Kerala

StateCommission

A/16/628

M M DEVASSIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO - Opp.Party(s)

PARTY IN PERSON

27 Jun 2019

ORDER

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

    APPEAL NO.628/16

   JUDGMENT DATED:27.06.2019

 

PRESENT : 

SHRI. T.S.P. MOOSATH                                            : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI.RANJIT .R                                                          : MEMBER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A                                           : MEMBER

 

M.M. Devassia,

Mulakkal House,

Payyamballi P.O, Puthiyidam,

Mananthavady Taluk, Wayanadu.                                 : APPELLANT

 

            Vs.

 

1. The Manager,

United India Insurance Company Ltd.,

•  

 

2. The Agricultural Officer,

Near Fish Market,

•  

                                                                                                : RESPONDENTS

3. The Principal Agricultural Officer,

Kalpetta, Wayanadu.

 

4. Agricultural Insurance Company of India Limited,

Regional Office, 8^th floor, Carmel Towers,

Vazhuthacadu, Thiruvananthapuram-695 014.

 

(R1 & R4 BY Adv: Sri. Sreevaraham G. Satheesh)

 

JUDGMENT 

SHRI. RANJIT. R : MEMBER

Appeal is filed by the complainant in CC.239/15 against the common order dated:29.4.2016 in CC.Nos.241/15, 242/15, 244/15, 247/15, 248/15, 249/15 and CC.303/15 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,. Wayanadu (for short the District Forum) by which the Forum dismissed all the complaints.  The complainant in CC.239/15 has filed this appeal for and on behalf of all other complainants.

2.      The brief facts of each case as per the complainants are that:-  The complainant in CC.239/15 insured 1.50 acre of arecanut cultivation for the year 2013-14 with 1^st opposite party on 29.7.2013 by paying premium of Rs.1620/-.  The first opposite party assured the complainant that Rs.1,50,000/- will be given if there is crop loss of more than 50% of the yield due to climate variation.  The yield was lost more than 50% due to bad weather.  Second opposite party inspected the plot and found that there is 85% loss.  Since there was no response from the opposite parties, complainant filed this complaint claiming Rs.1,50,000/- which includes insurance amount and compensation.  The complainant in CC.241/15 insured 1 acre of arecanut for the year 2013-14 by paying Rs.1,080/- as premium on 30.7.2013 with 1^st opposite party.  1^st opposite party promised to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for crop loss more than 50%.  There was crop loss during the year due to heavy down pour.  When informed to opposite parties, there was no response.  Hence the complaint is filed to get Rs.1,25,000/- to the complainant for crop loss insurance with compensation.

3.      The complainant in CC.242/15 insured 1 acre of arecanut cultivation in the year 2013-14 by depositing Rs.1,080/- on 30.7.2013 with 1^st opposite party.  First opposite party assured to give Rs.1,00,000/- for crop loss for more than 50%.  There was crop loss for more than 50%.  It was informed but there was no response.  Hence the complaint filed to get Rs.1,25,000/- for loss including compensation.

4.      The complainant in CC.244/15 insured 1 acre of arecanut cultivation for the year 2013-14 by paying Rs.1,080/- as premium on 30.7.2013. The 1^st opposite party assured Rs.1,00,000/- as insurance if there is crop for more than 50%.  The complainant sustained more than 50% crop loss for the year due to heavy down pour.  When informed, there was no response from the opposite parties.  Hence this complaint is filed for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,25,000/- to the complainant as insurance including compensation.

5.      The complainant in CC.247/15 insured 1.37 acres of arecanut cultivation for the year 2013-14 by paying Rs.1,080/- as premium as 30.07.2013 and Rs.400/- on 30.7.2013 with 1^st opposite party.  First opposite party offered Rs.1,40,000/- as insurance if there is crop loss for more than 50%.  The complainant sustained loss for more than 50% for the year 2013-14 due to heavy down pour.  It was informed to opposite parties, but there was no response.  Hence the complaint is filed for a direction to opposite parties to pay Rs.1,65,000/- including insurance and compensation.

6.      The complainant in CC.249/15 had insured 90 cents of arecanut sum of Rs.972/- as premium on 27.7.2013 with 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party promised to pay Rs.90,000/- as insurance if there is crop loss for more than 50%.  The complainant sustained loss for more than 50% due to heavy down pour.  But not received the insurance as promised.  Hence this complaint is filed directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,15,000/- as insurance and compensation.

7.      The complainant in CC.248/15 have insured 20 acre of arecanut cultivation for the year 2013-14 by paying Rs.1,296/- as premium as on 30.7.2013 with 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party promised Rs.1,30,000/- as insurance if there is crop loss for more than 50%.  The complainant  sustained loss for more than 50% in the year due to heavy downpour.  But the opposite parties did not pay the insurance as promised.  Hence this complaint for a direction to opposite parties to pay Rs.1,55,000/- as insurance including compensation.

8.      The complainant in CC.303/15 had insured 4 acre of his arecanut cultivation for the year 2013-14 by paying Rs.4,105/- on 30.7.2013 with 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party promised to pay Rs.4,50,000/- as insurance if crop loss for more than 50%.  The complainant sustained crop loss for more than 50% for the year and did not get insurance as promised by opposite parties.  Hence this complaint is filed for an order directing to opposite parties to pay Rs.4,75,000/- to the complainant including compensation.

9.      All the opposite parties in all the above cases resisted the complaint filing separate versions.  Though 4^th opposite party filed separate version they have taken up identical contentions of that of 1^st opposite party.  Both contended that the weather based crop insurance scheme was introduced and launched by Government of India to provide insurance protection to adversely impact crops during  first cultivation period.  As per the order Government notified weather based crop insurance scheme for arecanut, paddy, banana, pepper, ginger, turmeric cardamom and coconut crops in Wayanadu district for the Kharif  2013 season.  The scheme operates on principle of area approach in selected notified reference unit areas.  The reference unit areas are linked through specific weather stations and are utilized for the purpose of assessment and compensation as per the scheme.  The insured cultivators would become eligible for the pay out with actual weather data record at a reference weather station during specified time period shows deviation as compared to the specific trigger weather.  In such case the specific crop in that particular reference unit area shall be deemed to have suffered the same level of adverse weather incidence and consequently the same proportions of loss of crop yield and become eligible for the same proportion of payments.  It is an automatic process based on weather readings recorded at the RWS.  In this case in such adverse weather incidence were recorded in the RWS.  Hence the complainants are not entitled to get compensation.  The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties filed version contending that they have nothing to do with the agricultural insurance based on weather.  They have not inspected the affected area of each complainants and hence not liable to pay any compensation to the complainants.

10.    All the above referred complaints were jointly tried and the complainant in CC.239/15 filed proof affidavit for and on behalf of all complainants in other cases.  He was examined as OPW1 and the documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A3.  Third opposite party filed affidavit for and on behalf of 2^nd opposite party and gave oral evidence as OPW1.  Fourth opposite party filed affidavit and gave oral testimony as OPW2 and marked Exts.B1 to B99.

11.    The District Forum appreciating the materials produced found that the insurance scheme joined by the complainants is based on weather deviation as reported in RWS.  The record weather data in RWS shows no deviation in weather so as to attract any crop loss for the insured crops for the complainant.  Second and 3^rd opposite parties has no role in the assessment of weather deviation and disbursement of the claim.  First opposite party is only premium collecting agency.  Since there is no deviation in the weather as per the RWS the Forum found that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and accordingly all the complaints were dismissed.

12.    Aggrieved by the order dismissing the complaints, the complainant in CC.239/15 has filed this appeal.  The appellant/complainant who was present in person, reiterated the contentions in the complaints and further contended that the opposite parties at the time of taking the insurance premium from him did not disclose that insured cultivators would become eligible for the payment of insurance amount on the basis of weather data recorded at reference weather station during the specified time.  But thus stated only that they will be compensated if there is any loss of more than 50% crop due to bad weather.  He further stated that the 2^nd opposite party has inspected the plots and send intimation to the 3^rd opposite party that there was loss of crops due to bad weather (Ext.A1).  The adverse weather incidence is clearly noted in Ext.A1.  The complainants incurred loss due to disease congenial climate of arecanut which is clear from Ext.A1 document.

13.    Learned counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 4 on the other hand contended that admittedly the insurance scheme is weather based crop insurance scheme which was introduced and launched by Government of India.  The scheme operates on the principle of area approach the selected notified reference unit areas.  All insured cultivators of a notified crop for the notified reference unit areas are deemed to be on par so far as their terms of insurance coverage and assessment of compensation are concerned.  In Kerala RUA is group of Panchayat or Corporation or Municipality.   The RUA is linked to specific weather stations and weather data from this RWS are utilized for the purpose of assessment of compensation as per the scheme.  The State Government also notified separate term for each crop notified under WBCIS kharif season.  The terms sheets explains the insurance cover available for each crop, the cover period objectives of each cover, the deposit of each cover, distribution of some insured trigger values of weather parameters above or below which the compensation starts.  If adverse weather insurance is reported the procedure is automatic and will be credited in bank account of the insured.  More over on the perusal of proposal form signed by the complainants it is clearly stated that insurance company is agricultural insurance company and insurance is based on weather.  From the weather station at Mananthavady for the crop arecanut there is no crop loss reported on the basis of weather deviation.  The level of deviations reported is zero.  In complaint No.241/15 the reference unit area is Thavinjal and eligible compensation insured arecanut  crop is affected by weather and that is reported in RWS pay out of Rs.400/- each is met to the account of the complainants.  In other case there is no deviation as reported and no claim is admissible.  The report of the agricultural officer is not at all binding in this scheme of insurance, since it is a separate scheme, and it is based on weather as reported in RWS.

14.    We have considered the arguments of both parties and perused the records.  From Ext.B1 which is the administrative approval of Government of India kharif 2013 season the Government of India has communicated administrative approval for continuation and implementation of WBCFIS for that particular  season to all State Governments, Agricultural Insurance Company of India, Reserve Bank of India, NABARD etc.  On receipt of the administrative approval, the State Government holds meeting with state level co-ordination committee on crop insurance (SLCCCI) to decide the scheme to be implemented, districts and crops to be notified and other final details of the scheme and on the basis of the meeting the State Government had issued Ext.B2 notification selection of districts and crops and finalization of various insurance covers is to be provided and also terms and conditions of the schemes are as per this notification.  The Government of Kerala as per the above order has notified weather based crop insurance scheme for 10 crops in 12 districts including 8 crops in Wayanadu district.  This scheme operates on the principle of area approach in selected notified reference unit area.  The reference unit areas are linked to specific reference weather stations and the weather data from this RWS are utilized for the purpose of assessment of compensation as per the scheme.  RUAS, RWSS and crops are notified by State Government in the notification.  The State Government also notified term sheets for each crops notified under WBCIS kharif 2013 season.  The term sheet notified for crop in Wayanadu is Ext.B4.  The pay out/climate arises only in case of adverse weather insurance which equivalent to the deviation between trigger weather and actual weather data recorded at the notified reference weather station during this specific time and period.  In case all adverse weather incidence of the insured cultivators growing the notified crop in the notified reference unit the area are deemed to have suffered the same level of adverse weather incidence and the same proportion for foreclose are become eligible for the same price of pay outs.  As per the weather data from RWS at Mananthavady which is the notified weather station of the complainant/appellant no claim is admissible.  Only the complainants in CC.241/15 and CC.247/15 are eligible for the compensation for 1 acre of land insured for which the RUA is Thavinjal and as per the weather data from RWS Mananthavady which is the notified reference weather station for Mananthavady Pnachayat, no claim is admissible to other complainants.

15.    The complainants has urged that the opposite party has not disclosed that the insurance claim will be based upon the actual weather data recorded that reference weather station during the specific time.  Complainants further contended that as per the Ext.A1, the certificate issued by the Agricultural Director, 3^rd opposite party shows that there was actual loss of crop due to that weather.  The complainant has submitted a ruling of SCDRC Punjab in the matter of Satnam Sing Vs. National Insurance Company, wherein the State Commission has held that if the insurance company malafide suppress anything from the insurer then the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the insurer.

16.    Perusing Ext.B8 the proposed form signed by the complainants and Ext.B11(1) the advertisement made in Malayala Manorama daily it is specifically stated that the insurance is based on weather data recorded at the reference weather station. The 3^rd opposite party who was examined as OPW1 has stated that Ext.A1 is a report submitted by him to the Director of Agriculture intimating general crop loss in Wayanadu district.  He further stated that Ext.A1 is not binding for Agricultural Insurance Scheme and it has no relevancy in agricultural insurance as per the scheme.  The proposal form is signed by the party and is a primary document as insurance policy is concerned.  Contract of insurance is a personal contract and is binding on both parties and make it enforceable by law.  The insured is bound by clear and conspicuous terms in the contract, even if there is evidence that insured did not read or understand them.  Hence aforesaid ruling submitted by the complainant has no application in the present case.

In the light of the above discussion it can be seen that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  The district forum was fully justified in dismissing the complaint.  We do not find any infirmity in the said order warranting interference in the appeal.

In the result the appeal is dismissed.  Parties to suffer their respective costs.

 

T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

RANJIT .R : MEMBER

 

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

 

VL.