Karnataka

Chamrajnagar

CC/62/2006

Yoganarasimhaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager - Opp.Party(s)

MR.B.A.S.

22 Jun 2006

ORDER

ORDER

 

1)     Since all these complainants have claimed insurance amount from same Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd, in respect of same Horsegram crop raised in their lands, these complaints are clubbed and consolidated together for common consideration and determination as common question of fact and law is involved  in all these cases.

 

2)     Brief facts leading to these complaints may be summarized as under.

        All these complainants who are farmers, raised Horsegram crop in their respective lands during 2002-03 Rabi season and as per Government notification they have paid prescribed premium amounts through their respective banks i.e.opposite party No.2. It is  contended that as there was drought condition in this area the entire  crop failed; the opposite parties were required to release the insurance amount within one year from the date of receiving the premium amount, but they failed to release the amount. These complainants contacted O.P.No.2-banks several times and requested to release the insurance amount, but no proper reply was given to them. These complainants have sustained mental agony and loss. Hence, they have been forced to file these complaints for recovery of insurance amount with interest and compensation for mental agony and costs of these proceedings.

 

3)         While contesting these complaints the 1^st opposite party has contended that as per the scheme, if the actual yield per hectare of the insured crop for the defined area in the insured season falls short of specified threshold  yield, all the insured farmers growing that crop in the defined area are deemed to have suffered shortfall in their yield and the scheme provides  coverage against such contingency only and as per the scheme the claims are to be settled only on the basis of yield data furnished by Director of Economics & Statistics and not on any other basis  and so the scheme does not provide for any individual coverage and a farmer is eligible for claim only when there is shortage in the yield of insured  crop in the defined area. It is further contended that both the complainants and the banks have wrongly calculated the sum insured  as well as claim and so the Bank should be held responsible as per N.A.I.S. provisions. It is further contended that when there is no shortfall of Horsegram crop in Chamarajanagar taluk,  the complainants are not entitled for the claim made by them. It is further contended that  the compensation is payable only on the basis of yield data assessed through the crop cutting experiments by the State government and claims under this scheme can be paid only on the basis of the notified area average yield for the season, assessed on the basis of crop cutting experiments and not on the basis of Annewari certificate or District gazette or yield losses in individual farms. While denying the allegations made in the complaints he has requested to dismiss all these complaints with costs as there is no deficiency in service.

 

4)     Further the opposite party no.2 banks have contended in their versions that the Bank is only custodian of money of said General Insurance Company of India and if the said company sends insurance claim amount to their customers through the Bank and gives directions to distribute the claim amount  as per insurance company calculation, then the Bank follows the directions, but G.I.C. has neither settled the claim nor sent any insurance amount in respect of claims of these complainants. It is further contented that the complaints are not maintainable either in law or on facts, because the complainants are not customers of their bank and there is no cause of action to file these complaints against them and they are not liable to pay any amount as claimed by the complainants. Thus they have requested to dismiss the complaints with costs.

        O.P. No.2 in C.C.27/2006 in spite of service of notice remained absent and therefore he is set ex-parte.

 

5)     In support of their cases the complainants  have filed their separate affidavits in each case  and  produced following documents in their respective cases.

      1) Premium paid receipt.

      2) R.T.C. extracts

      3)Government Order dated 04:10:2002 (Appendix-II) published by  Agriculture   Department.

     4) Certificate issued by Village Accountant.

     5) Insurance  Proposal Form under  National Agricultural Insurance scheme.

     6) Copy of representation to  Joint Director of agriculture, Chamarajanagar.

 

 Whereas O.P.No.1 has got filed affidavit of Smt. D.Usha, Regional Incharge,  A.I.C. of India Ltd., Bangalore in each case and produced following documents.

1. Certified copy of the order made in appeal no.1116/2004 dated 13:03:2006 by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
2. Certified copy of Report of Directorate of Economics & Statistics for the year 2002-03 and 2003-04.
3. Zerox copy of the order made in W.P.No.11213/2000 by High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
4. Zerox copy of  Judgement passed in O.P.No.11380/1985 by High Court of Kerala.
5. Zerox copy of order  made in O.P.No.41/1996 by  A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad.
6. Zerox copy of order made in CTA/DF/No.9A/2004 dated 18^th May 2004 by District Consumer Forum, Chitradurga.

 

6)     In C.C.1/2006, C.C.3/2006, C.C.52/2006, C.C.75/2006, C.C.76/2006, C.C.77/2006, C.C.78/2006, the Manager, Vijaya Bank, Kulagana Branch has  filed his affidavits separately.

 In C.C.7/2006 to C.C.17/2006, C.C.32/2006 to C.C.51/2006  and C.C.62/2006 to C.C.71/2006, the Manager, Mysore-Chamarajanagar District Co-operative Central Bank, Chamarajanagar  Branch has filed his affidavits separately.

In C.C.28/2006, C.C.29/2006, C.C.31/2006, C.C.56/2006, C.C.89/2006, C.C.90/2006, the Manager, Canara Bank, Badanaguppe Branch has filed his affidavits separately and in C.C.30/2006, C.C.53/2006 to C.C.55/2006, C.C.79/2006 to C.C.88/2006, the Manager, Canara Bank, Chamarajanagar Branch has filed his affidavits separately.

In C.C.57/2006, C.C.72/2006 to C.C.74/2006, the Manager, Cauvery Grameena Bank, Harave Branch has filed his affidavits separately.

 

7)     Heard arguments.

 

8)     In view of these rival contentions of the parties the crucial point that arises for our consideration is as under;

        “Whether the complainants prove that the opposite parties     have caused deficiency in service to them as alleged in their complaints?”

 

REASONS

9)     The opposite parties  have not disputed that these complainants are the owners of their respective lands  and raised Horsegram crop during 2002-03 Rabi season in their respective lands and paid insurance premiums as per Government Notification to O.P.No.1 through O.P.No.2.

 

10)    The complainants have alleged that the Horsegram crop failed due to drought condition in their area and suffered loss. Initially heavy burden lies on the complainants to establish that the Horsegram crop failed due to drought condition and they have suffered loss. In  order to discharge their burden the complainants have not produced any oral or  documentary evidence before this forum. Except their bald allegation in the complaints, there is absolutely  no supportive evidence to prove that the Horsegram crop failed. Under these circumstances it is impossible to believe the bare interested statement in the complaints  that the Horsegram crop failed due to drought condition. Even the complainants have not placed any  evidence to show that there was drought condition in their area during the said season.

 

11)    On the contrary O.P.No.1 has produced statement given by Directorate of Economics and Statistics in respect of  assessed yield  of Horsegram crop  during 2002-03 Rabi season, in which assessed yield of Horsegram crop in Chamarajanagar taluk is shown as 214KGs/hectare. O.P.No.1 has also produced the statement regarding number of Crop cutting experiments  planned and analysed; and assessed yield in respect of the various crops raised in Rabi season. It is seen from the statement that 18 experiments were planned and same number of experiments were analysed.

 

1. According to O.P.No.1 yield data of Horsegram crop for  Rabi season during 2002-03 and 2003-04 is as follows.

District & Taluk	Season	Crop	Thy. Yld. In Kgs/ht	Assd. Yld in Kgs/ht	Short fall
C.R.Nagar Taluk	Rabi- 2002-03	Horsegram	205	214	Nil
C.R.Nagar Taluk	Rabi 2003-04	Horsegram	194	199	Nil

It is submitted by the learned counsel for O.P.No.1 that the compensation is calculated as per formula stated below,

Short fall in yield/ Threshold yield X Sum insured=Indemnity claims.(Whereas the shortfall in yield=Threshold yield–Actual yield and sum insured is the amount of eligible coverage in the certified declaration)

And he further contended that there was no shortfall in assessed yield as compared to the respective threshold yield in case of Horsegram crop in C.R.Nagar Taluk in terms of provisions of N.A.I.S. and hence the farmers of C.R.Nagar Taluk are not eligible for crop insurance claims in respect of Horsegram crop for Rabi 2002-03 and Rabi 2003-04 season. He further contended that compensation is payable only on the basis of yield data assessed through crop cutting experiments by the State Government and the claims under this scheme can be paid only on the basis of the notified area average yield for the season, assessed and on the basis of crop cutting experiment and the scheme does not operate in favour of each individual farmer. He further contended that crop insurance claim is not payable to all persons who have paid insurance premium, unless there is a shortfall  in yield. And thus he has requested to dismiss the complaints.

 

13)    It is to be noted that National Agriculture Insurance Scheme is implemented in the country under the orders of Government of India with the active involvement of the State Government and the scheme is compulsory for loanee farmers and optional for non-loanee farmers.

 

14)    In these cases  the complainants have not clarified whether they are loanee farmers or non-loanee farmers. Be that as it may, basically the complainants have failed to establish that their Horsegram crop failed due to drought condition by producing convincing and satisfactory evidence. On the otherhand opposite party no.1 has placed documentary evidence i.e. yield data furnished by Directorate of Economics & Statistics in respect of Horsegram crop in respect of Rabi season for the year 2002-03. According to which  assessed yield of Horsegram crop is 214Kgs/hectare and the threshold yield is 205kgs/hectare and as such  there is no shortfall in the assessed yield. As against this evidence the complainants  have not placed any rebuttal evidence to prove  that the assessed yield of Horsegram crop in Chamarajanagar taluk is   not 214 Kgs/hectare  during 2002-03 rabi season. In otherwords absolutely no iota of  evidence is placed by the complainants to show that the assessed yield was less than the threshold yield and there was shortfall in the yield. As a matter of fact they have not disputed the yield data of Directorate of  Economics and Statistics in respect of Horsegram crop for the year 2002-03 during Rabi season.

 

15)    The learned counsel for the O.P.No.1 in support of his contentions has placed strong reliance on a decision made in appeal no.1116/2004 dated 13.03.2006 by our Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in which it is laid down thus,

“The case of the complainant is that  he has raised sun flower crop which has been insured with O.P. for the year 2002-03.

Before the DF the complainant has not produced any evidence to show that she had suffered failure of crop. In the absence of such proof the DF is right in dismissing the complaint. Further as per the yield data the yield from this particular Aimangala hobli where the petitioner’s land comes was 390. According to the scheme if the yield  is less than the threshold yield then only the agriculturist is entitled for compensation.

        In the instance case the threshold yield of the sun flower is  only 231 and the actual yield was 390. Even if this contention is taken into account the complainant is not entitled for any compensation. Therefore, the DF is right in dismissing the complaint. In the result the appeal is dismissed.”

 

The facts of these cases are quite similar to the facts of said decision with only difference that in these cases Horsegram crop is involved, whereas in that decision Sun flower crop  was involved.  Therefore, the said decision is squarely applicable to the facts of these cases.  In view of the said decision we agree with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for opposite parties.

 

16)    Thus on a careful examination of  entire facts, evidence and documents placed by the parties, in the light of the decision referred to above  we have no hesitation to hold that the assessed yield of Horsegram crop is more than  threshold yield during the Rabi seasons of the years 2002-03 and 2003-04 and as such there was no shortfall in the assessed  yield of Horsegram crop  and so the complainants are not eligible for any insurance claims or compensation and therefore it is found that the opposite parties have not caused any deficiency in service to the complainants and consequently these complaints are liable to be dismissed. Hence, we answer this point in the negative.

 

17)    In the result for the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following

ORDER

        All these complaints are hereby dismissed with no costs.

 

(Keep a copy of this order in each of the clubbed cases)