Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Anup K Thakur, Presiding Member
Agriculture Insurance Company India
Limited —Petitioner
versus
Veeramreddy Vasanth Rayudu and
Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.917 of 2020
(Against the Order dated 22/06/2020 in Appeal No. 411/2017 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
Decided on 2.12.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Smita Bankoti, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
In any well intentioned welfare scheme of government such as MNAIS, much depends on implementing agencies.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 14(1)(d)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 51] – Insurance – Agricultural loan – Crop failure on account of Cyclone – District Forum allowed complaint and directed petitioner/OP4 and respondent no.3/OP2 to pay a sum of Rs.82,560/- with Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant – MNAIS, instead of administering insurance claim on the basis of individual claims, adopted an area approach with notified areas and eligible crops (by State Government) and depended upon data furnished by Directorate of Economics and Statistics to arrive at the extent of crop loss (AY-TY) in a season. In MNAIS – Objective was to simplify and make it easier for affected farmers to get covered under insurance in case of any crop failure, without each one of them having to make insurance claims separately – From a consumer complaint perspective, it is imperative that complainant’s genuine grievance is addressed – It was for OPs, acting together in harmony and mindful of objective and purpose of MNAIS, to have addressed grievance of complainant. Instead of doing so, OPs merely blamed each other, thereby failing completely to address complainant’s grievance – In any well intentioned welfare scheme of government such as MNAIS, much depends on implementing agencies – In instant case, Insurance company and nodal bank failed – District Forum had correctly found OPs to have been deficient in service and State Commission had correctly upheld District Forum’s order – Revision Petition dismissed.
Held: On a plain appreciation of the facts of the case, what is overwhelmingly clear is that MNAIS, instead of administering the insurance claim on the basis of individual claims, adopted an area approach with notified areas and eligible crops (by the State Government) and depended upon the data furnished by Directorate of Economics and Statistics to arrive at the extent of crop loss (AY-TY) in a season. In MNAIS therefore, the objective was to simplify and make it easier for affected farmers to get covered under insurance in case of any crop failure, without each one of them having to make insurance claims separately. However, in the instant case, it seems clear enough that while there is no denying that the complainant was an eligible farmer (loan taken; premium paid) and was therefore very much a part of MNAIS, he failed to get any amount of compensation for crop loss. The reason why he did not get any insurance amount was simply that his name did not feature in the list of 40 farmers that had been sent by OP-2, the nodal bank to OP-4, the insurance company. The real deficiency lay in the fact that the complainant had no recourse in the system and had to knock at the doors of the consumer fora.
A keener appreciation of the facts of the case therefore reveals that it was not at all the fault of the complainant farmer that his name and his claim did not feature in the list of 40. However, the fact is that this was so. Thereafter, his attempts to get an adequate response or relief from all the OPs failed and he had to approach the consumer fora. From a consumer complaint perspective, it is imperative that the complainant’s genuine grievance is addressed. It was for the OPs, acting together in harmony and mindful of the objective and purpose of MNAIS, to have addressed the grievance of the complainant. Instead of doing so, OP2 and OP4 merely blamed each other, thereby failing completely to address the complainant’s grievance. In any well intentioned welfare scheme of the government such as MNAIS, much depends on the implementing agencies. In the instant case, OP-4, the Insurance company and OP-2, the nodal bank, simply put, failed.
Following the discussion above, it is my considered view that the District Forum had correctly found OP2 and OP4 to have been deficient in service and the State Commission had correctly upheld the District Forum’s order. Accordingly, this revision petition, after consideration, stands dismissed at the stage of admission. (Paras 9, 10 and 11)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
ORDER
Anup K Thakur, Presiding Member.—Under challenge in this Revision Petition No. 917 of 2020 is the impugned order dated 22.06.2020 of the A.P. State Consumer Redressal Commission, Vijayawada (‘State Commission’ hereafter) in First Appeal No. 411/2017. Vide this order, the State Commission had dismissed the appeal against the order of the East Godavari District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kakinada (‘District Forum’ hereafter) dated 25.09.2017 in Consumer Complaint No.40 of 2015. In turn, the District Forum had allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner/OP4 and respondent no.3/OP2 to pay a sum of Rs.82,560/- with Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant, within one month of the order, failing which the said amounts shall carry interest @ 9% till realization.
2. Briefly, the facts are that the complainant had obtained an agricultural loan of Rs.82,560/- from respondent no.2/OP1 - the Chief Executive Officer, Atchampeta Lodged Seized Co-operative Society (OP1 hereafter) using his Kisan Credit Card(KCC). An amount of Rs.3,578/- had been collected from the complainant towards premium by OP1. There was a crop failure in 2013-14 on account of Phailin cyclone. When the complainant approached OP1 for claiming insurance, he did not get a proper reply. It is stated that while respondent no.3/OP2-the Chief Executive Officer, District Co-operative Central Bank Limited (OP2 hereafter), admitted receipt of premium for insurance, it directed the complainant to approach the petitioner/OP4-Agricultural Insurance Company (India) Ltd.(OP-4 hereafter). Respondent no.3/OP3-tehsildar, Kakinada Rural Mandal, also did not take any action on the complainant’s request.
3. In this way, it was the case of the complainant that the unhelpful attitude of the OPs was a deficiency in service and that he was entitled to the insurance amount for which premium had been paid. He therefore filed consumer complaint no. 40/2015 on 15.10.2015. This was contested by the OPs. OP1 and OP2 admitted sanctioning Rs.82,560/- comprising loan of Rs.78,982/- and Rs.3,578/- collected towards advance crop insurance premium. This premium was immediately remitted to OP2, the nodal bank for agricultural insurance. OP3 claimed that he had nothing to do with the claim and that that the complainant should approach the concerned society. OP4 denied the allegation and took the defence that the insurance claim was being operated under the Modified National Agriculture Insurance Scheme (MNAIS). This was on the principle of ‘Area Approach’ as contrasted with ‘Individual Approach’. Under this, the assurance of compensation was made on notified area basis and covered all loanee farmers compulsorily. Further, the scheme operated on the basis that if the ‘Actual Yield’ (AY hereafter) of the insured crop in the notified area fell short of the ‘Threshold Yield’ (TY hereafter), all the insured farmers growing that crop in the notified area would be deemed to have suffered the loss and would be duly compensated for the loss. The basis for settling the claim was the data furnished by the Directorate of Economics and Statistics on AY and TY. As per yield data for Kharif-2013 received on 31.03.2014 claims were settled under MNAIS for 40 farmers amounting to Rs.1,73,139.10. This was as per declaration submitted by the OP2, the nodal bank to OP-4. As such, all the OPs took the defence that they had done what they were required to do under MNAIS and therefore there was no deficiency in service on their part. As already noted in para 1 above, the District Forum allowed the complaint and the same was upheld by the State Commission on appeal. Hence, this revision petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on 20.11.2020.
5. Learned counsel argued that there were lapses on the part of the State Commission as it had failed to take adequate note of the manner in which the MNAIS operated. He argued that under MNAIS, the insurance sc
