The obligation of the opposite party to indemnify the insured amount when the complainant proves the shortfall in yield, and non-settlement of the insurance claim amounts to deficiency in service.

ORDER :

A.M. Bennur, Member

This appeal is filed under Section 15 of the C.P. Act, 1986 by the Opposite Party in complaint No. 106/2008 on the file of District Consumer Forum, Tumkur aggrieved with the order dated 4.2.2010.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:

Complainant got insured her crop with OP1. Opposite party No. 3 is the nodal bank which used to collect the premium from the farmers like complainant and pay to the opposite party No. l. For the relevant Khariff season of 2006 complainant suffered the loss due to the failure of the crop which she has raised in her land. Immediately she brought the said fact to the notice of the opposite party, but there was no response from the opposite party. Opposite party has contended that the failure of the rain was the reason for the failure of the crop like ground nut. No fault lies with them. Complainant felt there is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Accordingly field the complaint.

3. On appearance OP1 filed the version mainly contending that complainant took the insurance policy under NAIS scheme. The liability vests with the opposite party if there is a shortfall of yield in the income. But as per the records received by the OP1 there is no such, shortfall of yield. If there is failure of rain, there is no obligation on the part of opposite party to indemnify the insured amount. Complaint is devoid of merit. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence, opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. Then the litigating parties led their evidence and after hearing the arguments, the D.F. was pleased to allow the said complaint vide its order dated 4.2.2010. Being aggrieved by the same, now the opposite party has come up with this appeal on the following grounds:

That the D.F. has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in a proper and perspective manner. The conclusions arrived at inferences drawn findings recorded reasons assigned are all opposed to law, facts and probabilities of the case. The D.F. has not properly understand the aim and objectives of the said scheme. Failure of rain is not the criteria to settle the insurance claim. Though these facts are established, somehow D.F. failed to take note of the same and erroneously held that there is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. If the said order is not set aside, it is the appellant who will be put to greater hardship and prejudice. Accordingly prayed for allowing the appeal.

5. Heard the arguments.

6. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this appeal are as under:

1. Whether the impugned order under appeal is unjust and improper?

2. If so, whether it calls for the interference from this Commission?

3. What order?

7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties both oral and documentary evidence, impugned order under appeal, grounds urged in the appeal memo and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs, our findings on Point Nos. 1, 2 are in the Negative and on Point No. 3 as per the final order:

REASONS

8. It is not in dispute that complainant being a farmer got her crop insured with OP1 for the relevant Khariff season of 2006. She paid the premium of Rs. 1,996 through OP3 under Kishna Credit Card. Of course OP1 acknowledged the receipt of the premium and covered the groundnut crop.

9. Now the grievance of the complainant is that during the year 2006 due to the lack of rainfall she could not get the expected yield, suffered the loss. Hence, she approached the Opposite Party to settle the claim. But her claim was repudiated on flimsy reasons. Hence, she felt deficiency in service.

10. The evidence of the complainant appears to be natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quality. As against this unimpeachable evidence of