This C.C. came before us for hearing in the presence of Sri Gollapudi Rama Rao, Advocate for complainant, Sri G. Satya Prasad, Advocate for opposite parties No.1&2 and of Sri M. S. Raju, Advocate for opposite party No.3; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
ORDER
(Per Sri R. Kiran Kumar, Member)
This complaint is filed under section 12(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is an agriculturist and he is having lands in Nellipaka Revenue Village of Aswapuram Mandal, Khammam District to an extent of Ac.1.30 gts in Sy.Nos.899, 190/714. The complainant submitted that the opposite party No.1 is the PACS Nellipaka from which the complainant used to borrow loans for his agricultural necessities. The opposite party No.2 is the District Head of opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.3 is the Agriculture Insurance Corporation established to protect the farmers from the loss occurred due to bad weather etc., by providing insurance to various crops raised by the farmers. The complainant further submitted that he borrowed an amount of Rs.22,900/- from opposite party No.1 for his agricultural needs, according to the norms of opposite party No.3, the opposite party No.1 had deducted Rs.896/- from the complainant account and paid the same to the opposite party No.3 and also issued a letter dated 28-06-2012 for the particulars of payments. The complainant also submitted that his crop is totally damaged due to drought conditions prevailed in the villages of Aswapuram Mandal, Tahasildar, Aswapuram had issued Annewari Certificate dt.08-02-2010, stating that Paddy, Cotton and Chillies crops are damaged due to drought conditions in 11 villages in the Mandal. The complainant has raised the crop in his field in Nellipaka Revenue Village, which is the 11th village in the list given by the Tahasildar, Aswapuram. The complainant also submitted that his crop was damaged, he visited the office of opposite parties and requested to pay the insurance amount for loss of his crop, for that the opposite party No.1 replied that they forwarded the claim of the farmers to the opposite party No.3 through their concerned officers. The complainant further submitted that he repeatedly made rounds to the opposite parties but the opposite parties time to time postponed the same, ultimately the complainant vexed with the attitude of opposite parties and filed the complaint before this forum.
2. On behalf of the complainant, the following documents filed and marked as Exs.A1 to A8.
Ex.A1:-Premium payment receipt issued by opposite party No.1, dated 28-06-2012.
Ex.A2:-Photocopy of Representation dt.29-06-2012 made by the farmers to opposite party No.1.
Ex.A3:-Photocopy of Representation letter dt.30-01-2012, made by the farmers to opposite party No.1.
Ex.A4:-Photocopy of Representation letter dt.08-04-2011 made by the farmers to opposite party No.1.
Ex.A5:-Photocopy of particulars of insured farmers statement issued by opposite party No.1.
Ex.A6:-Photocopy of Annewari Certificate, dt.08-02-2010 issued by Tahasildar, Aswapuram.
Ex.A7:-Photocopy of Representation letter dt.15-06-2011 made by the farmers to opposite party No.2.
Ex.A8:-Photocopy of the certificate issued by Revenue Inspector-II, Aswapuram Mandal, Khammam District.
3. Along with this complaint, 23 consumer complaints were filed vide CC.No.50/2012 to CC.No.61/2012, CC.No.63/2012 to CC.No.72/2012, CC.No.42/2012 and CC.No.5/2013 by various farmers before this Forum against the opposite parties. And also the petitioner / complainant and other petitioners / complainants filed petition under order 11 Rule 14, prayed to direct the Joint Director and Chief Planning Officer, Khammam to submit the Panchanama Report for the Agriculture Kharif Season (2009-10) of actual yield of paddy, Chilli and Cotton crops of Nellipaka village of Aswapuram Mandal, Khammam District and the same was allowed. After considering the averments of the petitioners this Forum directed the Chief Planning Officer, Khammam to submit the Panchanama Reports of actual yield of Paddy, Chilli and Cotton crops at Nellipaka Village Area of Aswapuram Mandal of Khammam District. On receipt of notice from this Forum the Chief Planning Officer, Khammam, submitted a single report for all cases and also submitted that only paddy crop is selected under National Agriculture Insurance Scheme (NAIS) in Khammam district. The Chief Planning Officer, Khammam submitted that as per the guidelines communicated by the Directorate, D.E.S, Hyderabad, crop estimation survey was conducted in Nellipaka Village of Aswapuram Mandal during the year 2009-10 and furnished Panchanama Report pertaining to Paddy, Cotton and Chillies (crop area particulars and yield particulars of Paddy kharif 2009-10) of Nellipaka Village, Aswapuram Mandal, which is marked under Exhibit A-15 in CC.No.50/2012.
Ex.A-9:- | Photocopy of RTI Application submitted to J.D.A, Khammam dt. 05-01-2015. |
Ex.A-10:- | Photocopy of RTI Application submitted to District Collector, Khammam dt. 05-01-2015. |
Ex.A-11:- | Photocopy of Letter addressed by the Spl. Dy. Collector to the C.P.O., Khammam, dt. 16-01-2015. |
Ex.A-12:- | Photocopy of Letter addressed by the J.D.A., Khammam to the C.P.O., Khammam dt. 29-01-2015. |
Ex.A-13:- | Photocopy of Letter received from CPO/Office dt. 23-01-2015 along with statement showing Mandal /Vil/Exp wise yield particulars for the year 2009-10. |
Ex.A-14:- | Photocopy of Letter dt. 07-03-2015 submitted to District Collector by the council for complainant. |
4. On receipt of notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed counter. In their counter, the opposite parties 1 & 2 admitted the loan amount of Rs.22,900/- obtained by the complainant from the opposite party No.1. The opposite parties No.1 & 2 also submitted that the complainant is the member of Co-operative Society, Nellipaka, Aswapuram Mandal, Khammam District and he obtained crop loan from opposite party No.1, they collected the premium amount from the complainant. The opposite parties No.1 & 2 further submitted that along with other farmers, the complainant filed an application before the opposite party No.1 for the crop damage, the said application has been immediately forwarded to the office of opposite party No.3 and till today either the opposite party No.1 or opposite party No.2 not received any reply from the office of opposite party No.3 and prayed to pass award against opposite party No.3 and prayed to dismiss the complaint against them.
5. The opposite party No.3 in their counter submitted that the complaint was filed on 2nd August 2012 i.e. beyond the period of two years of availing the loan and hence barred by limitation. The opposite party No.3 also submitted that the issuance of legal notice and other correspondence made would not save the period of limitation to support their case, relied on the judgments, State Bank of India Vs B.S. Agricultural Industries II (2009) CPJ 29 (SC); Kandimalla Ragahavaiah and Company Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. III 2009 CPJ 75 (SC), Ramamadhavi Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd., IV (2011) CPJ 210 (NC); The opposite party No.3 further submitted that they are not in a position to take cognizance of the material facts about the ownership of the land, the crop cultivation details and loan availed details furnished by the complainant and also submitted that they received only consolidated declaration from the designated Nodal Banks and no individual farmer detail is provided to this opposite party No.3. The opposite party No.3 also submitted that the claims under NAIS are not settled on the basis of individual crop loss declaration, neither on declaration of drought affected areas by Gazettes notification issued by District Authorities nor Annewari Certificate as claimed by the complainant. Claims under NAIS are settled on Area Approach based on the crop yield data submitted by the Directorate of Economics and Statistics and not on the basis of Annewari Certificate/Gazette notification declaring the area as Drought/Flood/Cyclone affected etc. by the District Collectors. The opposite party No.3 also submitted that the complainant’s plea about settlement of claim based on Annewari has no relevance under National Agricultural Scheme and the case is liable to be dismissed. The opposite party No.3 further submitted that the complainant has stated of having borrowed crop loan for cultivating his crop but has not specified the crop wise quantum of loan and premium so debited and as such it is quite essential for the necessary authentication from the opposite party No.2 about the crop wise sum insured and premiums remitted since under NAIS the crop loss assessment is crop and notified area as specified.
The opposite party No.3 further submitted that the State Government has notified village as Insurance Unit for paddy crop in Khammam District. The opposite party No.3 had received 5 declarations from opposite party No.2 pertaining to Nellipaka Village in Aswapuram Mandal/ group of Mandals, as notified insurance unit for chilli irrigated, cotton irrigated as well as cotton un-irrigated crop. During Kharif 2009 season the opposite party No.2 had submitted for Aswapuram Mandal, 3 crop insurance declarations for chilly irrigated crop; 4 for cotton irrigated crop and 3 for cotton un-irrigated crop. The opposite party No.3 also submitted that, during Kharif 2009 season as per the provisions of the NAIS claims were not payable in any of the notified area of Aswapuram Mandal for any of these crops since the actual yield submitted by the Directorate of Economics and Statistics was higher than the stipulated Threshold yield and as per the scheme provisions the claims are not payable and the opposite party No.3 has acted as per the provisions of the NAIS scheme and there is no deficiency of service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6. To support their case, the opposite party No.3 relied on the judgments of Hon’ble National Commission in RP.Nos.2574 to 2584 of 2012, RP.No.3967 to 4021 of 2008, RP.No.2393 and 2394 of 2008 and WP.No.20650 of 2000 of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P.
7. On behalf of the opposite party No.3, the following documents filed and marked as Exs.B1 & B2.
Ex.B1:-Photocopy of G.O.RT No.655 Government Notification.
Ex.B2:-Photocopy of letter dt.31-05-2010 addressed by Director, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, regarding furnishing of insurance unit-wise estimates of average yields of Sugarcane(P&R), Red chillies (I&UI) and Cotton (I&UI) crops.
8. The complainant and opposite parties No.1 & 2 filed written arguments.
9. Heard oral arguments from both sides.
10. Upon perusing the material available on record, now the point that arose for consideration is,
Whether the complainant is entitled for the insurance amount from the opposite party insurance corporation?
Point: -
The case of the complainant is that he is an agriculturist having lands in Nellipaka Revenue Village of Aswapuram Mandal, Khammam District to an extent of Ac.1.30 gts in Sy.Nos.899, 190/714, he borrowed loan of Rs.22,900/- from opposite party No.1 for his agricultural needs and as per the norms the opposite party No.1 had deducted Rs.896/- from the complainant account and paid the same to the opposite party No.3. According to the complainant, his crop is totally damaged due to drought conditions prevailed in the villages of Aswapuram Mandal; Tahasildar, Aswapuram also issued Annewari Certificate dt.08-02-2010, stating that Paddy, Cotton and Chillies crops are damaged due to drought conditions in 11 villages in the Mandal. According to the complainant, as his crop is damaged, he requested the opposite parties for payment of insurance amount for loss of his crop, as the opposite parties failed to pay the insurance amount the complainant approached the Forum for redressal.
From the documents and material available one record, we observed that the complainant had taken an insurance policy from the opposite party for his Kharif crop during the year 2009-10 by paying Rs.896/- to the opposite party No.3 through opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.3 admitted the same that there is consolidated remittance of premium for farmers by Nellipaka PACS. According to the opposite parties No.1 & 2, the complainant filed an application before the opposite parties office for the crop damage and the said application has been immediately forwarded to opposite party No.3 office and till date either opposite party No.1 or opposite party No.2 not received any reply from opposite party No.3
From the above we observed that the insurance policy covered for the year 2009-10 and immediately after the damage, as the complainant approached the opposite parties No.1 & 2 and made application for claim and the same was forwarded by the opposite parties No.1 & 2 to the opposite party No.3. And also from the counter of opposite parties No.1 & 2, till date so far either the opposite parties No.1 & 2 not received any reply from opposite party No.3. As such in our opinion the objection taken by the opposite party No.3 i.e. “barred by limitation” does not arise.
And also we observed from the Scheme and Guidelines submitted by the opposite party No.3, the objects of the NAIS are,
- To provide insurance coverage and financial support to the farmers in the event of failure of any of the notified crop as a result of natural calamities, pests & diseases.
- To encourage the farmers to adopt progressive farming practices, high value inputs and higher technology in agriculture.
- To help stabilize farm incomes, particularly in disaster years.
The scheme covers following groups of farmers:-
- On a compulsory basis:- All farmers growing notified crops and availing Seasonal Agricultural Operations (SAO) loans from Financial Institutions i.e. Loanee Farmers.
- On a voluntary basis:- All other farmers growing notified crops (i.e. Non-Loanee farmers) who opt for the Scheme.
Risks covered & Exclusions:- Comprehensive risk insurance risk will be provided to cover yield losses due to non-preventable risk, viz.,
- Natural Fire and Lightning
- Storm, Hailstorm, Cyclone, Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane, Tornado etc.
- Flood, Inundation and Landslide
- Drought, Dry spells
- Pests/Diseases etc.
Losses arising out of war & nuclear risks, malicious damage & other preventable risks shall be excluded.
Sum Insured / Limit of Coverage:-
The Sum Insured SI) may extend to the value of the threshold yield of the insured crop at the option of the insured farmers. A farmer may also insure his crop beyond value of threshold yield level up to 1500 of average yield of notified area on payment of premium at commercial rates.
In case of Loanee farmers the sum Insured would be atleast equal to the amount of crop loan advanced.
Further in case of loanee farmers, the Insurance charges shall be an additionality to the scale of Finance for the purpose of obtaining loan.
In matters of crop loan disbursement procedure, guidelines of RBI/NABARD shall be binding.
Estimation of Crop Yield:-
The State/UT Govt. will plan and conduct the requisite number of crop cutting Experiments (CCEs) for all notified crops in the notified insurance units in order to assess crop yield.
The State/UT Govt. will maintain single series of crop cutting Experiments (CCEs) and resultant yield estimates, both for Crop Production estimates and Crop Insurance.
The yield date will be furnished to Implanting Agency by the State Government/UT in accordance with the cut-off dates fixed for all crops and areas notified, based on the Total No. of CCEs (being not less than the minimum prescribed) conducted.
The standard procedures for assessing the yield in respect of multiple picking crops will be prepared by Implanting Agency in consultation with the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) and circulated among implementing States/Uts.
A Committee comprising representatives of State/UT Govt. National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) and Implanting Agency will be set up at the State level to monitor/supervise and advise in matters relating to adequacy and quality of CCEs.
A Technical advisory Committee (TAC) comprising representative from NSSO, MAO and IA shall be constituted at National level to decide the sample Size of CCEs and also technical matters pertaining to Threshold Yield/Actual Yield etc.
In the present complaint, the contention of the complainant is that his crop was totally damaged due to drought conditions prevailed in the village of Aswapuram Mandal. The Tahasildar, Aswapuram had issued Annewari Certificate dated 08-02-2010, stating that paddy, cotton and chilly crops are damaged due to drought conditions in 11 villages in Mandal and to support their case the complainant filed the document which is marked as Ex.A6. But we observed from the guidelines of National Agriculture Insurance Scheme, Rule No.9 Area Approach and Unit of Insurance, the Scheme would operate on the basis of ‘Area Approach’ i.e., Defined Areas for each notified crop for widespread calamities and on an individual basis for localized calamities such as hailstorm, landslide, cyclone and flood. The Defined Area (i.e., Unit area of insurance) may be a Gram Panchayat Mandal, Hobli, Circle, Phirka, Block, Taluka, etc. to be decided by the State/UT Govt. However, each participating State/UT Govt. will be required to reach the level of gram Panchayat as the Unit in a maximum period of three years.
Individual based assessment in case of localized calamities, to begin with, would be implemented in limited areas on experimental basis, initially and shall be extended in the light of operational experience gained. The District Revenue administration will assist implementing Agency in assessing the extent of loss.
The case in hand is concerned with paddy crop in Aswapuram Mandal, Khammam district. As per the directorate of Economic and Statistics report / data to the effect that there had been no loss of crop or short fall in the yield in the area. As per the scheme guidelines the scheme in question operates in an area basis and the village is an unit for Paddy crop and the average assessed yield has to be taken into consideration based on the data brought out by the crop cutting experiments (as per Ex.A-15 marked in CC.No.50/2012). And also the complainant failed to disprove the figures given by the department were wrong without any basis.
From the documents and material available on record we are of the opinion that the data provided by the concerned department basing on the report of assessing the yield of the crop, the opposite party No.3 has taken decision about payment of compensation to the farmers / insured under the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme, in accordance with the provisions laid down under the scheme, during Kharif 2009 season. As per the provisions of National Agriculture Insurance Scheme, claims are not payable in any of the notified area of Aswapuram Mandal for any of these crops, since the actual yield submitted by the Directorate of Economics and Statistics was higher than the stipulated threshold yield and as per the scheme provisions the claims are not payable. From the above discussion, it is crystal clear that the opposite party No.3 has taken decision in accordance with the provisions laid down under the scheme, as such this point is answered accordingly against the complainant.
11. In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 8th day of November, 2017.
Member Member President
District Consumer Forum,
Khammam.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED:-
For Complainant:- For Opposite party:-
-None- -None-
DOCUMENTS MARKED:-
For Complainant:- For Opposite party:-
Ex.A1:- | Premium payment receipt issued by opposite party No.1, dated 28-06-2012. | Ex.B1:- | Photocopy of G.O.RT No.655 Government Notification. |
Ex.A2:- | Photocopy of Representation dt.29-06-2012 made by the farmers to opposite party No.1 | Ex.B2:- | Photocopy of letter dt.31-05-2010 addressed by Director, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, regarding furnishing of insurance unit-wise estimates of average yields of Sugarcane(P&R), Red chillies (I&UI) and Cotton (I&UI) crops. |
Ex.A3:- | Photocopy of Representation letter dt.30-01-2012, made by the farmers to opposite party No.1. | | |
Ex.A4:- | Photocopy of Representation letter dt.08-04-2011 made by the farmers to opposite party No.1. | | |
Ex.A5:- | Photocopy of particulars of insured farmers statement issued by opposite party No.1. | | |
Ex.A6:- | Photocopy of Annewari Certificate, dt.08-02-2010 issued by Tahasildar, Aswapuram. | | |
Ex.A7:- | Photocopy of Representation letter dt.15-06-2011 made by the farmers to opposite party No.2. | | |
Ex.A8:- | Photocopy of the certificate issued by Revenue Inspector-II, Aswapuram Mandal, Khammam District. | | |
Ex.A9:- | Photocopy of RTI Application submitted to J.D.A, Khammam dt. 05-01-2015. | | |
Ex.A10: | Photocopy of RTI Application submitted to District Collector, Khammam dt. 05-01-2015. | | |
Ex.A11: | Photocopy of Letter addressed by the Spl. Dy. Collector to the C.P.O., Khammam, dt. 16-01-2015. | | |
Ex.A12: | Photocopy of Letter addressed by the J.D.A., Khammam to the C.P.O., Khammam dt. 29-01-2015. | | |
Ex.A13: | Photocopy of Letter received from CPO/Office dt. 23-01-2015 along with statement showing Mandal /Vil/Exp wise yield particulars for the year 2009-10. | | |
Ex.A14: | Photocopy of Letter dt. 07-03-2015 submitted to District Collector by the council for complainant. | | |
Member Member President
District Consumer Forum,
Khammam.
