ORDER (ORAL) Challenge in this batch of 113 Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by the Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited (for short “the Insurance Company”), Opposite Party No.1, in the Complaints filed by Respondent No.1 herein, is to the common order dated 08.09.2017, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mumbai, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeals No. 325 – 331, 333 – 365, 388 – 400, 406 – 411, 418, 419 and 431 – 482 of 2016. 2. By the impugned order, while affirming the orders dated 29.02.2016, 23.03.2016 and 27.04.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Nanded (for short “the District -2- Forum”) in Consumer Complaints No.45 to 72 of 2016, to the effect that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company on account of its failure to pay to the Complainants the full amount of compensation, due to them under the Agriculture Crop Insurance Scheme, launched by the Government of India through its Agriculture and Corporation Department, made applicable by the Government of Maharashtra, vide its Resolution dated 03.06.2014 to several Districts, including Nanded District, the State Commission has substantially reduced the amount of compensation payable under the said Scheme to the Complainants. The State Commission has directed that instead of compensation @ ₹22,000/- per hectare, as directed by the District Forum, much lesser amount towards compensation shall be payable by the Insurance Company to each of the Complainants. According to its calculation, the amounts of balance compensation payable to each of the Complainants, except three Complainants, is between ₹757/- and ₹4432/-. In the three cases, the maximum balance amount directed to be paid is in the range of ₹8,000/-. 3. Answering the question whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company, in the affirmative, the State Commission has observed as follows: “complainants allegations’ of deficiency in service against the opponent insurance company are mainly based on -3- two grounds i.e. failure to pay the insurance amount within the stipulated period of 45 days from the last coverage date of the insurance policy and secondly it has not followed the guidelines issued by Government of Maharashtra while setting of automatic weather stations (AWS) which resulted into incorrect rainfall data which further led to assessment of meagre amount of insurance as stated to have been deposited by the opponent insurance company in their bank accounts. As per directions issued by Government of Maharashtra vide clause No.14(4) of its resolution dated 3.6.2014, amount of insurance required to be paid within 45 days from the last date of insurance covering period. However, in the present case though the opponent insurance company has not clarified the date of depositing the insurance amount in the account of complainant. However, according to the contention of complainants no insurance amount was paid to them till filing of consumer complaint before Dist. Consumer Forum. It reveals that all the complainants pertaining to the present appeals were filed before the Dist. Consumer Forum in somewhere month of December 2015 & January 2016. This allegation of complainants is not countered by the opponent insurance company with any cogent evidence and therefore we have no reason to disbelieve the contention of complainants. Secondly, as per the Clause 3 of the said Government Resolution action regarding establishment of automatic weather stations was to be taken by opponent insurance company. Further as per Clause No.16(1) of the same Government Resolution dated 3.6.2014 it is specifically directed while establishing automatic weather stations they should fulfil the parameters as fixed by Meteorological Department of India. However, there is no any explanation or certification from the expert that automatic weather station were established as per the guidelines given by Meteorological Department. Thus, it can be concluded that the opponent insurance company has committed deficiency in service.” (emphasis supplied) 4. Hence the present Revision Petitions. 5. Assailing the decisions by the Fora below, Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has vehemently urged that the orders are vitiated mainly on the grounds: (i) in the absence of any plea in the Complaints about the non- installation of the Automatic Weather Stations, strictly as per the -4- Government Resolution/Guidelines, the Fora below was estopped from adjudicating the said issue; (ii) no opportunity was granted to the Insurance Company to rebut the material relied upon by the Fora below for arriving at the conclusion that there was omission on the part of the Insurance Company in relying upon a particular data, to determine deficient shortfall in rain, which was not even filed by the Complainants in the first instance; (iii) the finding returned by the Fora below that the Automatic Weather Stations (AWS) data had not been rebutted by the Insurance Company, is also unjustified as no opportunity for the said purpose was granted to the Insurance Company; and (iv) the Fora below have also failed to take into consideration the Certificate and the Affidavit filed on behalf of National Collateral Management Services Limited, relating to the installation of the AWS, certifying that while installing the same, all the standard operating procedures, which in turn were drawn from WMO/IMV standards had been taken into consideration. 6. Having bestowed our consideration to the facts at hand, we are of the view that although, prima facie the afore-noted contentions may require deeper scrutiny at some point of time but in the present cases, regard being had to the balance paltry amounts determined by the State Commission as payable to the Complainants, varying between ₹757/- to ₹4432/-, except in three cases, wherein the maximum balance amount directed to be paid is in the range of ₹8,000/-, it would be travesty of justice to interfere in these cases and subject the poor farmers to unwarranted harassment by making them travel all the way -5- from a far flung area in Maharashtra and defend the award of the afore-stated amounts of compensation. Besides, issue of notice in these Revision Petitions for adjudication on the afore-noted contentions would also involve payment of substantial amounts by the Insurance Company, towards the travel and allied expenses to each of the Complainants, which would be many times more than the total amount of the compensation payable to the Complainants, under a Social Security Scheme. 7. For the afore-said reasons, we decline to entertain these Revision Petitions and dismiss the same, by keeping open the afore-noted contentions strenuously urged on behalf of the Insurance Company, for being decided in an appropriate case. | 
