JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner present. 2. According to the Registry, there is a delay of 494 days. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a delay of 465 days. He has moved an application for condonation of delay. In the said application, the petitioner has explained that he is a poor farmer and had lost his seasonal crop of worth in lakhs and was not having any source to repay the loan. 3. On 10.1.2013, he went into trauma and after recovery from the same, he participated in the legal aid and legal awareness programme conducted by Trichirapalli District Legal Services Centre. An application was moved. The Secretary sent the letter to High Court legal Services Committee, Chennai. The High Court sent the letter to the Superintendent Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. The Supreme Court showed its displeasure in entertaining the request of the petitioner and explained that it does not provide legal services for the National Consumer Disputes -3- Redressal Commission, New Delhi. Again, the Secretary, New Delhi called the petitioner to meet him. The Supreme Court requested the Secretary, legal services to provide him with a legal aid. Reminder was sent. The High Court made a request to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority. The petitioner was called for discussion. There was no response. The letter was written to Hon’ble Chief Justice of India but there was no response. 4. Ultimately his co-villager as per the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. learned counsel Shri S. Mahendru himself, agreed to contest his case on his request free of charge. 5. Application for condonation of delay clearly goes to show that free copy was sent on 21.6.2012. It was sent by post and the petitioner must have received it within 2-3 days but the contention is that he had received it on 21.7.2012 but there is no evidence to show that he had received the copy on 21.7.2012. From 21.6.2012 to 10.1.2013, the petitioner did not take any action. This shows negligence, inaction and passivity on his part. For the six months, he did not engage his counsel. He applied for legal aid in the year -4- 2013 after the expiry of 7 months. The day to day delay has not been explained. 6. Again the petitioner applied before the Legal authority and legal authority sent the application to High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court. This is delaying tactic. The legal aid can be granted only by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. He could have engaged his counsel or prayed for legal aid at the early movement. There is huge delay and cannot be condoned. This view is supported by decision in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108 and Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361; Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others AIR 1977 Supreme Court 122 and Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. 2012 (1) SCR 1045. 8. Consequently, we dismiss the revision petition on the ground of limitation. -5- 9. Now we turn to the merits of this case. On merits, the State Commission in its order went on to hold: “5. Admittedly, the respondent/complainant had insured with the 1st opposite party under the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme and he had raised the notified Banana crop during the period of insurance during Rabi 2004 – 05 in his land located in Trichy District. Ex. A1 confirms that the complainant had insured with the 1st opposite party on payment of premium with the 2nd opposite party. 6. According to the appellant/1st opposite party and as seen from the records, the claim will be settled only based on the results of crop cutting experiments conducted by the State Government in the notified area in every season and the data furnished by the State Government to assess the actual crop yield per hectare for each notified crop in the notified area and if it falls short of the threshold guaranteed yield all the insured farmers -6- raising the crops in that area would be eligible for indemnification. These rules and regulations are found in Ex.B1, “the Scheme and Guidelines/National Agriculture Insurance Scheme” issued by the Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Ex. B2 is the result of the Rabi banana under National Agriculture Insurance Scheme 2004 – 05 (annual), according to which the estimated average yield – KG / Hectare for the relevant Trichrapalli District is 35,908.775; and as per Ex.B3 which is the Threshold Yield Statement issued by the General Insurance Corporation of India/National Agriculture Insurance Scheme, the relevant threshold yield is 33477. Therefore, evidently, there is no shortfall in the yield in Trichy District as per the notification and therefore the complainant is not entitled to claim under the policy. It is to be noted that taking into account the area, the complainant is -7- not entitled to the benefits under the policy and he cannot claim under the policy individually.” 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no notification but merely a letter was produced. That does not make any difference. The petition is barred by time and is also dismissed on merits. | 
