DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.149 of 2014
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 30.05.2014
DATE OF ORDER: -07.06.2017
- Jaipal Singh son of Shri Sabal Singh, 2- Rampal Singh son of Shri Sabal Singh, 3- Ranbir Singh son of Shri Daan Singh, 4- Gokal Singh son of Shri Jagmal Singh, 5- Kanwar Pal Singh son of Shri Jaipal Singh, 6- Rajbir son of Shri Sabal Singh, 7- Raj Kumar son of Shri Daan Singh (deceased) through legal heir Manoj son of Shri Raj Kumar.
8- Rajender son of Shri Partap Singh
9- Mahender Singh son of Shri Partap Singh, 10- Bahadur Singh son of Shri Gobind Singh.
11- Bishan Singh son of Shri Gobind Singh, 12- Mahipal Singh son of Shri Rajbir Singh, 13- Ballu Ram son of Shri Kumbharam (deceased) through legal heir Mahesh son of Shri Ballu Ram, 14- Jittaram son of Shir Pohakrmal, residents of village Sohasara, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani.
15- Gobind son of Shri Bajranglal, 16- Sajjan Singh son of Shri Gokalchand, resident of village Samsavas, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani.
17- Nihal Singh son of Shri Uddaram, resident of village Sohasara, tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani.
18- Bijender Kumar son of Shri Jhabarmal, 19- Jhabarmal son of Shri Chunnilal, 20- Gokalchand son of Shri Chunni Lal, 21- Shankar Lal son of Shri Ram Kumar, 22- Santosh Kumar son of Shri Bejnath, 23- Premchand son of Shri Pyarelal, 24- Parhaladrai son of Shri Ganpatram, 25- Shyamsunder son of Shri Vasdev, 26- Mangeram son of Shri Lalchand, 27-Chetram son of Shri Chunni Lal, 28- Sunil Kumar son of Shri Bajranglal, 29- Balwan son of Shri Naginchand, 30- Sushil Kumar son of Shri Bhagwanaram, 31- Sadhuram son of Shrichand, 32- Mailal son of Shri Meharchand, 33- Manphool son of Shri Palaram, residents of village Sohasara, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani.
……………Complainants.
VERSUS
- Haryana State through Collector, Bhiwani.
- Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited, Regional Office SCO No. 64-65 Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through Regional Manager.
- The Loharu Primary Co-operative Agriculture Society Limited, Loharu District Bhiwani through Manager.
- Agriculture Development Officer, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.
Mrs. Sudesh, Member.
Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member
Present:- Shri Rajbir Singh, Advocate for complainant.
None for OP no. 1 & 3 (Defence struck of OP no. 1 & 3).
Sh. Mukesh Jangra, Advocate for OP no. 2.
Shri Ishwar representative on behalf of OP no. 4.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that Kharif crop of 2009 of Bajra was sowed by the complainants and the same was insured under National Agricultural Insurance Scheme. It is alleged that crop of Bajra of the complainants was destroyed due to drought. The complainants made applications to the OP no. 3 & 4 for the payment of the insurance claim but the complainants did not receive any claim. The Ops are liable to pay the claim to the complainants. The complainants further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such, he has to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.He
2. On appearance, OP no. 2 filed written statement alleging therein that the farmers have not mentioned the name of notified block in which his land, where he has sown the insured crop, is situated; but it is most likely to be situated in Loharu Block of District Bhiwani. It is submitted that we have received declaration no. 139 in respect of coverage of Bajra crop from the Nodal Bank vide its letter dated 04.11.2009. It is submitted that the answering respondent requested the nodal bank to provide the crop insurance details vide e-mail dated 11.09.2014 and in response to the same, the CEO of the Bhiwani CCB has sent letter dated 12.09.2014. It is submitted that no claim was received for Block Loharu for Kharif 2009. It is submitted that the OP has not received any consideration from the complainant, nor entered into any contract to render services. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 2. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
3. OP no. 4 on appearance filed separate written statement alleging therein that if the complainants are entitled to any claim then only OP no. 2 is liable to pay the same. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 4. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to make out his case, the counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-10 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that Kharif crop of 2009 of Bajra was sowed by the complainants and the same was insured under National Agricultural Insurance Scheme. It is submitted that the crop of Bajra of the complainants was destroyed due to drought. The complainants made applications to the OP no. 3 & 4 for the payment of the insurance claim but the complainants did not receive any claim. The Ops are liable to pay the claim to the complainants.
7. Learned counsel for OP No. 2 reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the claim of the complainants is for the Kharif crop of 2009 and the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 30.05.2014 and the complaint of the complainant is time barred. He further submitted that the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (hereinafter called “scheme”) operates on area approach basis, if there is shortfall in the yield, all the insured farmers growing that crop in the denied area are deemed to have suffer shortfall in their yield. This ‘scheme’ seeks to provide coverage against such contingency. He referred that entire scheme and guidelines is Annexure 1. He further submitted that Bhiwani Centre Cooperative Bank Limited, Bhiwani was the Nodal Bank for Loharu Block of District Bhiwani. He further submitted that no claim was received for block Loharu for kharif crop 2009. He further submitted that as per scheme provisions a minimum of 16 no. crop cutting experiments are required to be conducted per notified area and during a particular season, the actual yield in respect of the particular notified area is less than pre-determined threshold yield or guaranteed yield then all the insured farmers of all notified area shall be deemed to have suffer loss and shall be compensated accordingly. He submitted that in case of complainants the crop yield data for Loharu block for Bajra crop of kharif 2009 has been given in para no. 4 and page no. 4 of the reply. According to that yield data statement the actual yield was 864 and the threshold yield was 751 because the actual yield was more than the threshold yield. Therefore no claim was payable under the scheme. The counsel for the OP no. 2 relied upon the following judgments:
I Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Versus Farmer’s Service Co-OP. Society Ltd. in First Appeal No. 264 of 2010 decided on 31.05.2016 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.
II Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd. Versus Manager Agriculture Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. etc. in Revision Petition No. 2574 of 2012 decided on 06.08.2016 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.
III Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Versus Badri Singh Bisht & another in Revision Petition No. 1654 of 2016 decided on 24.10.2016 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.
8. The representative of OP no. 4 reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that if the complainants are entitled to any claim then only OP no. 2 is liable to pay the same.
9. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record, carefully. The OP no. 2 has produced the scheme and guidelines of National Agricultural Insurance Scheme as Annexure A, wherein the guidelines regarding the said scheme have been elaborated. The Hon’ble National Commission in case of Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Vs. Farmer’s Service Co-Op. Society Ltd. in FA No. 264 of 2016 decided on 31.05.2016 held as under:-
As per the scheme, if the actual average yield of a notified insured crop in a notified area, falls short in the insured season than the threshold yield fixed over the area, all the insured farmers in that particular area growing that crop, are deemed to have suffered shortfall in their yield and are eligible for compensation in such contingency. The NAIS Scheme is in the shape of joint venture of the Central and State Government and the shortfall in the yield is calculated by the experts as per the formula provided in the scheme.
It was also observed by this Commission that mere declaration of the area affected by drought would not make the insured eligible for any compensation for the simple reason that the actual area-wise yield levels for the cropping system, and the threshold level declared by the State Government are the basis and the difference between the two is really compensated.
It is seen from the facts on record that there are two different kinds of estimates for loss, being projected in the matter – one by the Revenue Department of the State Government, according to which drought was declared in the area in question and as per the estimate given by the District Collector, there was 75.85% damage to the crop. On the other hand, the Bureau of Economies and Statistics of the same Government has given their estimates of crop production, based on the crop-cutting experiments, according to which, the yield realized for the crop in question was more than the threshold yield for the same crop in that area and hence, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the said claim.
It is very clear, therefore, that the declaration made by the Revenue Department of the State Government, saying that it was a drought affected area is of no consequence, in so far as the outcome of the present case is concerned. The farmers in question have been got insured under the provisions of the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme and hence, the decision is to be taken, based on the provisions of the scheme.
It is very clear therefore that since the yield during the crop was more than the threshold yield, the concerned farmers were not liable to be compensated by any stretch of imagination, based on the provisions of scheme and all the facts and circumstances on record.
The case law relied upon by the counsel for OP no. 2 is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Resultantly, we do not find any merit in the complaint of the complainants and the complaint of the complainants is dismissed. No order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: -07.06.2017. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Parmod Kumar) (Sudesh)
Member. Member.
