1.      Heard Mr. Tuhin, Advocate for the appellant, Mr. Dipan A. Desai, Advocate, for the decree holder-respondents and Dr. Venugopal H. Patel, Advocate, for the respondent Bank.

2.      Above appeals execution have been filed against the orders of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat, Ahmedabad, dated 30.08.2022 passed in EA/7/2018 to EA/120/2018, allowing the execution applications and directing the appellant to pay the balance amount of crop insurance to the decree holder-respondents.

3.      Government of India introduced a “Comprenhensive Crop Insurance Scheme” vide notification dated 03.05.1985, for providing financial support to the farmers in the event of crop failure due to natural calamities. It was renamed as National Agricultural Insurance Scheme, in the year 2000-2001. State Governments were operating pilots of “Comprenhensive Crop Insurance Scheme”, under which the premium and loss are shared by the General Insurance Corporation of India (now Agricultaure Insurance Company of India Ltd.) and State Government in the ratio of 2:1. As per the scheme, crop insurance has to be taken by the farmers availing of crop loans from Co-operative Credit Insitutions, Commercial Banks and Regional Rural Banks for raising crops. The sum insured for the insured farmer has to be 150% of the loan sanctioned (including the premium amount) to the farmer for growing crop in ‘defined area’. The bank, who grants the loan is Nodal Agency and has to deposit the insurance premium, while granting crop loan and in case of crop loss due to calamities, it has to forward the insurance claim of the farmers to Agricultaure Insurance Company of India Ltd. On which, a committee of the representatives of Central Government and State Government has to be formed to assess the loss, which has to be paid by the appellant and State Government in the ratio of 2:1.

4.      State of Gujarat, vide notification dated 31.03.1999, decided to continue the crop insurance scheme for the Kharif season of 1999. The present disputes relate to Kharif crops of 1999, in respect of 13 ‘definded area’ of district Rajkot. Total 269 consumer complaints were filed before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat, Ahmedabad, claiming the insurance claim for partial crop failure of the groundnut and mellets of the year 1999. State Commission consolidated 228 complaints and partly allowed by a common order dated 28.02.2014. In all these complaints, complainant-1 was the farmer’s co-operative society and other complainants were its members/farmers. The appellant, State Government and Rajkot District Co-operative Bank were opposite parties-1, 2 and 3, respectively. The complainants stated that complainant-2 and other members of complainant-1 took crop loan for growing the crops of the groundnut and mellets in the year 1999 in ‘defined area’, but due to draught the crops were partially failed. A committee of the representatives of Central Government and the State Government was formed to assess the loss, who had submitted its report. The said report was forwarded to opposite party-1 for the purpose of making the payment of the claims of the insured farmers. Opposite party-1 considered the difference between the threshold yield and actual yield for determining the claim but further reduced the claim on various grounds i.e. non-sowing groundnut crop by some farmers, deduction of share capital, premium and outstanding loan of previous year. Opposite party-1 paid the amount less than the claimed amount. Therefore, the complaints were filed for paying (i) balance amount of insurance claim with interest @18% per annum from December, 1999 till the date of payment; (ii) compensation for deficiency in service; (iii) litigation costs; and (iv) any other relief, deemed fit.

5.      On contest, the State Commission partly allowed the complaints, vide order dated 28.02.2014 with the observation that the members of the cooperative societies were entitled to get crop insurance claim as per shortfall in their crops of groundnut and mellets. As level of indemnity is 60% with limitation of Rs.10000/-. Other deductions by opposite parties-1 and 2, in sum assured are not permissible as per scheme. The co-operative societies in each complaint (complainant-1) has been directed to furnish details regarding the names of the insured farmers and sum insured to Nodal Agency, who was required to verify and forward to the appellant and the appellant and state government were directed to calculate the insurance claim and pay it.

6.      After the order dated 28.02.2014, Nodal Agency submitted society-wise details of the insurance claim. The appellant, vide letter dated 11.06.2015, called for farmer-wise details, which was provided through letter dated 16.07.2015, then the appellant transferred an amount of Rs.238718055.16 to the Nodal Agency, which was total amount payable to the farmers in all the 228 complaints, in the above judgment.

7.      Some new farmers cooperative societies filed 114 execution applications (registered as EA/7/2018 to EA/120/2018) for executing the decree dated 28.02.2014. In these execution applications, one or more new cooperative societies were arrayed as the decree holder, along with the original society, who had filed the complaint. The appellant filed objections/affidavits in these execution applications and stated that on receiving society-wise and farmer-wise details on 16.07.2015 from the Nodal Agency, the appellant segregated it. Taluka-wise and ‘defined area’. After segregation, it was noticed that six duplicate complaints were filed, in respect of same farmer, same ‘defined area’ of the Taluka. As such total 330 insured farmers were identified, who were either themeself or their society were complainants and an amount of Rs.238718055.16 was transferred to the Nodal Agency on 28.02.2017. Now these execution applications are filed by new societies, who were not complainant as such the execution are not maintainable. Nodal Agency in its written submissions also admitted that the bank had also received information/claim of other cooperatiove societies, whose names are not mentioned in any complaint but being the Nodal Agency, it had forwarded their claim for consideration for the Insurer.  

8.      Executing Court, vide common order dated 30.08.2022, ignored the objections of the appellant without recording any findings on the it, on the pretext that an executing court cannot go behind the decree and allowed the execution applications. Aggrieved by the orders the insurance company has filed above appeals execution.

9.      The counsel for the appellant submitted that the consumer complaints were not filed in the representative capacity. 114 execution applications have been filed by the stranger cooperative societies, who were not the complainants and their execution applications were not maintainable. A person, who was not a complaint, has no right to file execution application. The appellant has raised this specific objection, which was admitted by the Nodal Agency in its written submission but the executing court has ignored this objection and directed to make payment although execution applications are not mainatinable.

The counsel for the respondents submitted that the object of the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme was to protect the insured farmers, in the event of crop failure due to natural calamities. All the applicants in 114 executions are the societies of the farmers, who were insured for Kharif crop 1999 and falling in the ‘defined area’ of 13 Taluka of district Rajkot. Nodal Agency found that the farmers were falling in ‘defined area’ and insured, therefore forwarded their claim. State Commission, in its judgment dated 28.02.2014, extended its benefit to all the insured farmers, who had sufferred loss due to natural calamities. Therefore, it has been rightly held that an executing court that it cannot go behind the decree and the execution applications were maintainable. Admittedly no payment was made to the applicants in the execution applications in compliance of the order dated 28.02.2014, as such, the appellant was directed to make payment. The respondents being the insured farmers are also entitled for the benefit under the decree dated 28.02.2014. Para-12 (xii) of the scheme states that if there is a shortfall in the average yield per hectare of the insurance crop, each of the insured farmers growing that crop in the ‘defined area’ will be eligible for indemnity. The impugned order dated 30.08.2022 does not suffer from any illegality and the appeals execution deserve to be dismissed. He relied on the judgments of Supreme Court in Meenakshi Saxena vs. Ecgc Ltd. (Formerly known as Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.) AIR 2018 SC 2831 and Jini Dhanrajgir & Anr. vs. Shibu Mathew & Anr. AIR 2023 SC 2567, holding that if there is ambiguity in the decree, the executing court is empowered to interpret the decree in the process of giving a true effect of it under Section 47 of CPC.

10.    I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Admittedly 114 execution applications have been filed by the stranger cooperative societies, who were not the complainants in 228 complaints decided by the common order dated 28.02.2014. It is also admitted to the respondents that the consumer complaints were not filed in the representative capacity. In paragraph-40 of the judgment, the State Commission has noticed that the permission to file the complaint in representative capacity was not obtained. The counsel for the contesting respondents, however, submitted that this question was raised before State Commission but State Commission, in its judgment dated 28.02.2014 held that as the farmers were insured, they were entitled to the benefit under National Agricultural Insurance Scheme. But paragraph-36 which is relevant, reads as follows: -

“Therefore, the opponents nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount to assured farmers of the Rajkot District but they have filed present complaint.”

It is abundantly clear that the benefit of the decree was given to the insured farmers of the Rajkot district, who had filed the consumer complaints. No permission under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was granted to institute the complaints by way of class action complaint in representative capacity as such benefit of the judgment/decree cannot be extended to the strangers. Section 47 of CPC empowers the executing court to decide the objection raised by the appellant that the execution applications filed by the stranger societies are not maintinavle but State Commission avoided to decide the objection on wrong premises that it cannot go behind the decree. The executing court has wrongly executed the decree in favour of the societies or its members, who were strangers to the original proceeding and the impugned order dated 30.08.2022 is liable to be set aside.

                                                    O R D E R

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals execution are allowed and the impugned order dated 30.08.2022 passed by the State Commission in EA/7/2018 to EA/120/2018 is set aside. EA/7/2018 to EA/120/2018 are dismissed as not maintainable. At this stage, counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellant has not paid to and fro expenses to the respondents as directed by this Commission vide order dated 16.06.2023. As the appeals are been allowed and the appellant is entitled for costs, I waive payment as directed to be made to the respondents by interim order dated 16.06.2023.