IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT TUMKUR

C.C.106 /2008
COMPLAINANT
Smt. Shak !tha"amma

V/S

RESPONDENTS
Th# Ma!a$#% A.I.C& Lt' ( Oth#%)

*RITTEN AR+UMENTS OF COMPLAINANT Nature of Case:- The case is one for claim of insured amount of Rs 40,00000 with interest at 18% from 21-12-2006 by way of damages and deficiency of ser ice till the reali!ation for the loss aroused due to cro" failure in the insured land wherein cro" culti ated# 1# $t is not in dis"ute that %om"lainant has got insurance co erage to the cro"s in &and# 2# $t is not in dis"ute about the collected insurance "remium, the com"lainant has "roduced documents of ban' "ass boo' e(tract to show that insurance "remium of Rs 1))6-00 was collected# *# $t is not in dis"ute when "erused the documents "roduced by R-* that there is no mista'e in a""lication for insurance, there is no mista'e or negligence on the "art of com"lainant in "ro iding any information about the land and its details# 4# There is some mista'e of calculation due to lac' of information to com"lainant at earlier stage# Insured Land Location:- The insured land located in +yadigunte ,illage, -agalamadi'e .obli, /a agada Talu' 1# $t is R-* who has wrongfully submitted "ro"osal to R-1 by mis0uoting the land to be under 1#-# .os'ote .obli# 2# $t is also contributory negligence of R-1 by sim"ly adding land of nagalamadi'e .obi to 1#-# .os'ote .obli without erifying what com"lainant has stated in his a""lication# *# $t is bad argument and contention of R-1 that the land is included in 1#-# .os'ote .obli# 2hen all the documents s"ea's otherwise mere act of R-* or R-1 does not change the location of land# 4# 3erely because there is no deficiency of yield in such "eriod in 1#-# .os'ote .obli ta'ing ad antage of -egligence and contributory negligence of R-1 and R-* the liability is dis"uted by intending to change the location of land itself to suit their con enience, which cannot be allowed under law# 4# The %redit %ard, 5greement and RT%6s "roduced by R-* shows that the land comes under -agalamadi'e .obli# Payment Made is contended by R-1:- $f at all any "ayment is made by R-1 to the land with sur ey number details of -agalamadi'e .obli it is "urely

under R-16s own 'nowledge# 7nder the "rinci"le of Res-i"sa &o0uitor, the contending "arty should "ro e with documents about the "ayment made# .ence R-1 failed to "ro e the "ayment# Insurance premium is fixed at 2.5 of insured amount:-

5s "er the "ractice $nsurance "remium is collected at 2#4% of the insured amount# $n the instant case Rs 1))6-00 is collected as insurance "remium# 5s "er the re"eated reminders by courts ban' may ha e collected insurance "remium for one and half times the alue of loan raised# 8ut the "remium collected is wor'ed out to double the loan amount of Rs 40,000-00 and the figure comes at Rs 9),840-00# 5s you "romise as you are liable# : en though com"lainant has as'ed less relief in the claim "etition by o ersight and mis-calculation, the claim amount which is "romised by $nsurer and his agent is Rs 9)840-00# %laim ; <hort fall in 1ield = <um $nsured of farmer Threshold 1ield %laim ; 129 = 9)840 211 %laim ; 48061-*9 5s "er .ighest court +uidelines the liability of R-1, R-2 and R-* are >ointly and se eral and both three are liable to com"ensate com"lainant with Rs 48061-*9 along with interest# $t is not in dis"ute that <hortfall in 1ield for -agalamadi'e .obli is 129 $t is not in dis"ute that Threshold yield ?or -agalamadi'e .obli is 211 !c"eme and its operationa#ism $t a""ears that since 1)84 a scheme 'nown as %om"rehensi e %ro" $nsurance <cheme was in ogue in %ountry# $t has been re"laced from Rabi season of 1)))@2000 by Rashtriya Arishi 8ima 1o>na# The ob>ect of the <cheme is to "ro ide insurance co erage and financial su""ort to the farmers in the e ent of failure of any of the notified cro"s as a result of natural calamities, "ests and diseases# ,ide its %lause 4, <cheme "ro ides for com"rehensi e ris' insurance to co er yield losses due to non "re entable ris's i!# -atural ?ire and &ightning, <torm, .ailstorm, %yclone, Ty"hoon, Tem"est, .urricane, Tornado, ?lood, $nundation B &andslide, Crought, Cry s"ells, /estsDCiseases etc# &osses arising out of war and nuclear ris's, malicious damages and other "re entable ris's are howe er e(cluded# <um for which loss is to be insured or limit of co erage can e(tend to threshold yield of the insured cro" but then o"tion is gi en to indi idual farmer to ha e it insured e en beyond that alue u" to 140% of a erage yield of notified area on "ayment of "remium at commercial rates# /remium rates "rescribed under <cheme ary from 1#4% to *#4% de"ending u"on the ty"e of cro" and the season# <mall and marginal farmers are "ro ided 40% subsidy in "remium to be shared e0ually by <tate and 7nion#

5s "er %lause ) the <cheme o"erates on the basis of E5rea 5""roachE which is defined area for each notified cro"# $t also o"erates on indi idual basis for localised calamities# Cefined 5rea which constitutes E7nit of $nsuranceE may be +ram /anchayat, 3andal, .olbi, %ircle, /hir'a, 8loc', Talu'a etc# which is to be decided by <tate#

Th# + ,'#",!#) &- H,$h#)t .& %t -&% .&m/",a!.#01 .F-68&: 3R#G7<T$%: 3#8# <.5., /R:<$C:-T B 3R<# R5G15&5A<.3$ R5F, 3:38:R of -ational %onsumer ?orum, 2hile /assing $nterim order in a case of 5/ and Aarnata'a it is obser ed in these words H$t a""ears that +o ernment of $ndia is announcing %ro" $nsurance 2elfare <chemes at arious le els from time to time# 5ffected farmers ha e to wait for years to get the relief because of method ado"ted for its im"lementation# The method of calculation of draught relief in the affected areas is on the basis of the sam"les which are ta'en from the irrigated land# This would, certainly, mean that those farmers who are ha ing no irrigation facility e en though they "ay insurance "remium, they are the sufferers and they do not get any relief e(ce"t litigation from one Cistrict ?orum to <tate %ommissionD-ational %ommission and thereafter to the <u"reme %ourt# IIIIIIIIII $n our iew, unless such welfare scheme is "ro"erly im"lemented, the benefit would not go to the farmers but the amount would be s"ent in litigation# ?urther, non-im"lementation of the scheme is bound to increase rural debt, e("loitation and in some cases loss to the society# .ence, the "resence of the <ecretary, 3inistry of 5griculture, %entral +o ernment, is necessary to find out whether the method ado"ted in re"udiating the loss of the insured is >ustified or not#J In Case before Nationa# Consumer $orum Gustice 3#8# <hah by his order dated 24-02-2004 in +u>arat <tate %onsumer6< /rotection %entre 5nd 5nr# s +eneral $nsurance %or"n# Ff $ndia 5nd Frs# $t is obser ed as below The decision in the matter has its bearing on a large number of "oor farmers, i#e# more than a la'h who were the ictims of a natural calamity @ drought, in a drought "rone area# Ces"ite the admitted fact that because of drought there was cro" failure, the sum assured was not "aid, the /rimary 5gricultural %redit %oo"erati e <ocieties and the nodal agencies acce"ted whate er the reduced assured sum "aid by the +#$#%# .el"less "oor indebted agriculturists could not raise their oice and a""roach the ad>udicating authorities indi idually by filing se"arate com"laints or suits for redressal of their grie ances and for reco ering small amounts arying from Rs#1,000D@ to Rs#*,000D@# The main ob>ect of the scheme was for "ro iding financial su""ort to farmers in the e ent of cro" failure as a result of drought, flood etc# and to su""ort and stimulate "roduction of cereals, "ulses and oil seeds#

Crop Insurance !c"eme

$$# F8G:%T$,:<K The ob>ecti es of the <cheme are as underK LiM To "ro ide a measure of financial su""ort to farmers in the e ent of cro" failure as a result of drought, flood, etc# LiiM To restore the credit eligibility of farmers, after a cro" failure, for the ne(t cro" season, and LiiiM To su""ort and stimulate "roduction of cereal, "ulses and oilseeds# $$$# <5&$:-T ?:5T7R:<K The salient features of the <cheme are as underK 1# %ro"s to be co ered aM Rice, 2heat and 3illets bM Filseeds and "ulses 2# ?armers to be co ered H$t is well settled that a contract of insurance is a contract of uberrima fides and there must be com"lete good faith on the "art of the assured and the insurerNJ HThe aforesaid "ro isions lea e no doubt that under the %om"rehensi e %redit $nsurance scheme insured farmer is the basis and not the %redit <ocieties# <ufferer is the farmer because of the drought# <uch farmers cannot be "enalised because the credit <ociety commits some alleged irregularities, such as LaM while disbursing credit loan deducts the share ca"ital and cro" insurance "remiumN LbM ad>ustment towards share ca"ital etcN LcM re"orting of loan is for groundnut alone, while culti ation in illages is for se eral cro"sN LdM mista'e or error in classification of big farmers under small and marginal farmers for getting benefits of subsidy# ?urther, it is to be clearly understood that under the scheme the insurance charge has to be calculated on the sum assured and the insurance "remium is an additionality to the scale of finance# This has been s"ecifically "ro ided in the scheme 0uoted abo e# The insurance charge is to be deducted from cro" loan at the time of disbursement of the loan#J H$n any case, for such mista'es or irregularities assured farmer is not res"onsible# $f +o ernment wants to "enalise, it may "enalise the /rimary 5gricultural %redit %oo"erati e <ociety or the nodal <ociety @ the district le el society, but it cannot "enalise the farmer by reducing the sum assured, which is meant for his benefit# /oor farmer who has suffered the natural calamity cannot be made to suffer further for the mista'es or irregularities committed by the office bearers of the <ociety or some other farmers#J %nder suc" circumstances it is our sincere and "umb#e re&uest to consider t"e #e'a# and factua# facts raised abo(e to a)ard t"e c#aims as c#aimed and as exp#ained in t"is ar'ument. CateK *0-12-200) /laceK Tum'ur

5d ocate for %om"lainant

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful