JUDGMENT

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

IA/1754/2016 (For condonation of delay)

          This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition.  The delay occurred on account of the petitioner having filed a joint revision petition being revision petition no. 1654 of 2016 which was filed within the prescribed period of limitation.  The delay is therefore, condoned.  The application stands disposed of.

RP/1654/2016 & RP/2515/2016 to RP/2520/2016

1.      Pursuant to the guidelines issued by Government of India vide its letter no. 13011/01/2008-Credit-II dated 13.08.2010, Government of Uttarakhand issued an order dated 14.01.2011 for weather based crop insurance scheme in the State of Uttarakhand for Rabi weather 2010-2011, on a pilot basis.  Under the aforesaid orders issued by the Government, the petitioner company was designated for implementation of the aforesaid insurance scheme.  The payment of compensation to the farmers was to be made in terms of the scheme called weather based crop insurance scheme, issued by the petitioner company.  The aforesaid scheme to the extent it is relevant reads as under:

3.       Area Approach

The scheme shall operate on the principle of “Area Approach” in selected notified Reference Unit Areas.  Area Approach signifies that a “Reference Unit Area” shall be considered as a Unit-Area of Insurance for the purpose of acceptance of risk and assessment of compensation as well.  Therefore, all insured-cultivators of a Notified Crop in the notified Reference Unit Area shall be deemed to be on par so far as their terms of insurance coverage and assessment of compensation are concerned.

5.       Geographical Coverage

          (a) “Reference Unit Areas” are linked to specific Reference Weather Stations.

(b) “Reference Weather Stations” are those which are commissioned for providing “Weather Data” for the purpose of assessment of compensation.

(c) “Reference Unit-Area” is a geographical area around a Refence Weather Insurance i.e., SLCCCI, which is deemed to be reflective of the Reference Weather Station’s Weather Data.  To the extent practicable, such Reference Unit-Area shall be restricted to 25 km. radius around the Reference Weather Station in case of Rainfall, and 100 km. radius in case of other weather parameters like Frost, Heat (Temperature), Relative Humidity, etc.

14.     Compensation (Payout)

(I) AIC shall be responsible for all payouts arising out of “Adverse Weather Incidence” strictly in terms of the Scheme terms & conditions read with the relevant premium & payout tables. However, this responsibility of AIC shall attach only when the ‘Risk has incepted’; that is, AIC has duly received the FULL PREMIUM, directly from the Insured his own part, AND ALSO the corresponding Premium Subsidy part from the Governments.

(II) Pay-out shall arise ONLY in case of Adverse Weather Incidence.  Adverse Weather incidence is equivalent to the deviation between “Trigger Weather” and “Actual Weather” Data recorded at a “Reference Weather Station” during the specified time-period.  Trigger Weather is a pre-defined Weather Parameter applicable to a Notified Crop in a notified Reference Unit Area.

In case of Adverse Weather Incidence (AWI), all the insured cultivators growing the Notified Crop in the Reference Unit Area shall be deemed to have suffered the same level of AWI and the same proportion of crop-loss, and become eligible for the same rate of payouts.

2.      It would thus be seen that the scheme was to be implemented on area approach basis wherein reference unit areas were to be notified for the purpose of insurance of the crop.  The reference unit areas were ordinarily to cover a radius of about 25 kms in case of rainfall and 100 kms in case of other weather parameters such as frost, heat, relative humidity etc.  Reference Weather Stations were also designated under the scheme for the purpose of providing weather data applicable to the area covered by a concerned reference unit area, for the purpose of calculation of compensation.  It is also evident that the compensation was to be paid strictly in terms of the aforesaid scheme and the computation of the compensation was dependent upon the weather in the reference unit area as per the data provided by the concerned Reference Weather Station.  The actual loss if any suffered by the farmers had no bearing on the quantum of compensation payable under the scheme, and in case of abnormal weather, uniform compensation was payable to all the farmers in the affected area irrespective of the extent of their loss. 

3.      The complainants/respondents in these matters are farmers in the area known as Kotabag in Uttarakhand. They were paid compensation calculated by the petitioner corporation as per the above referred scheme.  The quantum of compensation however, was really very meagre and the complainants were totally dissatisfied with the said compensation, their case being that the loss suffered by them due to bad weather was much more than what the petitioner corporation had paid to them.  Therefore, they approached the concerned District Forum by way of separate consumer complaints seeking adequate compensation. 

4.      The complaints were resisted by the petitioner corporation which inter-alia stated that Kashipur was the concerned Reference Weather Station for the area to which the complainants belonged i.e. Kotabag in Uttarakhand and IMD, Pantnagar was the back-up Reference Weather Station as per the Government Order.  The data from Reference Weather Station was to be collected by an agency namely National Collateral Management Services Limited which the petitioner had appointed for the purpose.  The petitioner company maintained that the compensation computed on the basis of the actual weather data provided by RWS, Kashipur was duly paid to the complainants, the said payouts being automatic.

5.      The District Forum vide its order dated 10.03.2015, directed payment of compensation quantified at Rs.22,000/- in the complaint subject matter of RP No. 1654 of 2016 and compensation quantified at Rs.10,000/- each in the other complaints. 

6.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner company approached the concerned State Commission by way of separate appeals.  The said appeals also having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

7.      As noted earlier, the computation of compensation in terms of the scheme was to be made on the basis of the data of the adverse weather provided by the concerned Reference Weather Station.  The case of the petitioner is that Kashipur was the Reference Weather Station notified by the Government for Kotabag.  There is absolutely no evidence or even an allegation that a Reference Weather Station other than Kashipur had been notified by the State Commission for the area of Kotabag.  Therefore, there is reason to reject the case of the petitioner company that Kashmir was the concerned Reference Weather Station.  As far as Pantnagar is concerned, that was only a back-up station and the data at Pantnagar was to be considered only in the event of data not being available at Kashipur which was the designated Reference Weather Station for areas including Kotabag.  Therefore, the petitioner company was fully justified in computing the compensation on the basis of the data collected and provided by Kashipur Reference Weather Station. 

8.      A perusal of the computation sheets filed by the petitioner company shows that the compensation was calculated as per the weather data provided by the Reference Weather Station at Kashipur.  Since the scheme envisaged payment of compensation computed solely on the basis of the data provided by the Reference Weather Station, the computation made and the compensation paid by the petitioner company to the complainants cannot be faulted with, even if the actual loss suffered by the complainant was substantially higher.  It can hardly be denied that the compensation paid to the complainants was very meagre and more or less nominal but, the scheme as framed by the Government, does not envisage payment of a higher compensation or a compensation based upon the actual loss suffered by the farmers.  Therefore, the direction for payment of compensation awarded by the District Forum cannot be sustained.

9.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, impugned orders are set aside and the complaints are consequently dismissed.  The amount deposited by the petitioner company shall be refunded to it alongwith interest which may have accrued on that amount.