1.         The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 08.01.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 1202/2009 in which order dated 03.06.2009 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhilwada (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 148/2007 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 08.01.2015 passed by the State Commission.

2.         While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP/Insurance Company) was Respondent-1 before the State Commission and OP-1 before the District Forum and the Respondents-1 to 141 (hereinafter also referred to as Complainants) were Appellants before the State Commission in FA/1202/2009 and Complainants before the District Forum in Complaint No. 148/2007.  Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 17.04.2015.  Parties  filed their Written Arguments on 31.01.2024 (Petitioner) and 29.09.2023 (Respondents). 

3.         Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that: -

The complainants/farmers are members of Gangapur Village Service Co-operative Committee Ltd., Ganganagar and get the facilities of manure seeds and loan from Gangapur Co-operative Committee.  The State Government granted acceptance of  National Agriculture Insurance Scheme on  dated 6^th and 7^th June, 2003 by passing order No. 43/2003 under its judgment No.9 and in compliance of this acceptance made agriculture insurance company and directed to co-operative committee from which the farmer members will get agriculture loan from cooperative committee, this insurance is necessary for them, in this way from all the complainants in crop Kharif 2005 savant 2062 in Gangapur Mailoni Khera Hurara District Bhilwara in relation to crop of maize and groundnut according to fixation of supposed income by fixing insured amount from farmer complainants, insurance of crop of maize and groundnut was done by taking premium amount from complainants.   In Kharif Crop 2005 Samvat 2062 Gangapur and Mailoni Khera Tehsil Sahada District Bhilwara Rajasthan was declared deficiency suffered. According to fixation of supposed income maize and ground nut insurance amount was fixed and according to that insurance amount premium was taken from farmers. There was no rain in crop Kharif 2005 Samvat 2062 at village Gangapur Mailoni Khera Tehsil Hurara District Bhilwara and complainants’ complete crop got damaged, insurance company had got full detail of damaged crop from State Government.  The premium amount was taken by Gagnapur Village Service Co-operative Committee Ltd. Gangapur from farmers.  It is the responsibility of the Gangapur village Service Co-Operative Committee to pay for damage to farmers.  Because premium amount and crop fixation was done by the committee.  So the committee is made the OP.  Village service Co-operative Committee sent the premium amount taken from farmers to the Central Co-operative Bank Bhilwada sent the statement of amount of premium amount, insurance amount and amount granted by State Government sent by Gangapur Village Service Co-operative Committee and sent the amount and according to that Central-operative Bank made joint insurance of all farmers Crop. So Central Co-operative Bank made OP.   The State Government gave 10% grant of premium amount and it is the responsibility of State Government to give indemnity of damaged crop to farmers and said area is declared deficiency suffered.  The complainants gave notice of two months to OPs and OP-1 gave reply of the noticed and other OPs did not give reply of the notice.  The damage suffered by the farmers has not been paid.  Hence, filed complaint before the District Forum.

4.         Vide Order dated 03.06.2009, in the CC 148/2007, the District Forum has dismissed the complaint.

5.         Aggrieved by the said Order dated 03.06.2009 of District Forum, Complainants appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 08.02.2015 in FA No.1202/2009 has partially accepted the Appeal and set aside the order dated 03.06.2009 passed by the District Forum, Bhilwara, Partially accepted the complaint.

6.         Petitioner/OP-1  have challenged the said Order dated 08.02.2015 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

1. The order of the State Commission is patently against facts and evidence on record, against the law and is thus unsustainable.  Under NAIS, defined areas (unit area of insurance) are decided by respective state Govt./U.T. and claims under NAIS are also to be settled on the basis of  data collected by respective State Govt./U.T. through Directorate of Economics & Statistics of the respective state Govt./U.T. in respect of Defined Area by conducting requisite Crop Cutting Experiments.  The State Commission failed to appreciate that the Scheme thus envisaged eligibility for a claim only when the Actual Yield of a notified crop in a notified area as a whole was less than the Threshold Yield, as notified and confirmed by the Statistics Department of the Government.  In the instant claim, the notified area was Sahada Tehsil as a whole and as per Yield Data received from statistical Officer, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Rajasthan for District/Division Bhilwara, the Actual Yield for maize and groundnut for Sahada Tehsil was much more than the Threshold Yield and hence the entitlement of any claim did not arise. 

2. The State Commission committed a grave error in admitting and relying upon the Collector's Report mentioning 50% to 75% loss to these two crops in certain areas of Tehsil Sahada, filed for the first time before the Commission, despite strong objection by the Petitioner. Apparently the said document has no relevance because the Scheme operates on Area Approach basis and that too as per data furnished by the authority stated therein and not by any other authority. The Order dated 22.04.2009 in RP Nos. 2393-2394/2008 and many other RPs wherein this Commission had categorically held and reaffirmed that "the Scheme envisages compensation for the yield differential between 'threshold level' as arrived by a Committee envisaged under the Scheme and the actual yield levels on an 'area approach' which will be taluka/block or its equivalent. It flows from the above that mere declaration of area affected by drought would not make the insured eligible for any compensation..." The State Commission has altogether and evidently ignored the direction of this  Commission that "they should first appreciate and understand the terms and conditions carefully as well as the 'clarification' given on each point by Ministry of Agriculture on 'Frequently Asked Questions' and then go on to pass orders on merits...".  The State Commission further failed to notice that the Scheme is based on Yield of notified crop and not on loss/damage to the said crop on individual basis, since the Scheme operates strictly on Area Approach and not on loss to an individual farmer. The Collector's Scheme is of no consequence for the Scheme.

3. The Directorate of Economics & Statistics, after conducting requisite Crop Cutting Experiments in the Notified Area, where the land of the Respondents is situated, notified the Actual Yield of the Area which was more than the Threshold Yield for that Area. Since there was no shortfall of the crops in the said Area, no sum became payable to the Respondents by the Petitioner under NAIS. The State Commission committed a grave error in accepting the Collector's Report while ignoring the Yield Data Report of Statistical Officer, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, mentioning Actual Yield of maize and groundnut in Sahada Tehsil. The Report of the Statistical Officer, regarding Actual Yield was for specific crops which was result of CCEs done for the crops in the notified area where the land of the Respondents is situated and hence on the basis of a general notification of declaration of an area to be drought area, the said report of Directorate of Economics & Statistics could not be disregarded on mere conjectures.

4. Clause 20 of GUIDELINES TO FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS forming part of the Scheme, clearly stipulates that “Claims under this Scheme will be settled only on the basis of yield data furnished by Directorate of Economics and Statistics arrived at through regular crop estimation surveys for production estimates (i.e. planned Crop Cutting Experiments) and not on any other basis such as Annavari, declaration of drought, declaration of floods, gazette notification etc., by any department/authority".

5. The State Commission failed to appreciate that the insurance was taken by the Respondents under NAIS and as such the claim, if any, was payable as per mechanism provided under NAIS. The direction of the State Commission to the State Government to issue relevant notification within three months and further direction to the Petitioner to settle the claims within three months thereafter, is beyond jurisdiction, authority or powers vested in the State Commission. The State Commission has thus acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity inasmuch as it has failed to apply its judicious mind independently to facts of the case and legal position while allowing such a complaint.

6. The order of the State Commission is bad in law and against the facts on record and is liable to be set aside. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Petitioner and the Respondents are not entitled to any compensation or costs thereon.

7.         Heard counsel for the Petitioner.  Respondents 1 to 141 are the original complainants, who have been served through substituted service by publication in the newspapers, copy of which has been placed on record by the petitioner Insurance Company. Respondent 142, 144 and 145 have also been served. Keeping in view their absence despite service, they were proceeded ex-parte. As regard, respondent 143, notice returned with postal remarks “insufficient address”. However, the petitioner insurance company’s counsel categorically stated that no relief is being sought against respondent 143, which is a Gram Seva Sehkari Samiti. He further added that no relief is being sought against respondent 142 also i.e. Central Co-operative Bank, stating further that the dispute is with the complainants and respondent 144/145. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments filed by the parties and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing by the Petitioner, are summed up below.

7.1       In addition to the averments made under the grounds (para 6), the petitioner contended that all the farmers growing notified crops in notified areas and availing Seasonal Agricultural Operations (SAO) loans from Financial Institutions, known as Loanee Farmers, are compulsorily covered by the Scheme whereas for other farmers, the Scheme is optional.  In respect of Small Farmers (cultivator with land hold of 2 hectares (5 acres) and Marginal Farmers (cultivator with land holding of 1 hectare (2.5 acres), 50% of subsidy in premium is allowed, to be shared equally by Government of India and respective State/U.T. Government.  It operates on the basis of Area Approach i.e. Defined Areas for each notified crop for widespread calamities and on individual basis for localized calamities such as hailstorm, landslide, cyclone and flood.  The Defined Area (unit area of insurance) may be Gram Panchayat, Mandal, Hobli, Circle, Phirka, Block, Taluka, Tehsil etc. as decided by the respective State Govt./U.T.  Three levels of indemnity viz 90%, 80% & 60%  corresponding to Low Risk, Medium Risk & High Risk areas are available for all crop based on Coefficient of Variation (CV) in yield of past 10 years data.  However, the insured farmers may opt for higher level of indemnity upto 150% of average yield of notified area on payment of additional premium based on actual rates. It is further contended that Threshold Yield (TY) or Guaranteed Yield for a notified insurance unit for any notified crop is calculated by multiplying level of indemnity with past three years moving average yield in case of Rich and wheat and five years moving average in case of other crops in a defined area.  The data of Threshold Yield is compiled by Directorate of Economics and Statistics of the respective State Govt./U.T. In order to assess the crop yield known as Actual Yield for any season in a notified insurance unit, the respective State /UT Govt. conducts requisite number of Crop Cutting Experiments for all notified crops in that notified insurance unit.  If the Actual Yield per hectare of the insured crop for the defined area falls short of Threshold Yield for that defined area, all the insured farmers growing that crop in the defined area deemed to have suffered shortfall in their yield.  NAIS is being implemented w.e.f. 1.4.2003, through the Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd. in conjunction with the State owned Co-operative Banks/Nationalized Banks and respective State Governments/U.T. for the purpose of mitigating genuine losses suffered by the Farmers.   At the beginning of each crop season (Kharif and Rabi) each State/UT notifies the Crops and Defines Areas.  Whenever a bank or financial institution disburses loan for an insurable crop, it also grants additional loan towards insurance charges.  Since the Agriculture Insurance Co. of  India Ltd. is only the Implementing Agency of NAIS and Loanee Farmers are compulsorily covered by the Scheme, neither any proposal for was required to be filled by the Loanee Farmer nor is any policy required to be issued to the said Loanee Farmer.  The bank or financial institution then prepares a statement of monthly crop-wise and defined area-wise details of crop insurance with insurance charges and remits the same to its Nodal Branch by 15^th day of the next month.  The Nodal Branch forward the same to Agriculture Insurance Co. India Ltd. after consolidation of these statements.   If the Actual Yield of a Notified crop in a Notified area is less than the Threshold Yield fixed for the area, all the insured farmers become eligible for Compensation whether an individual insured farmer has actually suffered loss or not.  No individual farmer’s details are available/maintained nor is it required to be maintained under the Scheme.  Once yield data is received from State Govt./U.T. as per the prescribed cut off dates, claims are worked out by Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd.  as per the declarations received from Financial Institutions for each notified area. Then the Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd. sends the claim cheques to respective Nodal Banks for disbursing the amount to respective branches under it and the respective branches thereafter credit the accounts of the individual farmers.  The guaranteed/threshold yield as notified was  (i) Maize- 657 kgs/hectare (ii) Groundnut- 559 kgs/hectare.  The actual yield of the said crops for Sahada Tehsil under Bhilwara District for Kharif -2005, as per Statistics Department Government of Rajasthan was : (i) Maize : 11262 kgs/hectare against the Threshold Yield: 657 kgs./hectare (ii) Groundnut- 842.52 kgs/hectare against the Threshold yield – 559 kgs./hectare.  Hence, the actual yield of both the crops was in excess of the Threshold/Guaranteed yields. The complainants filed complaint before the District Forum that their maize and groundnut crops were totally damaged due to drought and claimed overall compensation of rs.17,53,887/- with cost of Rs.55 and Rs.74000/- totaling to Rs.18,27,887/-.  The District Forum after analysis of the facts of the case , the evidence on record came to an obvious conclusion that there was no shortcoming/shortage of the crops and hence the complainants were not entitled to any compensation.  In Appeal, before the State Commission , the Complainants produced a Report by the Collector, Bhilwara, wherein it was stated that there was a shortfall of 50 to 75% and 60% of the said crops.  The State Commission relying on the said report held that there was a shortage of 71% crop and hence the farmers were entitled to the compensation.  The State Commission directed the State Government to issue a Notification within three months based on the Collector’s Report and provide it to the AICOIL which will pay the claims within three months thereafter.  The reliance of State Commission on the Collector’s Report is in contravention of the Scheme Provisions and must be set aside.  The said report was not placed on record before the District Forum.  No crops have been mentioned in the said report and it contains only general observation with respect to loss/lower yield.  As per Scheme, the report of Collector with respect to the actual yield is not acceptable. It is also contended by the Petitioner that the State of Rajasthan too had filed a RP/2823/2015 against the said order, which was dismissed on 28.02.2019 for non-prosecution.  

7.2       On the other hand Respondents/complainants during the proceedings before the State Commission, the complainants placed on record report of the Collector Bhilwara, which they obtained under RTI, according to which there were crop losses with respect to the crops in question for Sahada Tehsil of Bhilwara. In this regard, following observations of the State Commission are reproduced below:

“In relation to rest 141 complainants report of collector Bhilwara has been produced with appeal, in which in Samvat 2062’s Kharif crop 2005, in serial No. 25 of Sahada Tehsil at Column 9, 50 to 75 percent and in damage column 60 percent crop damage is delineated. This document was not produced below. Second information is of those Tehsils and village, where crop damage was 50 to 75 percent. In this position, it was duty of opposite party No. 4 State Government that, he according to report of collector will issue crop damage insurance’s notification in proper draft as per rule and will give to opposite party No. 1. In absence of this notification opposite party no. 1 did not give claim and did not do any deficiency of service, but this deficiency of service is of opposite party No. 4, who is arbitrator unit of complainants and opposite party No. 1 insurance company and he is responsible for ensuring this service. So district Forums’ this decision it wrong that on tehsil base from flood and deficiency suffered being not insurance damage report opposite Party No. 1 did not do deficiency in service, this is wrong. Opposite Party No. 1 has objected for taking on record to document on this level but no any technical insurance should come in consumer complaint. Complainants are poor and illiterate farmer, they have no knowledge of procedure. Opposite Party No. 4 and 5 had accepted 71 percent crop damage. He should had to produce this document, which was obtained by complainants through R.T.I. and produced. So it is taken in record. In this position, complainant total 141’s complaint should had to accepted partially and opposite Party No. 4 should had to directed that he by issuing notification in relation to crop damage in draught and flood, give to opposite Party no. 1 and opposite Party No. 1 will give claim to complainant’s proportionally.”

8.       The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum vide order dated 03.06.2009, complainants went in appeal before the State Commission, which allowed the appeal vide order dated 08.02.2015. The issue concerns payment of insurance claims of the complainant farmers under the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme. In pursuance to this scheme, the State Government issued a notification dated 29.06.2005 for the Kharif season, 2005. All the 141 complainants involved in the present case (complaint with respect to 7 complainants out of original 148 was dismissed and their appeal was also dismissed as no premium was paid by them) concerns two crops i.e. groundnut and maize in Tehsil, Sahada in District Bhilwara of Rajasthan. The notification contains details of the risk coverage, which is pegged at 60% and also contains details of the guaranteed yield per hectare and the premium payable. As per this notification, as regards maize in Sahada Tehsil of Bhilwara, the guaranteed yield was 657 kg per hectare and for groundnut it was 559 kg per hectare. If the actual yield is lesser than that the complainant farmers are entitled to compensation under the said insurance scheme policy done by the Insurance Company, which as per the said notification is restricted to 60% of the damage/under-yield. Counsel for the insurance company has drawn our attention to clause 20 under the heading ‘Guidelines to Financial Institutions’ of the said scheme, which is reproduced below:

“20. Claims under this Scheme will be settled only on the basis of yield data furnished by Directorate of Economics and Statistics arrived at through regular crop estimation surveys for production estimates (i.e. planned Crop Cutting Experiments) and not on any other basis such as Annayari, declaration of drought, declaration of floods, Gazette notification etc., by any department/authority.”

 It is the contention of the insurance company that they are to rely on the yield data furnished by Directorate of Economics and Statistics only and of no other department/authority of the State Government, not even any gazette notification. He has also drawn our attention of FAQ No. 17 under the scheme, which is reproduced below:

“Q17: Whether annavari or any similar declaration/ certification by the revenue or agriculture departments of the state govt. at village/block/district level has any bearing on claim settlement?

 Ans: No, claims under the scheme are settled strictly as per the provisions and guidelines described in the foregoing paragraphs and not according to declaration of flood/drought by any agency/authority.”

9.      It is a case of the insurance company that as per the details issued by the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, the actual yield for both maize and groundnut in Sahada Tehsil of Bhilwara District was more than the minimum guaranteed, hence the question of paying any insurance claim/ compensation on account of low yield does not arise. He has drawn our attention to this report at page 148-149 as per which the actual yield based on the cross-cutting experiments of Sahada Tehsil in Bhilwara District for maize was 1116.92 kg per hectare and for groundnut it was 842.52 kg per hectare, which is higher than the minimum guaranteed yield mentioned in the notification dated 29.06.2005 of the State Government cited above. However, the insurance company has not placed on record a copy of the communication from the concerned department i.e. Directorate of Economics and Statistics of Rajasthan Government vide which these details at page 148-149 have been received by the insurance company, based upon which they have rejected the insurance claim. While drawing our attention to clause 20 of the scheme referred to above, the counsel for insurance company was very emphatic that the only data/report acceptable is the one to be furnished by Directorate of Economics and Statistics and by no other department/authority of the State Government. However, a perusal of the document at page 148/149 shows that this is issued by the Agriculture Department of the State Government and not by Directorate of Economics and Statistics. FAQ 17 relied upon by the Insurance Company stated that even the declaration/certificate by Agriculture Department has no bearing on claim settlement. In view of this, the onus is on the insurance company to establish that the Directorate of Economics and Statistics and Department of Agriculture are one and the same departments. Secondly, they need to produce a copy of the communication vide which they got such details, whether from the Agriculture Department or from the Directorate of Economics and Statistics. Hence, while reserving the judgment on 09.04.2024, they were granted time to submit copy of such communication.

10.      During the proceedings before the State Commission, the complainants placed on record report of the Collector Bhilwara, which they obtained under RTI, according to which there were crop losses with respect to the crops in question for Sahada Tehsil of Bhilwara. In this regard, following observations of the State Commission are reproduced below:

“In relation to rest 141 complainants report of collector Bhilwara has been produced with appeal, in which in Samvat 2062’s Kharif crop 2005, in serial No. 25 of Sahada Tehsil at Column 9, 50 to 75 percent and in damage column 60 percent crop damage is delineated. This document was not produced below. Second information is of those Tehsils and village, where crop damage was 50 to 75 percent. In this position, it was duty of opposite party No. 4 State Government that, he according to report of collector will issue crop damage insurance’s notification in proper draft as per rule and will give to opposite party No. 1. In absence of this notification opposite party no. 1 did not give claim and did not do any deficiency of service, but this deficiency of service is of opposite party No. 4, who is arbitrator unit of complainants and opposite party No. 1 insurance company and he is responsible for ensuring this service. So district Forums’ this decision it wrong that on tehsil base from flood and deficiency suffered being not insurance damage report opposite Party No. 1 did not do deficiency in service, this is wrong. Opposite Party No. 1 has objected for taking on record to document on this level but no any technical insurance should come in consumer complaint. Complainants are poor and illiterate farmer, they have no knowledge of procedure. Opposite Party No. 4 and 5 had accepted 71 percent crop damage. He should had to produce this document, which was obtained by complainants through R.T.I. and produced. So it is taken in record. In this position, complainant total 141’s complaint should had to accepted partially and opposite Party No. 4 should had to directed that he by issuing notification in relation to crop damage in draught and flood, give to opposite Party no. 1 and opposite Party No. 1 will give claim to complainant’s proportionally.”

 11.       It was contended by the insurance company that: (a) The report of the Collector was not placed on record before the District Forum, (b) No crops have been mentioned in this report and it contains only general observation with respect to loss/ lower yield, (c) As per scheme, the report of Collector with respect to the actual yield is not acceptable.

12.       In compliance of the order dated 09.04.2024, the Petitioner/Insurance Company filed an Affidavit on 22.05.2024 stating inter alia that despite best efforts, the Petitioner could not trace the cover letter received from the Directorate of Economics and Statistics supplying therewith the Actual Crop Yield Data due to efflux of time and the records being very old.  The Insurance Company further submitted in this Affidavit that the said Actual Yield Data available on records is duly signed and stamped by the Statistical Officer, Department of Agriculture, Government of Rajasthan and there are sufficient grounds to consider that the data furnished by the Appellant as genuine.  The relevant extract of Affidavit filed by Insurance Company is reproduced below:

“3. That despite best efforts, the Petitioner could not trace the cover letter received from the Directorate of Economics and Statistics supplying therewith the Actual Crop Yield Data [filed at page 148-149 of the Paper Book] due to efflux of time and the records being very old. However, the Petitioner most humbly submits that the said Actual Yield Data available on records is duly signed and stamped by the Statistical Officer, Department of Agriculture, Government of Rajasthan. The data has been further attested by the Regional Manager of this Appellant. Therefore, there are sufficient grounds to consider the data furnished by this Appellant as genuine as the same has been obtained from the sources as envisaged under the scheme i.e. the department of the State Government and as per the Scheme, the Petitioner is to act only on the data received therefrom. It may also be noted that the State Government was also a party to the present Petition and the yield data submitted by the Petitioner has not been disputed by the State Government. Further, in the event of the State Government being proceeded ex-parte, the data submitted by the Petitioner which happens to be from the State Government ought to be relied upon.

4. That in this regard it is pertinent to state that the Crop Cutting Exercises, as envisaged in the Scheme, are actually carried out by the Agriculture Department of the concerned Government only. Further, the on the basis of the CCE data, the yield data is collated or finalized by the Directorate of Economics and Statistics which is routed to the implementing agency through the Department of Agriculture. In this context, it is expedient to refer to the following provisions of the Scheme, as well:

A. Clause 14 (at internal page 78 of the Paper Book)-Once the yield data is received from the State/UT Govt. as per the prescribed cut- off dates, claims will be worked out and settled by IA*.

B. Clause 11 (internal page 77 of the Paper Book)-The State/UT Govt. will maintain single series of CCE and resultant yield estimates.

C. Q 19 of FAQ of the scheme which is a part of the guidelines (internal page 86 of the Paper Book)-State Govt. conducts requisite CCE and submit yield data to AIC* within the prescribed cut off date. [*IA & AIC refer to the Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd.-the Petitioner herein]

From the above provisions it is evident that the yield data shall be provided by the State Government only.

5. That the Directorate of Economics & Statistics is essentially "an attached office of the Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare NOTARY DAC&FW)," as per the website, a printout of which is annexed as R.V SINGH Annexure-1. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the data furnished by the Petitioner [i.e. Actual Crop Yield Data at page 148-149 of the Paper Book] had the endorsement of the appropriate authority provided under the Scheme and cannot be ignored, as it is provided by the Statistical Officer from the Agriculture Department of the Rajasthan Government and not by any insignificant authority.

6. That as per Clause 20 (at page 80) as noted by this Hon'ble Commission in order dated 09.04.2024, the basis of settlement of claims under the scheme shall be "yield data" and not on any other basis. It is pertinent to note that the yield data is arrived at on the basis of the crop cutting experiments conducted by the Agriculture Department of the State Government and thus, the data received from the Statistical Officer, Agriculture Department is as per the scheme provisions only.

7. It is further submitted that as per clause 18 of the scheme the provision for management and implementation of the scheme has been laid down wherein it has been provided that, "The Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Co-operation, Revenue Department of the State Government will be actively involved in smooth implementation of the scheme." Therefore, the Directorate of Economics and Statistics does not provide the data independently to the implementing agency, but the same is provided through Agriculture Department of the State Government.

8. That from the reading of the scheme provisions, it is clear that the State Government is responsible for conduct of Crop Cutting Experiments as well as maintenance of the yield data and its further submission to the insurance company and thus, the yield data submitted by the Appellant is the only correct and true copy of yield data as received from the State Government under the scheme provisions.

9. It is further important to note that the data submitted by the Claimant is neither a yield data nor it has been provided by the State Government as per the scheme provisions and therefore it cannot be relied upon for settlement of the claim amount. It may further be noted that in the eventuality the data submitted by this Appellant which has been duly provided by Statistical Officer of the State Government which is responsible for the implementation of the scheme is considered to be not as per the scheme provisions, then by no stretch of imagination can a report of collector be held to be as per the scheme provisions.”

13.       During the hearing on 09.04.2024, the Petitioner/Agriculture Insurance Company has stated categorically that in accordance with the clause 20 of the Guidelines, they are to rely on the yield data furnished by Directorate of Economics and Statistics only and not on data supplied by any other department/authority of the State Government, not even any gazette notification.  The Insurance Company also drew our attention to the FAQ 17, which has already been reproduced in the preceding paras.  In view of the foregoing and in the absence of any communication from the Directorate of Economics and statistics supplying the Actual Yield Data to the Insurance Company, we are not in agreement with the contentions of the Insurance Company that the data on record submitted by them is genuine and should be accepted. We have carefully seen the order of the State Commission and other relevant records in the light of Scheme Guidelines and the Affidavit filed by the Insurance Company.   The State Commission has given a well-reasoned order and we do not find any reason to interfere with its findings.  There is no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission, hence the same is upheld. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed. 

14.       The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.