These 18 revision petitions have been filed against the order of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, pronounced on 19.1.2011 in which 18 appeals, filed by the Agricultural Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as AICI) were disposed of. The State Commission has dismissed all appeals and confirmed the orders issued in the concerned complaints by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gadag District. Both fora had allowed the complaints of the concerned farmers. 2. All complaints arose from the alleged failure of kharif crops in various Taluks of Gadag District due to sever incidence of drought in crop year 2003-04. The case of the complainants was that their crops were insured against such failures and requisite insurance premia had been paid by them. But, their claims were rejected. As seen from the record, the crop insurance scheme operates in notified areas of the State for individual notified crops, if the actual yield falls below the threshold level. 3. The claims under the scheme were rejected by the AICI, allegedly on the ground that there was no shortfall in average yield of the concerned crops, when compared with the threshold yield. The threshold yield is itself calculated on the basis of average yield of past 3 to 5 years, as per data supplied by the Directorate of Economics Statistics, Government of Karnataka District Forum rejected the contention of the AICI observing that— “The threshold Yield (TY) of guaranteed yield for crop in an Insurance Unit shall be the moving average based on past three years average yield in case of Rice and Wheat and five years average yield in case of other crops, multiplied by the level of indemnity on payment of additional premium based on actuarial rates. The above guidelines are important in the sense that to pay or decline compensation is based on procedure followed by statistical department. The Statistical Department has not given 3 years or 5 years Threshold Yield for the year 2003-04 as stated in paragraph 12 & 13. Hence in absence of CCE reports or Threshold Yield by Statistical Department, we are compelled to open against AIC that they have committed deficiency of service.” 4. Non submission of documents relating to determined threshold yields is exactly the ground on which the State Commission has dismissed the appeals filed by the AICI. It has observed:- “It is seen from the impugned order that the appellant/OP has not produced any documents with regard to the thrush hold yield for the earlier period of three years that is for during the year 2003-04. But the DF also relied upon the decisions of the National Commission this regard and observed that the Insurance Company has not produced any relevant documents to show that there is no deficiency in service on its part.” 5. We have heard Mr. Arvind Gaur, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, AICI at length and carefully perused the records of the case. The purpose, content and operating parameters of the scheme of agricultural crop insurance have been explained in detail in the Revision Petition. We however, find that the petition is totally silent on the evidence of threshold yields. It does not respond to the categorical finding of the District Forum that despite clear opportunity to the District Statistical Officer, no evidence was produced on the average threshold yields of the concerned crops. Learned Counsel too failed to point out what evidence had been led before the district Forum on this issue. 6. Therefore, we find ourselves in agreement with the fora below that in the absence of evidence on determined threshold yields, the rejection of the insurance claims cannot be sustained. The Revision Petitions are held to be devoid of any merit and are dismissed as such. | 
