Delay in filing the Revision Petitions is condoned.

        We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 22.12.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (for short “the State Commission”), whereby the order passed by the District Forum has been affirmed and the claims of the Complainants/Respondents have been upheld on the ground that the Complainants have suffered loss and damages due to failure of the banana crop on account of adverse parameters of weather. 

        Brief facts of the case are that the Complainants are the farmers and had become members of the Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme as introduced by Agriculture Department, Government of India and made applicable by Government of Maharashtra to the extent of Banana crop and have also paid required amount of insurance premium to the Petitioner Insurance Company through the Bank (Respondent No.2).  The crop was insured for the period from 1.11.2014 to 31.7.2015 against adverse weather parameters.  A third party had installed automatic weather stations and the data recorded by these stations was to be used for assessing the insurance amount to be paid to the Complainants.  Since the weather stations were not properly installed by the third party as per the guidelines issued by the Indian Metrological Department, the data collected by them was incorrect, due to which the Insurance Company denied payment of the insured amount to the Complainants, which led to the filing of the Complaints before the District Forum.

        District Forum partly allowed the Complaints and directed the Insurance Company to pay ₹18,750/- per hectare to the Complainants within 30 days.  Insurance Company was directed to pay ₹5,000/- as compensation  and ₹1,000/- towards litigation expenses to each of the Complainants.

        State Commission, while concurring with the finding of the District Forum, observed as follows :

“12.  We do support the findings given by the learned Dist. Consumer Forum as the weather data recorded at Automatic Weather Station itself provides adverse weather incidence pertaining to minimum temperature. The learned counsel Shri Mene at the time of argument submitted copy of the weather data as recorded at automatic weather station Bared by NCMSL which pertain to the period from 01.11.2014 to 31.07.2015. On perusal of said data we find that temperature recorded on 10.01.2015, 11.01.2015 and 12.01.2015 is at 6.7,8.1 and 7.1 degree Celsius  which is also observed by the ld. District Forum. It is only on 12.01.2015 the temperature exceeds by 0.1 degree Celsius than the norms of 8.00 degree Celsius . However, the excess reading of 0.1 is almost negligible. Because, it is one hundredth part. However on 10.01.2015 also the temperature is below 8.00 degree C i.e. 6.6d.c. Thus the temperature was continuously below 8 degree for these four days and it must have affected the banana crop adversely. It was therefore obligatory on the part of opponent insurance company to pay the complainant an insurance sum as is payable for the parameter of minimum temperature which is Rs.18,750/- per hector. The learned counsel Shri Mene has referred to the case laws pertaining to the Agriculture ….Vs. Baishk and another, 2016 STPL- 15647 NC, wherein it is held that, the payment of compensation has to be made solely on the basis of weather data provided by weather station.

13.    In the present case the Dist. Consumer forum has computed the amount of insurance payable to the complainants only on the basis of data provided by reference weather station, as stated above. Therefore this citation does not come to the help of opponent insurance company. It is also brought to the notice of this Commission by Ld. Counsel Shri Kolapkar for the complainant that, the opponent insurance company has paid amount of insurance in respect consumer complaint no. 101 and 102/2017 which is also mentioned by ld. Dist. Consumer forum in its impugned judgement. The question is therefore when the two farmers from same revenue circle are pad insurance amounts, why the present complainants from the same revenue circle were not paid the same. The learned counsel Shri Mene for the opponent insurance company has not given any explanation in this regard. Therefore we do conclude that, by rejecting the total claim of the complainants, the opponent insurance company has committed deficiency in service.

14.    Point No. 2, as regards point no.2, the learned counsel for the opponent insurance company has challenged the impugned judgment and order mainly on the following grounds:

i)      The complainants have not mentioned the area under banana crop in their complaints?

In this regard we find that, although some of the complainants have not mentioned in their complaints the area under banana crop, as per letter dated 01.11.2013 issued by Agriculture Department of Central Government, it is clarified that, the sum insured for an individual cultivator shall be the product of the cultivator’s declared area under cultivation (in hector) for that notified crop in the loan application. This scheme being compulsory for the loanee farmers, the details regarding the area under banana crop must be available with the opponent bank which must have forwarded the same to the opponent insurance company along with the insurance proposals. Therefore this objection is valid.

ii)     The learned Dist. Forum has wrongly held that the weather station is not installed as per guidelines of Metrological Dept of India as there was no any proof in this regard. It is observed from that, report regarding specifications of procurement of automatic weather station that, wind speed and wing direction measurements are to be made at a height at 10 meters above ground level. However the AWS at village Bared was installed at two meters height. In support of the contention of complainant they have also filed certificate of expert namely Nageshwar Associates and the said certificate is dated 04.10.2016. It thus shows that weather station was not properly installed. Therefore it can be concluded that, the data regarding wind speed as received by the station was not reliable.

iii)     The impugned order is challenged stating that without any proof of weather condition, the ld. District Forum has wrongly passed the order. However this objection is also has no basis because, the Forum has relied upon the data regarding temperature as provided by NCMSL itself.

15.    Thus we find that the grounds of challenge of the impugned order are without any substance. We therefore find that the Ld. Dist. Consumer Forum has rightly considered the entries of the minimum temperature and accordingly has rightly passed the impugned  order. Although the Ld. Dist. Consumer forum by way of its impugned order has not computed the exact amount required to be paid to each of the farmers, the same can be worked out by the opponent insurance company at the time of payment of insurance amount considering the exact area of each of the complainant of the banana crops as is available with the insurance proposals of these complainants.

It can therefore be concluded that, the impugned judgment and order passed by ld. Dist. Consumer Forum requires no interference.”

        The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that both the Fora below have not appreciated that the drop of temperature should be 8^oC and below for 3 consecutive days between 1.11.2014 to 28.2.2015 and that the weather data collected shows that such an event did not take place; that the minimum temperature recorded on 11^th, 12^th and 13^th January 2015 was 6.7, 8.1 and 7.1^oC respectively and therefore, the Fora below have erred in awarding compensation, which is ultra virus to the condition 5.3 of the Policy; that weather stations were installed by independent government authorized agents and meet the parameters floated by the government and that the bank came to the conclusion that the data collected by NCMSL was without any error and therefore, both the Fora below have erroneously awarded compensation in contravention of the policy conditions.

        This Commission, vide order dated 16.7.2018, had directed the Petitioner to file the guidelines issued by Central Government and also directed the Counsel to assist us with respect to the height of the weather stations, which parameter needs to be followed as per the Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme floated by the Government.  In compliance to this order, the Petitioner filed a copy of the operational guidelines issued under National Crop Insurance Programme for Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme.  A brief perusal of Condition 2.1.2 of exposure conditions for censors specifies the height at which the censors/weather stations need to be installed.  For better understanding of the same, the parameters are reproduced as hereunder :

2.1.2 Exposure conditions for sensors:

2.1.2.1     Wind speed and direction

2.1.2.1.1 The wind speed and direction sensors are required to be installed on a mast, at a height of 10 feet from ground level.

2.1.2.1.2 The sonsors are required to be located on the mast, which is installed at a distance of at least tem times the height of nearby building, trees or other obstructions.

2.1.2.2    Air temperature and Relative Humidity

2.1.2.2.1 The standard measurement height for air temperature and relative   humidity sensor is 2 m.

2.1.2.2.2 The sensor is to be located at a distance of at least two times the height of obstruction like trees, buildings etc.

2.1.2.2.3 Large paved areas, bitumen surfaces in the vicinity of at least 30 m have to be avoided.

2.1.2.3    Rainfall

2.1.2.3.1 The rainfall sensor is placed in an open area at a minimum distance of two times the height of any obstruction.

2.1.2.3.2 The standard measurement height is 30 cm above ground level.

2.1.2.3.3 In places where flooding is more, the height may be 1 m from the ground level.”

(Emphasis supplied)

From the afore-noted parameters, it is clear that the censors are to be located at a distance of at least 2 times height of obstructions.  It is the main case of the Complainants that the weather station was installed at a height of 2m on the steps of house of one Shri Manik Lomte and therefore the data collected at the station was incorrect.  Both the Fora below have relied on the certificate dated 4.10.2016 issued by the expert Nageshwar Associates, wherein it was shown that the weather station was not properly installed.  We are of the considered view that reliance can be placed on the guidelines issued by Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture on 17.2.2015, which are reproduced as under :

“This Department vide letter of even number dated 1^st March, 2012 and subsequent reminder dated 1^st April, 2013 sought comments/ views on the draft report of the Committee constituted for preparation of draft guidelines for setting up Automatic Weather Stations (AWSs) and Automatic Rain Gauge (ARGs), their accreditation, standardization, validation, quality management of weather data etc. The comments/ views submitted by different stakeholders on the aforesaid draft Report have further been examined by the Committee. The Committee has now submitted the report containing detailed Guidelines/ specifications for setting up of Automatic Weather Stations (AWSs) and Automatic Rain Gauge (ARGs) ), their accreditation, standardization, validation, quality management of weather data etc., as contained in the Section 2 of the Report. The report has also been uploaded on the website of this Department (www.agricoop.nic.in) under Guidelines/Credit Division from where it can be downloaded.

        Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme (WBCIS) is under implantation in the country since Kharif 2007 season. As per the provision of the scheme weather parameters are used as proxy for crop yields in compensating  the insured farmers for deemed crop losses. Claims to the insured farmers are being calculated/settled on the basis of weather parameters observed at notified reference Weather Stations. Due to the limited number of Weather Stations of Indian Meteorological Department (IMD), the insurance companies are depending on private data providers for weather data, who are using equipments and sensors of different makes and sensitivity. Therefore, it has become necessary to prescribe certain standards in setting p of weather stations, their maintenance, maintaining the quality of weather data, standards for dissemination, retrieval and validation of data etc. The report of the Committee which is being forwarded contains the guidelines for setting up of AWSs & ARGs.

        In view of the above, it is requested that suitable action may be initiated for implementation of the Guidelines of the Committee to ensure that Automatic Weather Stations and Automatic Rain Gauge which meet the prescribed specifications may only be notified under WBSIS from Kharif 2015 season.”

The material/evidence on record is that the Insurance Company did not discharge its onus in establishing that the weather stations were as per the specifications notified under the Scheme.

For all the afore-noted reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the just orders passed by the Fora below.  Hence, the Revision Petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.