All these Revision Petitions involve a common question of law and interpretation of the Scheme and Guidelines of National Agriculture Insurance (NAI) issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India.  Basic facts in these Revision Petitions are common, hence, we go on to dispose of these Revision Petitions through a common order.

          It is not in dispute that the respondents/complainants had obtained an insurance cover from the petitioner in respect of their respective crops.  But, when on account of natural calamity, like, shortage of rainfall or drought, the crops did not give the desired yield, claims were preferred before the insurance company, which were not allowed.  It is in this background that separate complaints were filed by the respondents before the District Forum, which were allowed granting compensation in each case.

          Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission, in some cases with delay, which have been dismissed by the impugned orders.  Hence, these Revision Petitions before us.

          Since, in all these Revision Petitions, the issue involved is same, we go on to dispose of these Revision Petitions through a common order. 

As far as limitation is concerned, this Commission had an occasion to deal with this issue in Revision Petitions No.963/2009 and others, in which we had condoned the delay but after putting the petitioner to certain terms.  We had held that “in cases where the delay is of only 30 days, they are condoned.  In those cases where

the delay is between 93-133 days the petitioner shall pay Rs.5000/- to each of the respondents/complainants independent of the outcome of the proceedings before the District Forum and in those cases, where the delay is more than 200 days, the petitioner shall pay Rs.10,000/- each to the respondents/complainant which will be independent of the outcome of the proceedings before the District Forum”.

          Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our Notice that where the delay is less than 100 days, it should be condoned.  We are not inclined to do so.  However, where the delay is between 30-90 days, the petitioner shall pay Rs.3,000/- to each of the respondent/complainant and where the delay is 100-200 days, the petitioner shall pay Rs.5,000/- to each of the respondent/complainant and where the delay is more than 200 days, the petitioner shall pay Rs.10,000/- to each of the respondent/complainant.

          As far as the merits of the Revision Petitions are concerned, we had an occasion to pass orders in similar circumstances on 22.4.2009, which reads as under :

“Since all these revision petitions involve a common question of law and interpretation of the Scheme and Guidelines of National Agriculture Insurance (N.A.I.), issued to that effect by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, we go on to dispose of these revision petitions through a common order.

Basic facts in all these revision petitions are common that the respondents/complainants owned a certain agricultural plot, where different crops were taken up for sowing by the complainants in their respective plots, for which they had taken up an insurance with the petitioner insurance company, as per Scheme of Things contained in the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme and when on account of natural calamity like shortage of rainfall or drought, the crops did not give the desired yield, claims were preferred before the petitioner insurance company, which were not allowed.  It is in this background that the complainants filed individual complaints before the District Forum, which were allowed.

Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed appeals before the State Commission, which were dismissed.  Hence, these revision petitions before us.

It may be observed here that the petitioner before us is the Agriculture Insurance Company of India and in some cases G.I.C.  It also needs to be made clear that GIC was a predecessor of Agriculture Insurance Company of India performing/engaged in the same responsibility as in the scheme of things.

The revision petitions no. 1175-1206, 1265-1276, 1310-1320, 1342-1378/2009  were listed for admission hearing.  Having gone though the material on record, we are admitting these revision petitions and go on to pass the order without issuing notice to the respondents/complainants as point of law involved is same and secondly, no injury is being caused to them.  In case, the respondents/complainants feel aggrieved by this order, they would be free to approach this Commission for hearing the cases on merits.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents, and perused the material on record.  Broadly, there are three sets of circumstances which emerge from the orders passed by the lower fora.

Firstly, we have Petitions where both the lower fora have allowed the complaints on the ground that the State Government has notified the area concerned to be ‘drought affected’.

Second set of cases are those where the District Forum has gone on to pass the orders without ascertaining the declaration of ‘threshold yield levels’, which the State Government was obliged to issue and it was only based on this that the insurers could settle the claim of the complainants.  In second set of cases, this was not done, yet, the District Forum has gone on to pass orders in favour of the complainants.

Third set of cases are those where the complainants/insured have died and the claims were rejected on the ground that there was difference in the signatures found on the proposal form from the signatures found on Vakalatnama and other documents.  Some complaints were dismissed by the District Forum on the ground that Succession Certificate has not been filed since the owner of the land who got it insured, died.  In view of this, the claim has not been settled, as the land has not been transferred in the name of the LRs. 

Dealing with the first set of cases, we only need to reproduce here the clarification on certain ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ and answer to that by the Ministry of Agriculture, the mother of the Scheme, forming part of the Scheme and Operational Modalities of N.A.I. Scheme.  Question no. 17 and answer to that, which forms part of the Scheme and Operational Modalities, reads as follows:

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 food/drought/annavari by another other agency/authority.

There cannot be any doubt that the area is declared affected by drought based on ‘annawari system’, which is based on instructions given by the revenue department of each State keeping in view the local conditions.  Question before us is that applicability of the Scheme in terms of area declared affected by drought?  Like the answer given to the query above, our answer also would be ‘No’.  If anyone at the District Forum or State Commission had gone through the provisions of the Scheme, it is clear that the Scheme envisages compensation for the yield differential between ‘threshold level’ as arrived at by a Committee envisaged under the Scheme, and the actual yield levels on an ‘area approach’, which will be taluka/block or is equivalent.  It flows from the above that mere declaration of area affected by drought would not make the insured eligible for any compensation for the simple reason that actual area-wise yield levels form the cropping season, and ‘threshold level’ declared by the State Government are the basis, and the difference between two is really compensated.  This procedure has not been followed by both the lower fora, while making the petitioner liable to pay the amounts awarded in respect of each case.  These orders passed in such cases cannot be sustained in view of provisions of the scheme and clarification of those schemes given by Government of India, the relevant portion of which has been reproduced earlier.

Second set of cases are, where the State Government has failed to notify ‘threshold yield’ levels, yet, the District Forum has gone on to grant the relief, which in terms of the conditions cannot be done.  Taking RP No.2393-2394/2009 as a sample case in this regard, we reproduce here para 8 of the order passed by the District Forum.

“In view of the aforesaid discussion, both these appeals are partly allowed and as a result of it, while upholding the compensation awarded in fvour of respondent No. 1 in both these appeals, interest same is ordered to be payable at the rat eof 7 1/2 % instead of 9% allowed. The District forum below from the date of complaint till the date of paymtn/deposit whichever is earlier, as also punitive damages in the sum of Rs.2,500/- in each complaint, are also disallowed.  Subject to modification, both these appeals stand finally disposed of.”

We also like to reproduce para 13 of the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme, which reads as follows:

13.    NATURE OF COVERAGE AND INDEMNITY

If the Actual Yield (AY) per hectare of the insured crop for the defined area (on the basis of requisite number of Crop Cutting Experiments(CCES)) in the insured season, fails short of the specified ‘Threshold Yield” (TY), all the insured farmers growing that crop in the defined area are deemed to have suffered shortfall in their yield.  The Scheme seeks to provide coverage against such contingency.

‘Indemnity’ shall be calculated as per the following formula.

(Shortfall in Yield /Threshold Yield) x Sum Insured for the farmer

(Shortfall in Yield = Threshold Yield-Actual Yield’ for the Defined Area)

(emphasis supplied)

A mere perusal of para 13 leaves us in no doubt that, the District Forum could not have gone ahead for disposal of the cases without waiting for the declaration of ‘threshold yield’ levels, in view of which we are unable to sustain the order passed by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this set of revisions, has stated clearly that since now the State Government has issued notification spelling out the threshold yield level, hence, they will be awarding the compensation settling the claim in terms of this declaration.  In this set of circumstances, the petitioners are directed to settle the claim of the complainants within 8 weeks from the passing of this order and report compliance to the District Forum in this regard.

The third set of revision petitions are where the claims were rejected on the ground that there was difference in the signatures found on the ‘proposal-form’, from that of signatures found on Vakalatnama and other documents as also in some complaint they were dismissed by the District Forum on the ground that the Succession Certificate has not been filed since owner of the land who got it insured, died.  It is not in dispute that the area in which the crop was taken up, was insured with the petitioner.  In our view, the District Forum should have given an opportunity to clarify the difference in signatures in the proposal form and Vakalatnama and also an opportunity to the complainants/respondents to bring the LRs on record.  It has to be presumed that the farmers may not be familiar with the intricacies of law, in view of which the District Forum should have given an opportunity to the LRs of the insured to bring Succession Certificate or to bring the LRs on record, if obtaining the Succession Certificate from the Civil Court would be a time-consuming exercise.  The order rejecting the claim, prima-facie, does not stand our scrutiny.

In the aforementioned circumstances, orders passed by the District Forum and State Commission are set aside, and are directed to pass order on merits, especially, after carefully going through the terms and conditions of the scheme of National Agriculture Insurance Scheme and Guidelines issued in that regard.  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 after affording an opportunity to all the parties to argue the case on merits in terms of scheme in question. 

Parties are directed to appear before the respective District Forum on 06.07.2009.  Registry is directed to send a copy of the order to each of the respondents/complainants as well as to the respective District Forum to carry out the above directions.  

FIRST  APPEAL  NO.    362  OF  2006

          In similar terms, this First Appeal is remitted to the concerned State Commission.”

          Taking the same view, we are inclined to set aside the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission and remand the case back to the District Forum(s) to decide the cases on merits, after carefully going through the terms and conditions of the Scheme of NAI and the Guidelines issued in that regard.  District Forum should also appreciate and understand the terms and conditions carefully, as well as the ‘clarification’ given on each by the Ministry of Agriculture on ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ and then go on to pass the orders on merits, after affording due opportunity to all the parties to argue the case on merits in terms of the Scheme in question.

          We are passing this order without issuing Notice to the respondents, as it will delay the matter.  However, if any of the respondent/complainant is not satisfied with the order, he will be free to revive the Revision Petition before us.

          Parties are directed to appear before the respective District Forum(s) on 14^th December, 2009.

          Registry is directed to send a copy of the order to each of the respondents/complainants as well as to respective District Forum(s) to carry out the above directions.

          Since these are old cases, District Forum is requested to dispose of the cases at the earliest, preferably within a period of                6 weeks from the first date of hearing.

          All these Revision Petitions stand disposed of in above terms.