V/s

JUDGEMENT

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SRI. RAJU.N.METRI, MEMBER

            The complainants have filed the complaint U/Sec.35 of the C.P. Act, 2019, for a compensation of Rs.6,92,152/- with interest @18% p.a., Rs.10,000/-  towards mental agony and cost.

            2.    The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

            The complainant has sowed Maize & Greengram crops for the year 2016-17 in their dry lands as shown in the schedule and insured with Op No.3 for the yield and paid the premium for the year 2016-17 Kharif season under PMFBY.  The crops failed completely, due to shortfall of rain. The complainants have approached the OPs and requested to release the crops insurance, but it went in vain. So, Ops have committed the deficiency of service.  The complainants got issued legal notice to the OPs, calling upon them to pay the compensation.   Hence, filed this complaint.

          3.   In pursuance of service of notice, OP No.1 & 4 appeared through DGP, OP No.2 & 3  appeared through their counsel. OP No.4 was subsequently impleaded. OP No.1 & 4  filed their written versions. OP No.2 & 3 have not chosen to file their written version.  

4. The brief facts of  written version filed by OP No.1 & 4 are as under:

          OP No.1 & 4 denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants are not a consumer to this Ops, the role of this OP No.1 & 4 is only supervising power over the other Ops.  So, there is no deficiency of service. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          5. To prove the case, the complainant No.1 to 5, 7 to 10 filed their affidavit evidence and got examined as PW-1 to PW-9 and got marked the documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-24.  OPs have not chosen to file their affidavit evidence and got marked the documents as Ex.OP-1 & Ex.OP-2.

       6. Heard, the arguments on both sides.

       7.   The points for consideration to us are as under:          

1. Whether the complainants prove the deficiency of  service committed by the Ops?

2. Whether the complainants are entitled for any  
3.  

3. What Order?

    8.       Our findings on the above points are as under:

               Point No. 1:  Partly in affirmative.

               Point No. 2:  Partly in affirmative.

               Point No. 3:  As per the final Order

R E A S O N S

            9.       Point No.1 & 2:- The points are taken together to avoid the repetition of facts. The learned counsel for complainants argued that, as per evidence of PW-1 to PW-10 and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-24, complainants proved the case. Learned  DGP for OP No.1 & 4  argued that, there is no deficiency of service committed by these OPs. 

          10.     On perusal of the materials placed before us, PW-1 to PW-9 filed affidavits and reiterated the contents of the complaint. PW-1 to PW-9 have stated that, The complainants had sowed Maize & Greengram crops for the year 2016-17 in their dry lands as shown in the schedule and insured with Op No.3 for the yield and paid the premium for the year 2016-17 Kharif season under PMFBY.  The crops failed completely, due to shortfall of rain. The complainants approached the OPs and requested to release the crop insurance, but it went in vain. So, Ops have committed the deficiency of service. 

          11. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-24 are not disputed by Ops, proposal forms reveal that, complainants paid premium as shown in the schedule through OP No.2 bank Ex.Op-1 & Ex.Op-2 produced by OP No.4 for the year 2016-17 Kharif shortfall and reduction factor details for minor and major crops of Hole-Alur Hobli reveasl that, there is shortfall for Greengram and there is no shortfall for maize.

12. Ex.C-20 Appeal No.310/21 on the file of Hon’ble State Commission Bengaluru reveal that in the similar complaint No.9/20 filed by same Hobli farmers is allowed by this commission and same is confirmed by State Commission is also not disputed. Ex.C-22 order sheet of complaint No.9/20 reveals that Op No.3 complied the order and deposited the amount. Ex.C-23 copy of the complaint No.9/20, Ex.C-24 order copy of the complaint No.112/19, Ex.C-23 & Ex.C-24 copy of  complaint No. 9/20 and order copy of complaint No.112/19 and order sheet clearly goes to show that already Op No.3 compiled the order.

          Learned counsel for complainants are relying on a decision  II (2009) CPJ 1 (SC) U.T.Chandigarh Administration & Anr. V/s Amarjeet Singh & Ors. And I (2016) CPJ 6 (SC) United India Insurance Complainant. Ltd., V/s Orient Treasures Pvt. Ltd.,

Facts and circumstances of the above decision are not similar with case on hand and ratio is aptly applicable

           13.    The  Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has observed in the judgment passed in R.P. No.3551/2009 dated 08.10.2009 in the case of Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., Vs. Sharanappa S. Arakeri on the file of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, wherein it is observed as under:

As far as the merits of the Revision Petitions are concerned, we had an occasion to pass orders in similar circumstances on 22.4.2009, which reads as under:

“Since all these revision petitions involve a common question of law and interpretation of the Scheme and Guidelines of National Agriculture Insurance (N.A.I.), issued to that effect by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, we go on to dispose of these revision petitions through a common order.

Basic facts in all these revision petitions are common that the respondents/complainants owned a certain agricultural plot, where different crops were taken up for sowing by the complainants in their respective plots, for which they had taken up an insurance with the petitioner insurance company, as per Scheme of Things contained in the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme and when on account of natural calamity like shortage of rainfallordrought,thecropsdid not give the desired

yield, claims were preferred before the petitioner insurance company, which were not allowed.It is in this background that the complainants filed individual complaints before the District Forum, which were allowed.

Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed appeals before the State Commission, which were dismissed.Hence, these revision petitions before us.

It may be observed here that the petitioner before us is the Agriculture Insurance Company of India and in some cases G.I.C.It also needs to be made clear that GIC was a predecessor of Agriculture Insurance Company of India performing/engaged in the same responsibility as in the scheme of things.

The revision petitions No.1175-1206, 1265-1278, 1310-1320, 1342-1378/2009 were listed for admission hearing.Having gone through the material on record, we are admitting these revision petitions and go on to pass the order without issuing notice to the respondents/complainants as point of law involved is same and secondly, no injury is being caused to them.In case, the respondents/complainants feel aggrieved by this order, they would be free to approach this Commission for hearing the cases on merits.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents. Broadly, there are three sets of circumstances which emerge from the orders passed by the lower fora.

Firstly, we have Petitions where both the lower fora have allowed the complaints on the ground that the State Government has notified the area concerned to be ‘drought affected’.

Second set of cases are those where the District Forum hasgoneon to pass the orders without ascertaining the

declaration of ‘threshold yield levels’, which the State Government was obliged to issue and it was only based on this that the insurers could settle the claim of the complainants.In second set of cases, this was not done, yet, the District Form has gone on to pass orders in favour of the complainants.

Third set of cases are those where the complainants/insured have died and the claims were rejected on the ground that there was difference in the signatures found on the proposal form from the signatures found on Vakalatnama and other documents.Some complaints were dismissed by the District Forum on the ground that Succession Certificate has not been filed since the owner of the land who got it insured, died.In view of this, the claim has not been settled, as the land has not been transferred in the name of the LRs.

Dealing with the first set of cases, we only need to reproduce here the clarification on certain ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ and answer to that by the Ministry of Agriculture, the mother of the Scheme, forming part of the Scheme and Operational Modalities of N.A.I. Scheme.Question No.17 and answer to that, which forms part of the Scheme and Operational Modalities, reads as follows:

Q17: Whether annavari or any similar declaration/certification by the revenue or agriculture departments of the State Govt. at village/block/district level has any bearing on claim settlement?

There cannot be any doubt that the area is declared affectedby drought based on ‘annavari system’ which is

based on instructions given by the revenue department of each State keeping in view the local conditions.Question before us is that applicability of the Scheme in terms of area declared affected by drought? Like the answer given to the query above, our answer also would be ‘No’.If anyone at the District Forum or State Commission had gone through the provisions of the Scheme, it is clear that the Scheme envisages compensation for the yield differential between ‘threshold level’ as arrived at by a Committee envisages under the Scheme, and the actual yield levels on an ‘area approach’, which will be taluka/block or is equivalent.It flows from the above that mere declaration of area affected by drought would not make the insured eligible for any compensation for the simple reason that actual area-wise yield levels form the cropping season, and ‘threshold level’ declared by the State Government are the basis, and the difference between two is really compensated.This procedure has not been followed by both the lower fora, while making the petitioner liable to pay the amounts awarded in respect of each case.These orders passed in such cases cannot be sustained in view of provisions of the scheme and clarification of those schemes given by Government of India, the relevant portion of which has been reproduced earlier.

Second set of cases are, where the State Government has failed to notify ‘threshold yield’ levels, yet, the District Forum has gone on to grant the relief, which in terms of the conditions cannot be done.Taking RP No.2393-2394/2009 as a sample case in this regard, we reproduce here para 8 of the order passed by the District Forum.

“In view of the aforesaid discussion, both these appeals are partly allowed and as a result of it, while upholding the compensation awarded in favor of respondent No.1 in both these appeals, interest same is ordered to be payable at the rate of7 ½ %instead of 9% allowed.The

District Forum below from the date of complaint till the date of payment/deposit whichever is earlier, as also punitive damages in the sum of Rs.2,500/- in each complaint, are also disallowed.Subject to notification, both these appeals stand finally disposed of.”

We also like to reproduce para 13 of the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme, which reads as follows:

If the Actual yield (AY) per hectare of the insured crop for the defined area (on the basis of requisite number of Crop Cutting Experiment (CCES)) in the insured season, fails short of the specified ‘Threshold Yield’ (TY), all the insured farmers growing that crop in the defined area are deemed to have suffered shortfall in their yield.  The Scheme seeks to provide coverage against such contingency.

‘Indemnity’ shall be calculated as per the following formula.

(Shortfall in Yield/Threshold Yield) x Sum insured for the farmer.

(Shortfall in Yield = Threshold Yield – Actual Yield’ for the Defined Area)

(emphasis supplied)

          Further the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in A.No.422/2020 to 441/2020 and 472/2020 to 481/2020 by its order dated 12.01.2021 in the case of A.I.C of India, registered office, Krishi Bhavan, Bangalore, represented by its Manager Vs. Shankrappa Hanumappa Gunjal, Magadi, Shirahatti Taluk wherein it is held as under:

Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision reported in I (2017) CPJ 538 (NC)oftheHon’bleNationalConsumerDisputes

Redressal Commission in the case of Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd., Vs. Hem Shankar & another decided on 01.02.2017 wherein held claims under the scheme will be settled only on the basis of data received from crop-cutting experiments and not on any other basis such as declaration of drought, etc.Order passed by Forum below which are based on figures of damages to crop given by Revenue Department cannot be made basis for determining compensation payable to farmers.

In the above such situation, Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that District Commission failed to ascertain that in these matters appellant already settled the claim vide NEFT on 24.06.2019 and rightly paid the claim under the Government Scheme to the insured which is eligible claim amount as per the terms and conditions of the scheme.In other words, appellant settled the claims of all these respondents and calculated the compensation as per the data provided by the Directorate of Economics and Statistics.

          14.     For the above the complainants have proved the deficiency of service committed by OPs. So, they are entitled for the relief.  Accordingly, we answer point No.1 & 2 in partly affirmative.

          15.     Point No.3:-In the result, we pass the following: 

   //O R D E R//

          The complaint filed U/Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is partly allowed against OP No.3 and complaint filed against Op No.1, 2 & 4 is dismissed. 

          The complainants are entitled for the claim amount as under:-

The complainants are entitled for an interest at 9% p.a. for their respective claim amounts from the date of complaint till realization.

Further, complainants are entitled for Rs.5,000/- each towards mental agony and  Rs.1,000/- each towards cost of the proceedings.

Op No.2 is directed to pay the above claim amount within 2 months from the date of this order.

Office is directed to send the copies of this   order to the parties free of cost.

           (Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this 14^th day of October-2022)

 (Shri Raju N. Metri)       (Shri. D.Y. Basapur)         (Smt.Yashoda Bhaskar.Patil)

        MEMBER                       PRESIDENT                                   WOMAN MEMBER

-: ANNEXURE :-

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S:

PW-1 : Rudragouda Basanagouda Parasanagoudar

PW-2 : Shivaputrappa S/o Pakkirappa Kamballi

PW-3 : Basayya S/o Channayya Kappattanavar

PW-4 : Ningangouda S/o Tirakangouda Huchanagoudar @ Patil

PW-5 : Bheemavva W/o Adiveppa Handi

PW-6 : Hanumappa S/o Bheemappa Pujar

PW-7 : Basavantappa S/o Ungarappa Valikar @ Ugrappanavar

PW-8 : Laxmappa S/o Basappa Radder

PW-9 : Mahanthayya Veerabhadrayya Resmi

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1 & 2 : Postal receipts.

Ex.C-3: Postal acknowledgment.

Ex.C-4: Legal notice.

Ex.C-5 to 7 :Proposal forms.

Ex.C-8: Acknowledgment.

Ex.C-9 : Proposal form.

Ex.C-10 to 12: Acknowledgments.

Ex.C-13 &  14: Proposal forms.

Ex.C-15 : Postal acknowledgment.               

Ex.C-16 : Proposal form.

Ex.C-17 : Acknowledgment

Ex.C-18 : Death certificate

Ex.C-19 : LRs certificate.

Ex.C-20 : Copy of order Hon’ble State Commission Bengaluru appeal

               No.310/2021.

Ex.C-21 : Certified copy of order Hon’ble State Commission Bengaluru appeal

                No.2367/2017

Ex.C-22 : Certified copy of Dist. Commission, Gadag complaint No.9/2020

               order sheet.

Ex.C-23 : Certified copy of petition.

Ex.C-24 : Certified copy of judgment CC. No.112/2019.

 EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

       -NIL-

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

Ex.OP-1: 2016-17 Kharif shortfall & Reduction factor details.

Ex.OP-2 : 2016 Kharif Minor Crops.

        (Shri Raju N. Metri)    (Shri. D.Y. Basapur)   (Smt.Yashoda Bhaskar. Patil)

              MEMBER                  PRESIDENT            WOMAN MEMBER