Back
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Nawab Singh, President and Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member
AGRICULTURE INSURANCE COMPANY OF INDIA LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
RAMPHAL - Respondent
First Appeal No. 777 of 2015
Decided on : 26-04-2017
Shri Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate, for the Appellants; Shri Deepender Ahlawat, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 1; Shri Baljit Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent No. 2 (Technical Assistant)
The main objective of the Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme is to protect farmers by providing insurance of crops against weather conditions, and the insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured in case of covered losses.
Headnote:
Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme - WBCIS - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12 - Rabi 2012-13 - District Jhajjar - High Temperature, Unseasonal/Excess Rainfall - Adverse Weather Incidence - Trigger Weather - Actual Weather - Reference Weather Station - Scheme Objective - Indemnification
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's wheat crop was destroyed to the extent of 90% due to excess rainfall in District Jhajjar during Rabi 2012-13. The claim was repudiated by the Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited (AICIL). The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed AICIL to make the payment along with interest and litigation expenses.
Finding of the Court:
The loss suffered by the complainant was covered under the scheme as it occurred during the subsistence of the scheme. The evidence supported that the crop damage was due to heavy rain, and the AICIL failed to counter the statements of government officials. The main objective of the scheme was to protect farmers by providing insurance of crops against weather conditions.
Issues: Whether the complainant's loss was covered under the Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme and if AICIL was liable to indemnify the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the complainant's loss was covered under the scheme as it occurred during the subsistence of the scheme and was due to heavy rain. The AICIL failed to provide evidence to counter the statements of government officials, and the main objective of the scheme was to protect farmers by providing insurance of crops against weather conditions.
Final Decision: The appeal failed and was dismissed, and the statutory amount deposited at the time of filing the appeal was ordered to be refunded to the complainant.
ORDER
Nawab Singh J. Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme-WBCIS (hereinafter referred to as the 'scheme') was launched by the Government of India. The Scheme meant to mitigate the hardships of the insured farmers against the likelihood of loss on account of anticipated crop loss resulting from incidence of adverse conditions of weather parameters like rainfall, temperature, frost, humidity etc. The State of Haryana was one of the selected States wherein the scheme was proposed to be implemented. Accordingly, vide Notification No. 3009/Agri.-II(I)/2012/15921 dated 24th December, 2012, Haryana Government Agriculture Department (Exhibit R-3), implemented the scheme during Rabi 2012-13 for wheat crop in 17 districts of Haryana. The premium subsidy, to all the farmers, was provided by the Central and State Government in proportion of 50:50, that is, at the rate provided under the scheme. The details of the same are not required to be mentioned because this case pertains to Block Beri, District Jhajjar. The implementing agency of the scheme was Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited-Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 (for short 'AICIL'). Following weather perils, which are deemed to cause "Adverse Weather Conditions" leading to crop loss, were covered under the Scheme:-
(a) High Temperature
(b) Unseasonal/Excess Rainfall.
2. In the month of February, 2013 there was excess rainfall in District Jhajjar, due to which the temperature in the area was also affected. Resultantly, wheat crop of Ramphal-complainant was destroyed to the extent of 90%. He lodged claim but the same was repudiated on the ground that complainant's wheat crop was not destroyed due to increase in the average of the temperature or excess rainfall. The complainant filed complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short 'the District Forum').
3. The AICIL-opposite parties No. 1 and 2 in their written version admitted that during Rabi 2012-13, there were only two covers of the AICIL, that is, High Temperature and Unseasonal/Excess Rainfall. Under the scheme, those weather perils were covered which were deemed to cause 'Adverse Weather Incidence' leading to crop loss as well as for which relevant past weather data was available. The pay-out arises only in case of 'Adverse Weather Incidence' which is equivalent to the deviation between 'Trigger Weather' and 'Actual Weather' data recorded at the notified 'Reference Weather Station' during the specified time period which was SKYMET's AWS at Village Wazirpur, Block-Beri, District Jhajjar, where the crop of the complainant was destroyed.
4. It was further pleaded that there was no adverse weather incidence during the risk period, in terms of notified term sheet and actual weather data recorded at notified Reference Weather Stations (RWSs) for Block-Beri. So, the complainant was not entitled to any compensation under the scheme. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
5. The Deputy Director Agriculture, Jhajjar-Opposite Party No. 3 in written version admitted that the wheat crop in block Beri was damaged up to 90% due to heavy rainfall (72.2 mm) in the month of February, 2013 and the crop of the complainant was insured under the scheme.
6. After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide order dated 24th July, 2015 allowed the complaint and issued direction to the appellants-opposite parties No. 1 and 2 as under:-
"it is observed that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 shall make the payment of a sum of Rs. 3,52,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the month of February, 2013 (during which the crop of wheat in block Beri was damaged due to heavy rainfall) till realization of final payment to the complainant. The complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs. 2000/- from the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficien
