ORDER

THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH,PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1. The Facts:

The complainant alleged that he is an agriculturist and insured his crop with the opposite party under Modified National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (MNAIS) and due to monsoon failure there was no yield from their land and suffered loss Hence he claimed insurance amount and it was not paid by the opposite party insurance company. So alleging deficiency in service and claiming compensation of Rs.100000/- the complaint was filed.

2. The opposite party in the written version alleged that the complainant failed to disclose whether he is a loanee farmer or not a loanee farmer?. The complainant failed to disclose what crop he cultivated and its failure and did not produce any record. Moreover, he failed to add National Agricultural Insurance Company which is a Co-Insurance company as a party to the proceedings and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. Before the District Commission both sides let the evidence and the District Commission finally concluded the opposite party committed deficiency in service and awarded Rs.10000/- with 9.5% interest along with cost of Rs.5000/-.

4. Aggrieved over the dismissal, the appeal has been preferred on the following Grounds that the District Commission failed to note the features of the modified National Agricultural Scheme and insurance can be entertained only upon area approach basis, if any shortfall in yielding is notified then only the opposite party is liable to pay insurance claim as there is no such notification, there is no deficiency in service. Moreover, for the relevant season the average yield for Paddy- II crop was 1917 per/gm and in the absence of such shortfall in yield the insured farmer not entitled to get any compensation.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that as per the modified national agricultural insurance scheme, insurance amount cannot be paid to the insured without notification of shortfall in yield by the government. It is his contention that there is no such notification was issued for the disputed area. As such insurance company did not commit any deficiency in service. On the otherhand the learned counsel for the complainant would submit admittedly the complainant is a farmer and insured the crops, they produced relevant revenue records to show the failure of yield to their land as such they are entitled for insurance amount.

6. Now the Point for consideration is

1. Whether the insurance company in not paying the insured amount committed deficiency in service? 7. Discussion on the Points:-

Before advent into the facts of these cases, in every consumer complaint it is the duty of the complainant, i) To prove that he is a consumer ii) To prove the opposite party is a service provider and iii) The opposite party committed deficiency in service.

Then it is the duty of the opposite party to satisfy that he did not commit any deficiency and to prove his actions are valid, bonafide, and with utmost care. But, in this case no particulars about payment of premium with regard to date and amount was pleaded in the complaint. No document is filed to show that he paid any premium to the opposite party.

8. Of course the opposite party specifically not denied the complainant as not a former. But, it is the primary and basic duty of the complainant to do that he is a consumer and availed the services by payment of consideration. When there is no proof about payment of premium then the complainant is not entitled to claim any compensation. But the District Commission without noticing the absence of premium payment decided this along with other cases in which premium was paid. So, the findings and award of the District Commission is to be interfered. Hence the appeal is allowed and the finding award of the District Commission is setting aside, the complaint is also dismissed.

11. In the result, 1. The Appeal is allowed.

2. The order of the District Commission, Sivagangai in C.C.No.19/2015, dated:2