KERAL A STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.527/11

JUDGMENT DATED 17.9.12

PRESENT

SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR            --  JUDICIAL MEMBER

The Regional Manager

Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd,

Regional Office, T.C.14/1765,

Bakery junction, Trivandrum.                              --  APPELLANT 

   (By  Adv.Sreevaraham G.Satheesh.

                   Vs.

1.      P.J.Lookose, Kochuthundiyil veedu

          Pulinkunnu P.O, Kayalappuram (via)

          Alappuzha.

2.      Rosamma Mathew, Kochuthundiyil

Pulinkunnu P.O, Kayalappuram (via)        --  RESPONDENTS

          Alappuzha.

3.      Nithin Lookose,

Pulinkunnu P.O, Kayalappuram (via)

          Alappuzha.

4.      Joseph Mathew, Kochuthundiyil

Pulinkunnu P.O, Kayalappuram (via)

          Alappuzha.

5.      Lishamol Lookose, Kochuthundiyil

Pulinkunnu P.O, Kayalappuram (via)

          Alappuzha.

6.      The Secretary, Vadakke Angadi

          Service Co-operative Bank Ltd,

          Pulinkunnu.

7.      The General Manager

          Alappuzha District Co-operative Bank Ltd;

          Head office, Alappuzha.

              (R7 By Adv.C.Parameswaran)

JUDGMENT

SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR-JUDICIAL MEMBER

          The appellant was the first  opposite party in CC.No.139/08 in the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha.  Respondents 1 to 5 were the complainants therein.   They were farmers in Alappuzha.   Their grievance was that   during 2006-2007 each complainant had  raised Punja crops over 5 acres of paddy filed and   the crop was insured with the first opposite party.  There was un-expected infestation of the crop and more than 50% of  the yield was damaged.  The complainants were remitting the insurance premium in the District Co-operative Bank, Alappuzha.    They lodged a claim for the sum assured with the opposite party.  The first opposite party without valid reason repudiated their claim.  The complainants claimed the assured amount of Rs.15,000/- per acre and Rs.10,000/- as compensation

          2. The appellant/first opposite party filed detailed version  and additional version.  Based on their contention    opposite parties 2 and 3 were impleaded.  Thereafter, the third opposite party filed version.  The main contention of the appellant/first opposite party was that the complainants were covered by the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS)   as per the declaration dated 31.1.07.  As per the declaration the 5 complainants and 10 others had voluntarily insured under NAIS their paddy crop raised in Pulincunnu notified area during Rabi II 2006 season as Non  loanees.  The actual assessed yield data for the paddy crops as supplied to the first respondent by the Department of Economics and Statistics, Government of Kerala for the notified   zone comprising of Pulincunnu Panchayath of Alappuzha District  in respect of Rabbi II 2006 season as well as the respective threshold yield rate for the same notified zone showed no shortfall during the period,   as the actual assessed yield was 5248 kgms per hectare  as against the threshold yield of 2791 kgms per hectare  when worked out as  provided under Clause 13 of the scheme.   There was no short fall in the yield for the relevant crop in the Pulincunnu Panchayath including the complainants.  Under the above circumstances, the complainants were not entitled to any relief.

          3. The third opposite party contended that the complainants were not its consumers.  Th