1,40,800/- when the claim mentioned in the application before the 3^rdOP is only for Rs.48,000/-. At any rate, the 1^st OP has nothing to do with the crop insurance and is in no way concerned with the dispute between the complainant and the other OPs. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed insofar as it pertains to the 1^st OP, with costs.

 

             4. In the version filed by the 2^nd OP/Bank, among other things, it is stated thus:-

             The complainant obtained agricultural loan for a sum of Rs.1,40,800/- from the 2^nd OP/Bank on the recommendation of the 1^st OP/Sugar Mills for raising sugarcane crops in her land, under the insurance coverage of the 3^rd OP.  The obligation on the part of the Bank is limited to release the loan amount to the complainant and to pay the insurance premium to the 3^rd OP on demand, which they duly performed.  Regarding the insurance of crops, as per the request of the Farmers including the complainant, a total sum for all the Ryots in that village has been sent as Group Insurance to the 3^rd OP in time. A Demand Draft for the total amount for the Group was sent and it was also received by the 3^rd OP/Insurance Company, which cannot now say that the premium amount was paid belatedly.  There being no service deficiency on their part, the complaint against this OP may have to be dismissed with costs.

 

             5. In brief, the version filed by the 3^rd OP/Insurance Company is as follows:-

             The complainant cannot be termed as ‘consumer’, as defined in Section 2 (1)(d) of the CP Act.  The sugarcane crop planted by the complainant in February, 2009, was not insured with this OP either by herself or by their Banker/2nd OP.  The policy issued for the crop is called ‘sugarcane insurance policy in put clause’ with applicable terms and conditions, under which, liability will arise only on payment of premium that too from the date on which the premium amount was realized by the insurer either from the Farmer or from the Banker. The crop planted was damaged in 2009 as evident from the letter, dated 10.06.2010, received from the complainant and, nowhere in the claim form, she had given the details of the date/month in which the crop planted during February 2019 was damaged.  After such damage, the complainant planted new sugarcane crop, for which, she had obtained loan from the 2^nd OP and only thereafter, she insured the new crop with this OP/Insurance Company through the 2^nd OP.   The date of loan was 14.05.2009 which was after plantation of the new crop and the 2^nd OP debited the insurance premium from the complainant’s account only on 08.09.2009 and it was paid by the 2^nd OP to this OP only on 16.09.2009, whereupon, the insurance policy came to be issued that covers the risk/liability from the date of realization of the premium amount, that is, from 16.09.2009.  As such, the premium on behalf of the complainant was paid by the 2^nd OP only after the loss/damage to the crops planted by her.  Further, the report of the Insurance Surveyor revealed that the 1^st crop raised by the complainant in the month of February, 2009 was damaged in the month of May, 2009, for which, there was no insurance cover with this OP.   Hence, rightly, the claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company and, there being no scope for any deficiency in service, the complaint may have to be dismissed with costs.

 

             6.  To substantiate the claim and counter-claim, the parties filed their respective proof affidavits and, while the complainant marked 13 documents as Exs.A1 to A13,  the 1^st OP marked 3 documents as Exs.B1 to B3.  The District Forum, after consideration of the materials placed, allowed the complaint in part as mentioned above and, aggrieved thereby, the Insurance Company/3rd OP has come up with the present First Appeal.

 

             7.  Heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

 

             8. It is the main submission of the 3^rd OP/Insurance Company that, for the damage caused to the sugarcane crops of the complainant in February, 2009, there was no policy coverage and that, since the premium amount was received from the complainant through her Banker only on 16.09.2009 by way of demand draft along with the premium amount of other sugarcane growers under the group insurance scheme, if at all there is any liability on the part of the Insurance Company for any loss or risk caused to the complainant, the same would arise only from the date of receipt of the premium amount, that was on 16.09.2009 and definitely, not for any loss prior to that. But, we are of the view that, to appreciate the defence and counter-claim of the Insurance Company, one would definitely hold in hand the material record, viz., Insurance Policy  which is the basic document that contains the details regarding the policy amount, duration of the policy, payment of premium, risk factors and most importantly the terms & conditions, however, for the reasons best known to them, the Insurance Company withheld the same from being marked on their side before the District Forum.  Although the Insurance Company have now marked the Policy in question before this Commission as an additional exhibit under Ex.B4, a perusal of the same indicates that except the 1^st page containing the policy details, the other crucial part of it viz., terms and conditions, are conveniently withheld.   Therefore, in the absence of the same, to draw a fair inference, one has to look at the common trait and nature of the policy viz., crop policy under group insurance scheme which,  unlike the other policies for Motor Vehicles, life insurance, etc.., would normally cover the entire crop period.  Also, a crop policy under group insurance scheme is generally meant to compensate the pre-sowing and post-harvest losses due to various factors and, as already mentioned, such policy covers the entire crop period, mostly one year. If that is so, admittedly, the crops were planted in the year 2009 only and thus, it goes without saying that the liability of the Insurance Company well existed for the whole year-2009, although the premium was paid in September, 2009.   Further, a perusal of the claim form under Ex.A1, dated 21.05.2009, would show that receipt of the same is left blank and that the 1^st clause thereof very specifically spells out that ‘by issuance of the claim form itself, liability to pay compensation is acknowledged’ which means that this type of form was issued only to the insured/farmers who sustained loss in raising the crops.   On the face of the said claim form issued by the Insurance Company coupled with their indifferent conduct in not marking the entire Policy Copy along with its terms and conditions, reliance and reference made to Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 to highlight the provision that no risk to be assumed unless premium is received in advance, would be of no avail and also the reason assigned by them to the effect that issuance of the said claim form by them was without knowing the status of the field, as premium was collected from 30 farmers under Group Insurance Scheme, would not advance their case any further.   As rightly pointed out, if the liability of the 3^rd OP is to commence only from 16.09.2009,  it is for them also to answer the lurking question as to why they issued to the complainant the claim form under Ex.A1 that indicates the date of its issuance as 21.05.2009. All the above aspects have been considered in a detailed and exhaustive manner by the District Forum and the Order passed by it being well-founded with valid reasons, we find no good reason for interference therewith.

 

             9.  In the result, the appeal fails and it is dismissed, by confirming the impugned order, dated 30.09.2014, passed by the DCDRF, Nagapattinam, in C.C. No.63 of 2011. 

 

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                                R.SUBBIAH, J.

MEMBER                                                                                                                                              PRESIDENT.

 

ISM/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/April/2022.