The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of accurate data interpretation and adherence to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in determining liability for claim payment.

ORDER

Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member - This order shall dispose of the following five appeals, as the questions of law and facts involved in these appeals are identical. All these appeals are directed against the orders dated 30.10.2009 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short, "the District Forum"). Therefore, all these appeals are being decided by this common order:

2. The facts are taken from First Appeal No. 1805 of 2009, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited v. Darshan Singh and Others and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.

3. It was submitted that Sh. Darshan Singh, respondent/complainant (in short, "respondent No. 1") filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act"), pleading that he is member of respondent No. 2-Society, having account No. 331 and obtained the services of the appellant through respondent Nos. 2 and 3, by getting insured his cultivated area of 45 acres of paddy crop under Weather Insurance Scheme on 27.6.2008.

4. Respondent No. 1 got insured his crop @ 5,000 per acre and paid premium of Rs. 522 per acre and the crop of respondent No. 1 was insured for Rs. 2,25,000 and paid premium of Rs. 23,490. It was told to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 3 that if rain will be less or excess from the normal, then the Insurance Company will pay the claim amount i.e. the sum insured as compensation.

5. The appellant issued the joint certificate of insurance No. 95501007 dated 27.6.2008 to respondent No. 1 in respect of insurance of his crop in the name of respondent No. 2 and the crop was insured for the period 1.7.2008 to 30.9.2008. As per the insurance policy, the appellant was to pay the claim to respondent No. 1 without any application, on the basis of information derived from Indian Metrological Department (IMD).

6. During the paddy season of 2008, the rain was less than the normal and the crop of respondent No. 1 was damaged badly and he suffered huge pecuniary loss as well as mental tension and agony. Respondent No. 1 approached the appellant through respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for settlement of the claim, but the appellant did not pay any heed, nor paid the claim and as such, there is deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

7. It was prayed that the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs. 2,25,000 along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of insurance, Rs. 50,000 as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs. 5,500 as litigation expenses.

8. In the written statement filed on behalf of the appellant, the preliminary objections were taken that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and is an abuse of process of law. The District Forum has no jurisdiction, as the head office of the company is at Gurgaon and respondent No. 1 has not come to the Court with clean hands. No claim/complaint was ever lodged with the appellant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. Respondent No. 1 was supposed to deliver a detailed statement in writing as per the claim form and other relevant material, but respondent No. 1 never lodged any claim within the prescribed period and the complaint is liable to be