Complainant/s:            1. Shri. Mallappa S/o Bharmappa Bisanalli, Age:45 Yrs, Occ:Agril.

                                            R/o Haitapur Tq:Mundaragi     

                                            Dist:Gadag.

                                            (Rep. by Sri.M.B.Nadagoudra, Advocate)  

V/s

JUDGMENT

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

          The complainant has filed the complaint U/Sec.12 of the C.P. Act 1986, for claiming crop loan insurance assured amount of Rs.2,06,750.60 with an interest @ 18%, towards mental agony Rs.10,000/- and cost.

             The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

          2.       The complainant had sowed Onion and Red Chilli crops in 2017-18 Kharif season in his dry land bearing Sy. No.82/2 measuring 8-02 Acres, situated at Hytapura village of Mundargi Tauluk and insured the said crop with OP No.1 for the yield and paid the total premium amount through OP No.3 for the year  2017-18 for Kharif season under PMFBY.  Government declared as drought area due to failure of rain and  he suffered loss of the crops. The complainant got issued legal notice to the OPs calling upon them to pay the compensation.  So, there is a deficiency in service committed by the OPs. Hence, filed this complaint.

          3.   In pursuance of service of notice, OP No.1 and 3 appeared through their counsels and filed written version.  OP No.2 appeared through DGP and OP No.1 filed affidavit evidence.

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

          OP No.1 denied the various allegations and contended that,  as per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall as shown in detail at  para No.2 & 3.  Hence, claim is not settled.  So, there is no deficiency of service. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

5. The brief facts of  written version filed by OP No.2 are as under:

          OP No.2 denied the various allegations and contended that, complainant is not a consumer to this Op, the role of this OP, is only supervising power over the other Ops.  So, there is no deficiency of service. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          6. The brief facts of  written version filed by OP No.3 are as under:

          OP No.3 denied the various allegations and contended that, they are acting as collecting agent and mediator between the complainant and OP No.1. They have received proposal forms for premium amount and submitted to OP No.1.  They are not responsible and no deficiency of service is committed by this OP No.3. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

         7.  To prove the case, complainant filed affidavit and was examined as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9.  OP No.1 has  filed affidavit evidence and got marked the documents as Ex.Op-1 &  Ex.
Op-2. OP No.2 & 3 have not chosen to file affidavit evidence.

                8.           Heard, the arguments on both the sides. 

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

1) Whether the complainant proves the

deficiency of service committed by OPs?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled for

                3)  What Order?

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

              Point No. 1:  Negative.

              Point No. 2:  Negative.

              Point No. 3:  As per the final Order

          REASONS

           11.    Point No.1 & 2:- The points are taken together to avoid the repetition of facts. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that, as per the affidavit of complainant and documents, complainant is entitled for the relief.  The learned DGP and counsel for OP No.1 and 3 argued that, complaint is not maintainable, as there is no shortfall.

          12.     On perusal of the materials placed before us, PW-1 has filed affidavit and reiterated the contents of the complaint. PW-1 has stated that, the complainant had sown Onion and Red Chilli crops in 2017-18 Kharif season in his dry land bearing Sy. No.82/2 measuring 8-02 Acres, situated at Hytapura village of Mundargi Tauluk and insured the said crop with OP No.3 for the yield and paid the total premium amount through OP No.3 for the year  2017-18 for Kharif season under PMFBY.  The complainant got issued legal notice to the OPs calling upon them to pay the compensation.  So, there is a deficiency in service committed by the OPs.

13.     Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 documents are not disputed by the Ops. Ex.C-1 Proposal form issued by Op No.3 reveals that premium paid by complainant for Onion and Red Chilli are for rainfed. In crop name column specifically mentioned as Onion (R) and Red Chilli (R). Accordingly, Ex.C-2 RTC also reveals as dry land.  Accordingly, Ops considered the premium for rainfed. It is not the case of complainant that, Op consider for irrigation instead of rainfed.

14. RW-1 filed affidavit for OP No.1 and reiterated the contents of written version. RW-1 has stated that, OP No.1 denied the various allegations and contended that,  as per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall as shown in detail at  para No.2 & 3.  Hence, claim is not settled.  So, there is no deficiency of service.Ex.Op-1 annexure-1 (Onion RF) reveals that there is no shortfall.  Ex.Op-2 is a letter of authority.

15. Ex.Op-1 & 2 are latter issued by Joint Director of Agriculture to Asst. Director of Agriculture and are not disputed by the complainant. Ex.Op-3 2017-18 Kharif AY-TY and shortfall details clearly goes to show that for Kharif season of Dambal Hobli there is no shortfall. So Ex.Op-3 corroborates with the main contention taken by Op No.1 that there is no shortfall and thereby no deficiency of service is committed by OP No.1.

16. It is pertinent to note here that, in similar complaint filed in CC.No.107/2020, the documents were summoned from the Dist. Statistical office to verify whether crop cutting experiments were conducted or not as alleged by the complainant.  Today, the said case is posted for judgment. Wherein, it is observed as under:

“Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-51 are produced by statistical department reveal that Ops have adopted the crop cutting experiments as per guidelines. Ex.Op-1 & 2 are latter issued by Joint Director of Agriculture to Asst. Director of Agriculture and are not disputed by the complainant. Ex.Op-3,  2017-18 Kharif AY-TY and shortfall details clearly goes to show that for Kharif season of Dambal Hobli there is no shortfall. So Ex.Op-3 corroborates with the main contention taken by Op No.1 that there is no shortfall, thereby no deficiency of service is committed by OP No.1.

In the additional affidavit filed by the complainant on 26.07.2022 and contended that, Ops did not visit the lands of farmers, not issued mahazor,  and not taken the signature but made the crop cutting experiment sitting in the office. Of course this contention is neither pleaded in complaint nor previous affidavit filed on 13.11.2020. Complainant summoned the documents Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-51 from Dist. Statistical officer. Ex.C-10 and Ex.C-11 affidavit filed by Dist. Statistical officer clearly goes to show that, at the time of crop cutting experiments they have followed the guidelines. It is true that, Op No.2 Deputy Commissioner declared the Dambal Hobli as drought. If, government declared the drought area, compensation will be payable to all farmers, whether they have paid insurance or not. So far as crop insurance is concerned Ops have to adopt the guidelines taking into average 5 years yield. In Ex.C-10 specifically its answered that, drawing panchanama is not mandatory except zero yield of crop, further stated that, they have orally intimated the concerned farmer to be present at the time of crop cutting experiment and separate notice need not be issued. Ex.C-12 to Ex.C-51 reveals the signature of original person of conducting the crop cutting experiment.

The main contention of Op No.1 is that there was no shortfall as per yield data report issued by statistical department. In the written version filed by Op No.1 shown the threshold yield, assessed yield and shortfall for the year 2017-18 for Kharif season, there is no shortfall. Ex.OP-1 reveals that there is no shortfall for the year 2017-18. Mere, allegation made in the complaint, without producing documentary evidence to show that there is a shortfall, they cannot be entitled for the reliefs”.

17. Learned counsel for complainant is relying on a decision (2016) CPJ 6 (SC) in United India Insurance Company Ltd., V/s Orient Treasures Pvt. Ltd., Wherein, it is held that, where there is a ambiguity in the policy the Court will apply contra proferentem rule.

Facts and circumstances of above decision is not applicable to case on hand as there is no ambiguity.

Further, relying Silor Associates Sa V/s Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd., Ravindra Bal Niketan Samiti V/S Smt.Sushila Shrivastava and Anr.

Facts and circumstances of above decision is not applicable to case on hand as there is no ambiguity.

18.     It is pertinent to note here that, 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:

13. NATURE OF COVERAGE AND INDEMNITY

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.

          19.     For the above, complainant has failed to prove that, OPs have committed deficiency of service and he is entitled for the relief.   Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 and 2 in the negative.         

          20.     POINT NO. 3: In the result, we pass the following:

//O R D E R//

              The complaint filed U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is dismissed.No order as to costs.

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

            (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 30^th  day of September- 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: Shri. Mallappa S/o Bharmappa Bisanalli

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1 : Proposal form

Ex.C-2: RTC

Ex.C-3 to 5: Postal receipts

Ex.C-6 to 8: Postal Acknowledgements

Ex.C-9: Legal Notice

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

RW-1 : Shivanand M.Mudhol

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

Ex.OP-1: Annexure-1 Application No.926292, 1112819 & 1265100

              (Onion RF)

Ex.OP-2 :Letter of Authority dtd:13.01.2021.

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

        MEMBER                 PRESIDENT              WOMAN MEMBER