AGRICULTURE INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. LOOKOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was the first opposite party in C.C. 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 field and the crop was insured with the first opposite party. There was unexpected 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 31.1.2007. As per the declaration the 5 complainants and 10 others had voluntarily insured under NAIS their paddy crop raised in Pulinkunnu 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. The second opposite party collected insurance premium from the complainants to remit the same with the third opposite party, ft duly forwarded the same to the first opposite party. The third opposite party has acted only as a nodal bank collecting and transmitting the insurance premium. The claim applications received from the complainants were also promptly forwarded to the first opposite party. The third opposite party has nothing to do with the row between the, complainants and the opposite parties.