(Delivered on 07/12/2018)

PER SHRI B.A. SHAIKH, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.

1.         This appeal is filed by the original opposite  party (for short O.P.) No. 1  feeling aggrieved by an  order dated 22/07/2014 passed by the District Consumer Forum,  Amravati    in   consumer complaint  No. 146/2013, by which  the said  complaint   has been partly allowed.

2.         The facts in brief giving rise  the  present appeal are as under.

a.         The original complainant  Nos. 1&2, who are the respondent Nos. 1&2 herein  are the owners of the  agricultural  land described in complaint  at situated in  Morshi Taluka. The  original O.P. No. 1/appellant herein is the agricultural  insurance company.  The original O.P.No. 2/ respondent No. 3 herein  is  the Amravati District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. , Branch Lehegaon, Tah. Morshi, District  Amravati. The respondent Nos. 1&2 had insured their  orange  crop under “Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme” (WBCIS) by  paying  required  premium  to the appellant  through  the respondent No. 3. The respondent Nos. 1&2 suffered  loss in the said crop as covered  under the said  scheme. The appellant  repudiated  their claim made by them under said scheme. Therefore, they filed  consumer complaint before the District Forum  against the appellant  and respondent No. 3 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking  direction  to the appellant  and respondent No. 3  to pay them compensation  of Rs. 24,000/- per Hector of land   towards  loss  sustained by them in phase No. 1 and also to pay them further compensation  of Rs. 12,000/- per Hector of land   towards loss sustained  by them  in phase No. 2. They further  prayed  that  the appellant  and respondent No. 3 be directed to  pay further  compensation  of Rs. 25,000/- for  physical and mental harassment  and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-. They thus claimed  total amount  of Rs. 1,32,000/- with interest at the rate of  18% p.a.

3.         The appellant / original  O.P.No. 1 filed  reply to the said  complaint  and thereby resisted the same.  Its main  submission  in reply was   that  the agricultural  land of the complainant was situated  under revenue  circle  Dhamangaon-Katpur and same was  not  included in the  list  of  revenue circle  mentioned in  list annexure-A of the circular of the said  insurance scheme and  therefore the respondent Nos. 1&2 were not eligible to  get benefit  of the  said insurance scheme.  Hence,  their claim was  rejected by the appellant. Thus  it was prayed  by the appellant that  the complaint  may be dismissed.

4.         The respondent No. 3 herein /original O.P.No. 2 also filed separate  reply to the complaint  and thereby resisted  it. The sum and substance  of the submission  of the respondent No. 3 is that  the agricultural  land of the respondent Nos. 1&2 falls within its territorial  limits and therefore, the premium paid by the respondent Nos. 1&2 was deposited  with it as per the Government Scheme. Moreover, the respondent No. 3 forwarded  the said premium  along with  premiums of other agriculturists  to the appellant as per aforesaid scheme.  However,  the  names of the respondent Nos. 1&2 were not included in  the list of the beneficiaries  under the said scheme and hence, no amount  was deposited  in their bank account through  the appellant. Thus, stand taken  by the respondent No. 3 in its reply was that  it is  not liable  to pay any benefits under that scheme to the respondent Nos. 1&2 . Hence, it   prayed  that  the complaint may be dismissed  as against  it.

5.         The District Consumer Forum ,Amravati  after hearing both the parties and considering evidence brought  on record  did not agree with the  stand taken in reply  by the appellant/ original O.P.No. 1  as above and  held that the Annexure –A  filed by the appellant  cannot be believed  as it does not bear  signature of anybody and it cannot be said that  the  said  Annexure –A  is the  part of the aforesaid scheme  of the Government. Moreover, the learned  Forum  below also held that  the  land situated  in  Morshi Taluka is  covered  under the aforesaid scheme , as per  circular  of the Government  filed by the complainant and  that  as per that  circular  it was decided  that  the  compensation  will be paid to the agriculturist  in case of  increase of the temperature  recorded  by  environment  centre as mentioned   in the said  circular. The Forum  below also observed  that the  respondent Nos. 1&2 are entitled  to get reimbursed  their  loss sustained  by them in phase 1 as  temperature  recorded  in phase 1 from 22 to 31 March 2012 was from 40.5 degree Celsius   to 42 degree Celsius which was covered under the  said scheme. The Forum below also held that  the required temperature  was not  found during  the  phase 2 of that  particular area  for the period  from 01/04/2012 to 31/05/2012 and hence,  the respondent Nos. 1&2 are not entitled  to claim  reimbursement  of loss of  phase 2. The Forum below  assessed the loss of  the respondent Nos. 1&2 towards phase 1 at Rs. 24,000/- per hector . The  Forum also  concluded that  the respondent Nos. 1&2 suffered the said loss of 2 hector  in orange crop. Therefore,  the Forum below directed  the original O.P. No. 1/appellant  herein  to pay to the respondent Nos. 1&2 herein /original complainants   compensation of Rs. 48,000/- towards loss sustained  by them in phase 1  and further  directed  to pay  Rs. 5000/- to  each of the respondent Nos. 1&2 for physical and mental harassment and litigation cost of Rs. 4000/-. The  Forum below  also directed the appellant /original O.P.No. 1 to comply  with the said  directions within 30 days from the date of  receipt of copy  of the said order and in case of default, to pay interest  over  the  said amount  with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.  The Forum  below passed no order against the respondent No. 3 herein /original O.P.No. 2

6.         Thus, feeling  aggrieved by the said order  the original O.P.No. 1 has filed this appeal. We have heard   Advocate Mr. H.N. Verma appearing for the appellant  and Advocate Ms. Arpana Kabra appearing  for the  respondent Nos. 1&2. No one for the  respondent No. 3  remained  present  for oral submission  at the time of final hearing.  We have also perused  the record and proceedings of the appeal.

7.         The learned advocate of the  appellant /original O.P.No. 1 during the course of  hearing  has drawn  our attention  to the  circular of the  Government  of Maharashtra  in support of his  submission  that  the Forum  below  failed to  consider  the  “Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme” (WBCIS), 2011-2012, which was implemented  on  pilot basis  in very limited areas in the State of Maharashtra  as  the same was  under testing .  Thus, according to him , the Government of Maharashtra  provided names of revenue circles  where the said  insurance scheme  was to be  implemented. He has also  drawn our attention  to the circular dated 05/11/2011 issued to all  Nodal banks.  Alongwith the said  circular , a crop wise  list  of revenue circles is  annexed as annexure A. He also  argued that  in Amravati District, the revenue circles  namely Morshi, Siddhpur, Nirpingle were only covered  in the “Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme” (WBCIS), but  the agricultural  land of the respondent Nos. 1&2 was situated in  revenue Circle namely  Dhamangaon-Katpur, which was not covered  under the  scheme  called as WBCIS. Thus, he tried  to justify the rejection of the claim of the  respondent Nos. 1&2 and submitted that  the Forum below  has not  considered  these material aspects  and erred  in partly allowing the  complaint  as above. Hence, he requested that the impugned order may be set aside.

8.         On the other hand, the learned advocate of the  respondent Nos. 1&2 supported the impugned order and  relied  on annexure A of the circular dated 04/11/2011 in which there is entry  at Sr. No. 3 relating to the coverage of orange  crop  at Warud, Achalpur, Chandur Bazar and Morshi Talukas of Amravati District. He also submitted that  admittedly the  insurance premium  was paid by the respondent Nos. 1&2 through  respondent No. 3 to the appellant  and  when the orange crop of entire  Morshi Taluka was covered  under above  scheme (WDCIS) then Forum below has rightly held that  the appellant is  liable to reimburse the loss sustained by the respondent Nos. 1&2. Hence, she requested that  the appeal may be dismissed .

9.         The learned advocate of the respondent Nos. 1&2 relied on the decisions  in the following  cases.

i.          Agricultural  Insurance  Co. of India Vs. Smt. Saraswati Sharma and another decided by the  Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes  Redressal Commission, as per  order  dated 10/04/2013. In that case  the District Consumer Forum  had allowed  the complaint  for loss  caused to the affected  crop  under National  Agricultural  Insurance  Scheme (NAIS). The learned State Commission  confirmed  the said order in appeal.

ii.          The Divisional  Manager, Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Vs.  N. Seetharama Reddy and another, decided by learned A.P. State Commission, Hyderabad. In that case  the complaint was  partly allowed by the District Consumer Forum. Therefore, the appeal was filed  before the  learned State Consumer  Commission. It was  contended by the appellant  that  the scheme  does not  cover  crop loss suffered by any  individual  farmer.  However,  the appeal was allowed by modifying  the order of the Forum by reducing compensation of   Rs. 80,000/- to  Rs. 23,000/- and other reliefs  granted  by the District Consumer Forum, were  confirmed.

10.       We thus find that  the material  issue involved  in the present matter is as to whether the   “Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme” (WBCIS) implemented  by the Government of Maharashtra  in the year 2011-2012 had covered  the orange  crop  loss of entire  Morshi  Taluka of Amravati District, in which  taluka the land of the respondent Nos. 1&2 was situated.  The circular dated 04/11/20111 issued by the Government  of Maharashtra  filed on record is relating to the implementation of the aforesaid scheme  called as  “Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme” (WBCIS). Its annexure –A  shows the entry regarding  the coverage of orange crop talukas namely  Warud, Achalpur, Chandur Bazar and Morshi. The land of the respondent Nos. 1&2 admittedly  is situated  in Morshi Taluka. Therefore,  the loss suffered  by them was covered  under the said scheme.

11.       The appellant has relied  on letter dated 05/11/2011 issued by it to all  Nodal Banks  giving  details of the scheme  and also providing annexure –A to those Nodal Banks showing  the list of revenue circles. As per annexure- A of the said letter  dated 05/11/2011  only  three revenue circles  namely Morshi, Sidhapur and  Nirpigle of of Morshi Taluka of Amravati District  were covered under the  said scheme.  However, the Forum has rightly disbelieved  the said  list when it was  not duly certified or attested  by any  government  authority.  Therefore,  we also hold  that  the repudiation  of the claim of the respondent Nos. 1&2 by the appellant  on the ground  that  their  agricultural  land was  not covered  under the aforesaid  scheme is  illegal.

12.       We thus hold that  the Forum  below has rightly  held that  the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are  entitled  to compensate their  loss under the said  scheme. Moreover,  the Forum below  has rightly held  that  the respondent Nos. 1&2  suffered loss of Rs. 48,000/- & that  they are  entitled  to said  amount of Rs. 48000/-  with further compensation  of Rs. 10,000/- for physical  and mental harassment  and litigation cost of Rs. 4000/-. The Forum  also  directed the appellant  that  the said amount be paid  within 30 days  from the receipt of copy of the impugned order  and in case  of default  it would carry interest  at the rate of 9% p.a.

13.       We thus find  no substance  in this appeal and it deserves to be dismissed.

ORDER

i.          The appeal is dismissed.

ii.          No order as to cost in appeal.

iii.         Copy of order  be  furnished to both parties, free of cost.