Tamil Nadu
Ariyalur
CC/29/2018
K.Seralan - Complainant(s)
Versus
Zonal Manager, agriculture insurance company andhra pradesh - Opp.Party(s)
M.G.Balasubramanian
10 Feb 2023
ORDER
Date of filing: 10-01-2019.
Date of order: 10-02-2023.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ARIYALUR
PRESENT:
Thiru. DR. V. RAMARAJ. M.L.,Ph D., : PRESIDENT
Thriru.N. BALU, B.A., B.L., : MEMBER I
Tmt.V. LAVANYA ,B.A., B.L., : MEMBER II
C.C.NO.29/2018.
Friday The 10th Day Of February 2023.
1.K.Seeralan,
S/o Kandasamy
2/22,Nadutheru,Kovil asanae, (P.O)
Thirumazhpadi(via) Ariyalur Taluk-District. - Complainant
2.M.G. Balasubramanian
Founder, Tamilnadu Consumer Rights Protection Trust
4/284, Melavidhi,Thirumanur- 621 715.
Ariyalur district. -Agent
VS
1. The Regional Manager,
Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd.,
156 (New 323), Andhra Insurance Building,
1st Floor, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai – 1.
2. Project Director/ Joint Director of Agriculture,
District Collector Office, Ariyalur- 621 704.
3. N. Chandrasekaran,
Authorized Person, AICI Limited,
Illandha Koodam Post,
Thirumazhpadi (Via) Ariyalur District. -Opposite Parties.
1. Representative for the Complainant : Mr. M.G.Balasubramanian
2. Counsel for the 1st opposite Party : Mr. S. Arunan M.sc.B.L.
3. Counsel for the 2nd Opposite Party : Government Pleader(Ariyalur)
4. Counsel for the 3rd Opposite Party : Set – Exparte ( dated 10/01/2019).
This complaint having come for final hearing before us on 10/02/2023 and upon perusing the proof affidavit, documents, oral arguments, written arguments filed by the complainant and written version, proof affidavit, documents, written arguments of the 1st and 2ndopposite parties. This commission passed the following:-
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY Tmt. V.LAVANYA B.A,B.L., MEMBER II
ADOPTED BY Dr.V.RAMARAJ M.L., Ph.D., PRESIDENT, Mr. N.BALU B.A,B.L. MEMBER I.
01. The Complaint was filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, r/w, Rule 5 of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1988 to direct the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.2, 00,000/-to the complainant towards mental agony and deficiency of service, direct the opposite parties to pay the insurance amount of Rs.2, 00,000/- to the complainant and direct the opposite parties to pay cost of the complaint to the complainant.
The Brief Averments of the Complaint are as follows:
02. The Complainant has filed this complaint for himself, his father Kandasamy and his father-in-law Rajendran after obtaining Power of from them as per law.
03. The Complainant based on the advertisement issued by the 2nd opposite party insured the crops cultivating lands belonging to himself, Kandasmy and Rajendran under the Pradhana Manthri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) 2016-17. The complainant paid the premium amount on 25/10/2016 for a sum of Rs. 3000/- by way of demand draft in the name of 1st opposite through 3rd opposite party. the 3rd opposite party had issued the acknowledgement and receipt for same.
04. The complainant had insured his crops as per the list under mentioned based on the advertisement given by the 2nd opposite party.
Insurer | Extent Ac. Cent | Sum assured | Premium | Additional sum Insured |
K.Seeralan | 00.60 cents 02.42 cent | 15,060,00/- 60,500/- | 225/- 908/- | 75.560/-
|
P.Kandasamy | 00.67 cent 00.26 cent | 16,750/- 6500/- | 251/- 97/- | 23,250/- |
M.Rajendran | 00.70 cent 03.30 cent | 17,500/- 82,500/- | 262/- 1238/- | 1,00,000/- |
Total | 07.95 cent | 1,98,810/- | 2,981/- | 1,98,810/- |
The complainant as a authorized person has taken crop insurance for the cultivating agriculture land to the extent of 9 acres for a sum insured amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and had paid a premium of Rs.3000/-.
05. During the period 2016, due to drought the crops got destroyed for lack of water and there was dryness in the area. One Mr. Rajendran who is the father-in-law of the Complainant had cultivated paddy on his 4 acres of agricultural land and unfortunately, it got destroyed due to a natural calamity, due to mental stress he died on 23/03/2017. In the aforesaid events, the 1st Opposite Party had deposited Rs. 58,732.49/- in the complainant’s Bank account and Rs. 55,171/- in Complainant father's account on 25/10/2017 (Kandasamy). Due to the death of Mr. Rajendran (Complainant’s father-in-law) his bank account was canceled hence his amount was kept on hold.
06. On 01/11/2017 and 2/11/2017 the complainant and his father sent an objection letter to the SBI Ariyalur and BOI Pullambadi respectivly, stating holding of crop insurance amount credited by 1st Opposite Party. But no action was taken by the bank officials. Subsequently on 07/12/2017 an amount of Rs. 56,309.71/- was debited and transferred to crop insurance operations from the complainant’s bank account. Similarly a sum of Rs. 53,886/-was debited from the account of the complainant’s father and transferred to crop insurance operation on 18/11/2017. In spite of several reminders to the bank authorities and Insurance Company, there was no proper reply regarding the issue.
07. Being the Agent of the Complainant Mr. M.G. Balasubramanian sent a Registered letter to the 1st and 3rd Opposite Parties on 17/03/2018, but no reply was sent by them after receiving the Registered letter. Moreover on 19/03/2018 a request petition was given through District Collector and notice was also given in person, on receiving the notice the 2nd opposite party had redirected the petition to “Thazhi Kadaimadai farmers federation” at 1/97 Sarboji Agraharam,Thiruvengadu,Sirgazhi Taluk, Nagai District and sent a copy to the complainant, but no action was taken till date.
08. The complainant had insured his crop in the crop insurance company for a sum of 2,00,000/- and had paid a premium of Rs.3000/-. The Insurance Company has failed to compensate the loss incurred by the Complainant due to natural calamity by way of compensating the sum Insured. Due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant and his family has been pushed to mental agony, stress and loss for which they are responsible. Therefore the opposite parties are liable to compensate the loss incurred by the complainant. Therefore the act of the opposite parties has caused undue financial loss causing mental agony due to deficiency of services.
09. The complainant prayed that to direct the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.2, 00,000/-to the complainant for mental agony and deficiency of service, direct the opposite parties to pay the insurance amount of Rs.2, 00,000/- to the complainant, and direct the opposite parties to pay the cost of the complaint to the complainant.
The Brief averments of the 1st Opposite Party:
10. The 1st opposite party is the Regional Manager of M/s Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited. The complainant has availed crop insurance under PMFBY, which is approved and launched by the Government of India from season Kharif 2016 for the interest and benefit of the farmers with certain terms and conditions laid down in the said scheme. PMFBY aims at supporting sustainable production in agriculture sector by way of providing financial support to farmers suffering crop loss/damage arising out of unforeseen events for stabilizing the income of farmers to ensure their continuance in farming, encouraging them to adopt innovative and modern agricultural practices for the contribution to food security ,protecting farmers from production risks.
11. The Scheme ensures all the farmers including sharecroppers and tenant farmers growing the notified crops in the notified area are eligible for the coverage under the scheme. This scheme is compulsory for loanee farmers, all the farmers availing seasonal agricultural operations loans from financial institutions for the notified crops would be covered compulsorily. The concerned banks have to send notified area wise list of insured farmers and premium amount to 1st opposite party within cutoff dates. As per the scheme provision, 1st opposite party disburses the claims, to the financial institutions and in turn financial institutions credit the same in respective farmer’s account.
12. The scheme provision is clear that the sum insured per hectare for both Loanee and non Loanee farmers will be the same equal to the scale of finance as decided by the District Level Technical Committee and would be pre-declared by the State Level Co-ordination committee on crop Insurance and notified.
13. The Actuarial Premium Rate would be charged under PMFBY by implementing agencies. The rate of insurance charges payable by the farmers has been rationalized for the crops subject to maximum ceiling of sum insured for various food grains. Difference of APR and farmer’s premium are shared between the Central Govt., and State Govt., on 50:50 bases. Claims liability is to be borne by the Implementing Agency.
14. The Scheme is implemented in Tamil Nadu in association of the state level co ordination committee on crop insurance, which is overseeing the implementation of PMFBY. The SLCCCI undertakes the decision and as per the G.O for implementation of the scheme for the Kharif and Rabi season, and the directorate of agriculture maintains the records regarding the crop wise notified area wise yield data based upon requisite number of crop cutting experiments as per General Crop Estimation Survey and send the same to the IA from time to time.
15. The scheme operates as Area approach in the selected areas called Insurance Unit. The State Govt., will notify the crops and defined areas covered during the season in accordance with the decision taken in the meeting of SLCCCI. If actual yield per hectare of the insured crop for the Insurance unit calculated on basis of requisite no. of CCEs in insured season falls short of specified Threshold yield all the insured farmers growing that crop in the defined area are deemed to have suffered shortfall in their yield of similar magnitude. PMFBY seeks to provide coverage against contingency. Claim shall be calculated as per the following formula.
Claims Payable = (Threshold Yield- Acutual Yield) x Sum Insured. Threshold Yield
16. Under the PMFBY after receipt of Data from the State Government, the Actual Yield obtained is compared with the Threshold Yield. Any insured crop in a notified area recording lower actual Yield than then Threshold Yield becomes automatically eligible for the claim and all the insured farmers of that notified area crop are compensated at the same rate irrespective of the fact that whether an individual farmer has loss or not. No claims become payable in case there is no shortfall in yield for the notified crop in the notified area or if there is no coverage under PMFBY,Claims are settled strictly as per the provisions and guidelines described in the scheme. the claim is settled only on the basis of yield data furnished by the directorate of agriculture, after thorough crop estimation surveys for production estimates crop cutting experiment and not on any other basis such as annavari/declaration of drought/declaratiom of floods by gazette notification by any authority. Claim is disbursed to the banks directly to the Insured farmers, which credit the same to the accounts of the respective eligible beneficiaries.
17. The Complainant has insured his Paddy II samba crop in Rabi 2016-17 season through M/s Alegion Insurance Broking Pvt ,Ltd. The Complainant Insurance proposal details;-
Name of the Insured | Name of the Notified area | Area Insured | Premium Paid | Sum Insured
|
Seeralan.K | Koilesanai(East) | 1.21 | 1,135.00 | 75,625.00 |
Rajendran.M | Koilesanai(East) | 1.32 | 1,237.50 | 82,500.00 |
Kandasamy.P | Koilesanai(East) | 0.27 | 253.13 | 16,875.00 |
18. Any insured crop in a notified area recording lower actual yield than the threshold yield becomes automatically eligible for claim. Claim shall be calculated as per the formula. The answering opposite party submits that the claim under PMFBY Rabi 2016-17 season Paddy II crop has been calculated strictly as per the provisions of the PMFBY scheme operational guidelines.
19. The below table shows the Actual yield for the Koilesannai (East) Revenue Village as submitted by the State government is less than the Threshold Yield which resulted in the shortfall. Hence, the complainant is eligible for claim under PMFBY Rabi 2016-17 season Paddy II crop.
Name of the Notified area | Threshold Yield | Actual Yield | shortfall | Claim % |
Koilesanai(East) | 3613.65 | 1215 | 2398.65 | 66.38% |
20. The Area Sown data submitted by the State Government is compared with Area Insured for Acreage Discrepancy.
Name of the Notified area | Area Sown | Area Insured | Area Correction factor |
Koilesanai(East) | 15.45 | 256.129 | 0.06032 |
21. Since, the Area Insured is more than the Area sown it is clear case of Acreage discrepancy. Hence, sum insured is scaled down in the proportionate ratio actual planted Acreage to the insured Acreage for the given crop. Claims for the farmers of Koilesanai(East) revenue village are calculated on the scaled down sum Insured. The Claim Calculation with regard to the Complainant Insured area is given;-
Name of the farmer | Name of the Notified area | Area Insured | Original Sum Insured | ACF | Revised Sum Insured | Claim% | Total claim amount |
Seeralan.K | Koilesanai(East) | 1.21 | 75,625.00 | 0.06032 | 4,562.50 | 66.38% | 3028.47 |
Rajendran.M | Koilesanai(East) | 1.32 | 82,500.00 | 0.060032 | 4,975.00 | 66.38% | 3302.28 |
Kandasamy | Koilesanai(East) | 0.27 | 16,875.00 | 0.060032 | 1,018.75 | 66.38% | 676.22 |
22. It is stated that based on the prescribed procedure under the scheme this answering party has calculated claims for the Rabi 2016-17 season Paddy II crop and has settled claim for all the eligible insured farmers through RTGS/NEFT to their account no. furnished by them in the proposal form at the time of enrollment.
Name of the Insured | Total Eligible claim | Amount disbursed as 1st instalment | Amount disbursed as 2nd Instalment |
Seeralan.K | 3028.47 | 2,422.78 | 605.69 |
Rajendran.M | 3302.28 | 2,641.82 | 660.45 |
Kandasamy | 676.22 | 540.98 | 135.24 |
23. Therefore there is no pendency of claim as alleged by the complainant , this answering party has settled all eligible claim to the complainant as per the proposal received from the M/s Alegion Insurance Broking Pvt Ltd, on behalf of the complainant without default.
24. These Opposite party has recovered only the excess amount which was wrongly credited in the complainant’s accounts and not the due payment to the complainant’s. Therefore the 1st opposite party has not committed any negligence and deficiency of services. No act of Unfair Trade Practice has been committed by the 1st opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed.
Brief Averment of the 2nd Opposite party:-
25. The 2nd opposite party denies all the contentions submitted in the complaint. The complainant has not come to this commission with clean hands. For the benefit of farmers and to create awareness about crop protection insurance this opposite party has created a platform. Bu,t the complainant has insured with the agriculture insurance company, the premium paid by the complainant has been credited with the agriculture insurance company and not with the 2nd Opposite Party.
26. However, this, complainant is not a consumer under the 2nd opposite party. One Mr. Rajendran father in law of the complainant has died, on behalf of him this complainant is seeking his claim amount, which is unlawful and against law. It is learnt that the said Late Rajendran possessed some immovable properties and civil suits are pending before the civil courts.
27. The 2nd opposite party is not liable for any compensation to the complainant and not liable for any act as per the complaint. Hence complaint against this 2nd opposite party may be dismissed with cost.
28. Issues:
On perusal of facts in the complaint, his documents, written version of the first opposite party and exploring the status of agent, who is mentioned in the complaint, this commission framed the following issues.
(01) Whether self claiming agent has the locus standi in this complaint?.
(02) Whether the opposite parties have committed any deficiency in service?
(03) If the opposite parties have committed any deficiency in service, whether the complainant be compensated? If yes how much should be paid?
(04) Whether any other remedies are essential? And whether the cost of the litigation is to be imposed on the parties?
Issue No.1
29. Mr. Seeralan is named as the complainant in the complaint. Mr. M.G. Balasubramanian, Founder, Tamil Nadu Consumer Rights Protection Trust has been mentioned as an agent in short title and long title. In pleadings of the complaint nowhere was stated that the complainant Seeralan appointed an agent. This commission noticed this fact and counsel for the first opposite party also raised questions in his written argument along with a citation. It may be noted that here, the first opposite party has not raised this question in his written version. However, this commission decided that this is an important issue.
30. Whether M.G. Balasubramanian is power agent under a deed of power of attorney? Or representing in the cadre of voluntary consumer associations? Because, his seal shows as Founder, Tamil Nadu Consumer Rights Protection Trust. There is no pleading to answer this question in the complaint. Hence, this commission explored the answer on available records.
31. The power of Attorney deed executed by the complainant was not submitted by the complainant side and the father-in-law of the complainant executed a power of attorney to the complainant (exhibit –A 9), the delegated power cannot be executed to others which means including to the agent. Hence, it is decided that M.G. Balasubramanian is not a power agent under a deed of power of attorney.
32. In this circumstance, this commission made an analysis that whether he represented the cadre of voluntary consumer associations as prescribed in section 12(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The seal of the agent describes as a Trust. According to the citation submitted by the first opposite party in Consumer Complaint Nos. 560 of 2014 & 226, 227, 228, 229, 245, 954, 474, 475, 677, 991, 992, 1226 of 2015 & 132, 133, 160, 679, 792, 796, 797, 861, 968, 1005, 1006, 1078, 1163, 1466, 1198, 1283, 1372, 1395, 1398, 1401, 1411, 1412, 1502, 1619, 1669, 1672, 1681, 1683, 1697, 1700, 1774 of 2016 with IA Nos. 6376 & 11607 /2016, National Consumer Disputes redressal Commission decided that “A Trust cannot be said to be a Voluntary Consumer Association within the meaning of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act” (05.05.2017). It may be noted that here, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India decided that it is clear that a Trust is not a person and therefore not a consumer. Consequently, it cannot be a complainant and cannot file a consumer dispute in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3560 OF 2008 on March 7, 2017. Hence, it is decided that M.G. Balasubramanian can’t represent the cadre of voluntary consumer associations as prescribed in section 12(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
33. Therefore, this commission has decided that the above said M.G. Balasubramanian has no locus standi to file the complaint or represent on behalf of the complainant Mr. Veeman. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable.
Issue No.2
34. The complaint states in the complaint that he submitted a claim form from the first opposite party for himself, his father, and his father-in-law, who is no more. He has no right to file this complaint for his deceased father-in-law without the authorization of his legal heirs (Ref: exhibit -4). As per the short cause and long cause title, the complaint has filed the case as an individual and as not an agent of his father.
35. The complainant admitted that the first opposite party has paid the insurance claim to the complainant and his father. But, he alleged in the complaint that some amounts, which were credited to their account were taken back by the first opposite party. The complainant has not submitted the calculation for the claim as satisfied to this commission. The first opposite party stated in the written version that the company paid the insurance claim as per the procedure. Further, the first opposite party stated in the written version that it has withdrawn the excess amount, which was paid by mistake. The entire written version of the first opposite party is highly acceptable.
36. It is clear that the complaint was not submitted even the claim form to the first opposite party with a calculation memo, which should be submitted to the first opposite party. Without filling out such claim form, he cannot plead as prayed in the complaint. It may be noted that here, exhibit A-7 is a legal notice issued by the agent of this complaint as Founder and President, Tamil Nadu Consumer and Environment Protection Committee, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1975. But, in this complaint, he says that he was Founder, Tamil Nadu Consumer Rights Protection Trust. Hence, this exhibit is invalid.
37. For the reasons stated in the above paragraphs 34 to 36, this commission has decided that the complaint is not proved and it is evident that the first opposite party has not committed any deficiency in the service. There is no consumer and service provider relationship between the second, third opposite parties and the complainant. Therefore, this commission has decided that the complaint against the second, third opposite parties is dismissed.
38. This commission deems that without filing a claim form along with the required documents, filing a complaint against the first opposite party is not correct. Such types of complaints will lead to fake claims also. Further, this commission deems that second and third opposite parties are unnecessarily added in this complaint as parties, which led to unwanted troubles.
Issue No.3
39. Issue number two is answered as negative to the complainant; he is not eligible for compensation as he prayed.
Issue No.4
40. This commission explored whether any other remedies are essential. As per the citations noted above in paragraph number 32, Mr. M.G.Balasubramaniyan has no right to represent on behalf of the consumers as a representative of Tamil Nadu Consumer Rights Protection Trust before this commission and office of the government as a voluntary consumer association.
41. The complaint is unwanted as explained above in paragraph number 38, which was filed by the so-called agent. Without locus standi, the self-claiming agent Mr. M.G. Balasubramaniyan filed this complaint, which led the trouble for the opposite parties. Filing a complaint without locus standi is unacceptable. Therefore, this commission has decided that the self-claiming agent has to pay Rs. 10,000/- as cost of the litigation under section 39 (m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, to the first opposite party within four weeks of the receipt of this order.
As a result, this commission passes the following
ORDER
1. The Complaint is dismissed as not proved and not maintainable under the law.
2. The self-claiming agent Mr. M.G. Balasubramaniyan has to pay Rs. 10,000/- as cost of the litigation under section 39 (m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, to the first opposite party within four weeks of the receipt of this order.
3. As other remedies, Mr. M.G.Balasubramaniyan has no right to represent on behalf of the consumers as a representative of Tamil Nadu Consumer Rights Protection Trust before this commission and office of the government as a voluntary consumer association as per the verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3560 OF 2008 and Order in Consumer Complaint Nos. 560 of 2014 & 226, 227, 228, 229, 245, 954, 474, 475, 677, 991, 992, 1226 of 2015 & 132, 133, 160, 679, 792, 796, 797, 861, 968, 1005, 1006, 1078, 1163, 1466, 1198, 1283, 1372, 1395, 1398, 1401, 1411, 1412, 1502, 1619, 1669, 1672, 1681, 1683, 1697, 1700, 1774 of 2016 with IA Nos. 6376 & 11607 /2016 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Order typed by Member II, Corrected by Steno and Pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this the 10 Day of February 2023.
N. BALU V.LAVANYA V.RAMARAJ
MEMBER I MEMBER II PRESIDENT
Complainant’s Side Exhibits
S.NO | DATE | DESCRIPTION | REMARKS |
Ex-A1. | - | PMFBY(Pamphlet) | Original |
ExA2 |
| Ack and Receipt | Xerox |
ExA3 | 25/10/2016 | Crop Insurance Premium Cheque | Xerox |
ExA4 | 06/04/2017 | Death Certificate &Legal heir Certificate | Xerox |
ExA5 |
| S/B account Pass book | Xerox |
ExA6 | 01/11/2017 | Objection letter | Copy |
ExA7 | 17/03/2018 | Notice issued by agent with Ack due card | Copy |
ExA8 | 19/03/2018 | Petition to District Collector | Printed copy |
ExA9 | 20/08/2019 | GPO | Original |
1st Opposite Parties Side Exhibits
S.No. | Date | Description | Remarks |
Ex.B1 | 13/04/2017 | Yield Data submitted by Directorate of Economics and Statistics,AIC,Chennai | Printed copy |
ExB2 |
| Threshold yield as per PMFBY scheme Provisions | Printed copy |
ExB3 | 30/12/2016 | Area Sown Data Paddy II 2016 season | Printed copy |
ExB4 |
| Claim Settlement Statement | Printed copy |
Complainant side Witness;
Mr.K.Seeralan (Complainant)
1st Opposite Party side witness:-
D.Rajesh (Regional Manager Agriculture Insurance Company)
2nd Opposite party side witness:-
Nil
N. BALU V.LAVANYA V.RAMARAJ
MEMBER I MEMBER II PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.