Agriculture Insurance Co. of India vs Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Tulchhiram

THE Agriculture Insurance Co. of India has filed this Revision Petition against the order of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in Appeal No.84-89 of 2010. THE Revision Petitioner was OP NO.3 before the District Forum. THE ten Complainants and OP Nos.1 and 2 before the District Forum, are Respondents in this Revision Petition.

THE State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revision Petitioner endorsing the view taken by the District Forum, Jodhpur, with the following observation: Learned Forum has founded that it had already been mentioned in the order of the State Government dated 29.08.2005, order was applicable on all the communicated crops and all the communicated Tehsils. In such situation, there had not been any justifiability to send this letter once again. Learned forum has further opined that if the State Government has sent the information again, then it could not be put adverse effect on the complainants. The case of the Complainants before the District Forum was that they had insured the Kharif crop 2005, but did not receive any amount from this Insurance, despite failure of the crop. The Complainants, were account holders in OP-2, Chhila Branch of OP-1. OP-1 was working as representative of OP-3, in relation to crop insurance. In June 2006, the Complainants were informed by OP-2 that OP-3 had declined to insure the crops and refunded the premium amount. It was alleged by the Complainants that OP-3 had accepted Insurance premium in relation to those farmers who have availed crop loan from the Bank, but did not accept from the Complainants (who were non-loanee farmers), which amounted to an unfair trade practice.

We have perused the records of this case and heard the counsel for the RP. The stand of OP-3 before the District Forum was that the list of affected crops and areas was sought from the State Government but not received. The opinion of Ministry of Agriculture was sought and directions were received. With reference to the same, OP-3 claims to have written with reference to these directions to the State Government on 7.11.2005 returning the premium of ` 1,21,171/- in relation to non-loanee farmers, rejecting their claim. The District Forum has not accepted the correctness of the facts stated in this letter as OPs have themselves admitted that forms of Complainants have been received within the limitation. The District Forum relied upon the communication of 29.8.2005 from the Directorate of Agriculture of Rajasthan, which had categorically stated that the Government of Indias communication of 23.8.2005, extending the date for non-loanee farmers from 31st July to 31st August, was to be applied to all notified crops in all notified Tehsils. The District Forum therefore rightly concluded that there was no need to obtain any further clarification in this regard. In this background, there can be no justification for rejection of the proposals merely on the ground that the proposals were prepared before the letter of 30th August 2005 from the Agriculture Insurance Co.

WE would also like to observe that this letter of 30th August 2005, which is sought to be relied upon for rejection of the claims of the complainants, itself mentions that, The cut off date for receipt of declarations for the month of August would be 30th September 2005. The proposals were actually sent by the Jaipur Thar Gramin Bank on 24.9.2005 and received in the Regional Office of the RP/OP-3 on 26.9.2005 i.e. within the permissible time limit. The RP/OP-3 has also attempted to mention some lacunae, in the details pertaining to the claims of the Complainants/respondents, as additional grounds for rejection. But there is no mention of such grounds in their letter of 30.11.2005, addressed to the Chairman, Thar Anchlik Gramin Bank, whereby rejection of the proposals was conveyed. The sole ground mentioned in this letter is preparation of the proposals before their letter of 30th August 2005. Therefore, it is clearly an attempt to bring up additional grounds at the stage of revision, which cannot be permitted.

IN the above background, we are entirely in agreement with the conclusion of the State Commission, noted in paragraph 2 above, that there was no need or justification to seek any clarification. Therefore, explanation of the RP/OP-3 for delaying a decision on these claims must be rejected. The letter of 29.08.2005 from the Directorate of Agriculture, Rajasthan had fully explained the requirements for claiming benefit under the Government of INdias letter of 23.08.2005. Thereafter, there was no need to wait for the Revision Petitioners letter of 30.08.2005 to make a proposal on behalf of the Complainants. Hence the ground for non-acceptance of the proposals has rightly been rejected by the fora below. For the reasons detailed above, we find no merit in this revision petition. We do not find any illegality, jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, to justify our intervention under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The revision petition is consequently dismissed with no orders as to costs.