Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/248/2018

Sri B.M.Amruthesh, S/o B.M.Eshwaraiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, AIG System computer Training Centre, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Ashok.V

23 Jun 2020

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:03/12/2018

DISPOSED      ON:23/06/2020

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

CC. NO:248/2018

DATED: 23^rd  June 2020

PRESENT :-     Smt. H.N. MEENA.                            …. PRESIDENT

                                B.A., LL.B.,               

                             Smt. B.H. YASHODA                         ....MEMBER

                     B.A., LL.B.,

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	Sri. B.M. Amruthesha, S/o b.M.Eshwaraiah, Aged 49 years, Agriculturist, R/o Nayakanhatti Vilalge,Challakere Taluk, ChitradurgaDistrict. (Rep., by Sri.Ashok V. advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTY	1. The Manager, E-Tech Computers, Achar Complex, Terubeedi, Nayakanahatti, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District. (Rep., by Sri. P. Leeladhara Thakur for Op.1)   2.  The Manager, Universal Shampo General Insurance Company Limited, 3rd Floor , Samart, 217/A  3rd main road, Outer Ring Road, Kasturi Nagara, Bengaluru-560 043. (Rep., by Sri. K.M Mohan Bhat for OP.2 Advocate )

Pronounced on 23^rd June 2020

Written by Smt. H.N. MEENA, President.

ORDERS

1.    This is a complaint of alleged deficiency of service filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 by Smt. B.M. Amruthesha,   the Complainant against the Opposite parties (for short ‘OP’) praying to compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony, and great financial loss with 18% interest p.a and Rs. 18,211 and 19,575/- for insurance premium assured amount,  cost of the proceeding - etc.

The complaint:-

2.  The case, in brief of the complainant is he is an agriculturist, having land to an extent of 1acre 00 guntas out of Sy. No.555/1, 2) Sy No. 237/2 1 Acre measuring 1 acre 03 guntas, in Nayakanahatti Village,  Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District, and she used to grow commercial crop such as ground nut, in the year 2017-18 he has sown the ground nut, Sunflower, Musukina Jwala in the above said land by investing Rs. 30,000/- per acre. 

3.  It is the further case of the complainant that he opened a SB A/C at PKGB Bank, Mallurahalli  Branch and he insured his crops under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bheema Yojana for a sum of Rs.18,211 and 19,575/-  premium of Rs. 391.50 and 364.23 paid by way of cash on  04/08/2017 and the same was sent to OP 2 through OP 1. The OP 2 agreed to pay the insured amount in case crop is destroyed due to failure of rainfall or natural calamities and other reasons.

4.  The complainant further submits that the concern authorities have declared that various Districts, taluks in Karnataka State are fallen under draught including the area of Challakere Taluk, the complainants’ crop also extensively damaged due to drought conditions, prevailing in the village.

5.  The complainant further stated that as per PMFBY scheme introduced by the State Government, the damage has to be paid to the insured immediately after announcement of percentage of damage caused to the crop. The main aim of the scheme is protect the formers from natural calamities, but there is no response from the Ops in payment of compensation even after making so many rounds, due to which the complainant suffered a lot, for payment of compensation and insurance amount, represented the matter to the Ops through legal notice on 24/09/2018 by informing of crop caused due to drought conditions, As there is no response, the present complaint filed by the complainant for the relief.

6.      After hearing on admission the complaint was admitted and  notice were ordered to be issued to the OPs  to file their written versions under section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( in short “the Act) . The OP 1 and 2  have appeared through their counsel and filed written version.

Defense:

7.  In its counter OP 2  submitted that, the complainant paid premium of Rs. 364.23/- and 391.50  to cover groundnut  crop for a sum of Rs.18,211.50 State Govt in Samrakshne portal 2017 mentioned that in Chitradurga Dist, Challakere Taluk Nayakanahatti   G.P.,  Groundnut Threshold Yield is 1308.78 and CCE Actual yield is 2033.94 and excess/shortfall is -55.406944 entered. As per data given by Govt, there is no losing of crops in the said village in the year 2017. On verification of  application of complainant, is shows that, CCE yield is higher than the threshold yield, hence there is no crop loss of the former and no claim is reflected in the portal. Accordingly, the OPs are not liable to pay compensation. He further contended that PMFBY is being implemented in the country under the orders of Government with the object of, to provide insurance coverage and financial support to the formers in the event of failure of any of the notified crop as a result of natural calamities, pests and diseases, to stabilize the income of former to ensure their continuance in farmer, to encourage farmers to adopt innovative and modern agricultural practices and also to ensure flow of credit to the agriculture sector. The right and liabilities of the parties are governed by the stipulations and conditions of the scheme.

8.  The OP 2 further contended that the policy Kharif 2017 PMFBY/WBCIS is governed by the Term sheet designed by the State Govt which has triggers of Deficit Rainfall, Dry Days, and Excess Rainfall etc., the final claim is calculated as per the term sheet and the same is mentioned in the Samrakshane Portal which is maintained by the State Government. Further all claims are settled as per norms of PMFBY/RWBCIS operational Guidelines of Central Government for which all Insurance Companies are adhere to the policy and no further claims are admissible after the settlement. The OP2 further submitted that as the complainant has not sustained any loss he is not entitled for the relief, hence he prays for dismiss the complaint.

Evidence:-

9.      The complainant got himself examined as PW-1 by filing his affidavit as a part of examination in chief and though he has produced some documents, they were not marked on behalf him. The OP No.2 got himself examined as RW-1 by filing his affidavit as a part of examination in chief and no documents have been marked.

 

 

Arguments:

10.    We have heard the complainant and perused the written arguments filed by both side advocates.  

11.    The points that arise for our determination are ;

1. Whether the complainant proves that deficiency of service on the part of opponents?

2. Whether the complainant proves that he is entitled for the relief sought?

3. What order?

12.    Our finding on the above points are as under;

          Point No.1: In the Negative.

          Point No2: In the Negative.

          Point No3: As per final order,

Discussion and Reasoning:

Point No.1 and 2:

13.  Admittedly, India is the land of farmers where the maximum proportion of rural population depends on agriculture. Hon'ble Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi unveiled the new scheme Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) on 13^th January, 2016. This scheme will help in decreasing the burden of premiums on farmers who take loans for their cultivation and will also safeguard them against the inclement weather. It has also been decided to make the settlement process of the insurance claim, fast and easy so that the farmers do not face any trouble regarding the crop insurance plan. This scheme will be implemented in every state of India, in association with respective State Governments. The scheme will be administered under the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India.

 

Highlights of the schemes are thus,

 

• There will be a uniform premium of only 2% to be paid by farmers for all Kharif crops and 1.5% for all Rabi crops. In case of annual commercial and horticultural crops, the premium to be paid will be only 5%.
• The premium rates to be paid by farmers are very low and balance premium will be paid by the Government to provide full insured amount to the farmers against crop loss in any natural calamities.
• There is no upper limit on Government subsidy. Even if balance premium is 90%, it will be borne by the Government.
• Earlier, there was a provision of capping the premium rate which is low claims being paid to farmers. Now this is removed and farmers will get claim against full sum insured without any reduction.
• The use of technology will be encouraged to a great extent. Smart phones, Remote sensing drone and GPS technologies will be used to capture and upload data of crop cutting to reduce the delays in the claim payment.
• Allocation of the scheme presented in budget 2016-2017 is Rs.5, 550 cores.
• The insurance plan will be handled under a single insurance company, Agriculture Insurance Company of India (AIC).
• PMFBY is a replacement scheme of National Agriculture Insurance Scheme (NAIS) and Modified National Agriculture Insurance Scheme (MNAIS) and hence exempted from the service tax.

OBJECTIVES OF THE SCHEME

 

• 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 stabiles the income of farmers to ensure their continuous process in farming.
• To encourage farmers to adopt innovative and modern agricultural practices.
• To ensure flow of credit to the agriculture sector.

COVERS UNDER THE SCHEME

 

Coverage of the farmers:-

 

All farmers including sharecroppers and tenant farmers growing the notified crops in the notified areas are eligible for coverage. The non-loanee farmers are required to submit necessary documentary evidence of land records prevailing in the State Records of Right (RoR), Land possession Certificate (LPC) etc. moreover, applicable contract, agreement details, other documents notified permitted by concerned State Government.

• Compulsory Component All farmers availing Seasonal Agricultural Operations (SAO) loans from Financial Institutions (i.e. loanee farmers) for the notified crops would be covered compulsorily.
• Voluntary Component The Scheme would be optional for the non-loanee farmers.
• Special efforts shall be made to ensure maximum coverage of SC/ ST/ Women farmers under the scheme. Budget allocation and utilization under this should be in proportion of land holding of SC/ ST/ General along with Women in the respective state cluster. Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRIs) may be involved for the implementation and also obtaining framers feedbacks on these crop insurance schemes.

 

 

Unit of Insurance:-

 

The Scheme shall be implemented on an 'Area Approach Basis' (i.e., Defined Areas) for each notified crop for widespread calamities. The assumption that all the insured farmers, in a Unit of Insurance, should be defined as "Notified Area" for a crop, face similar risk exposures, incur to a large extent, identical cost of production per hectare, earn comparable farm income per hectare, and experience similar extent of crop loss due to the operation of an insured peril, in the notified area. The Unit of Insurance can be demographically mapped with region having homogenous Risk Profile for the notified crop. For Risks of Localized calamities and Post-Harvest losses on account of defined peril, the Unit of Insurance for loss assessment shall be the affected insured field of the individual farmer.

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY:-

The overall control on implementation of insurance companies will be under Ministry of Agriculture & Framers Welfare. The Ministry designated empanelled AIC and some private insurance companies presently to participate in the Government sponsored agriculture, crop insurance schemes. The choice of which private company is left to the states. There will be one insurance company for the whole state. Selection of Implementing Agency may be made for up to three years however, the State government/ UT and the concerned insurance company are free to renegotiate the terms if relevant. This will facilitate the insurance company to establish the credibility among the farmers through investment out of the premium savings in various welfare activities for socio-economic development.

 

Management and Monitoring scheme:-

 

The existing State Level Co-ordination Committee on Crop Insurance (SLCCCI), of the concerned State will be responsible for monitoring of the schemes programmed in their state. However, a National Level Monitoring Committee (NLMC) under the chairmanship of Joint Secretary (Credit), Department of Agriculture cooperation and farmers welfare (DAC & FW) will monitor the scheme at the national level. It is proposed to take following monitoring measures for effective implementation during each crop season to ensure maximum benefits to the farmers:

• The Nodal Banks intermediaries may collect the list of individual insured farmers (both loanee and non-loanee) with requisite details like name, fathers' name, Bank Account number, village, categories - Small and Marginal group, Women, insured holding, insured crops, sum insured, premium collected, Government subsidy etc from concerned branch in soft copy for further reconciliation. This will be done online once the E platform is put in the place.

 

• After receiving the claims amount from the concerned Insurance Companies, the financial institutions/banks should remit/transfer the claim amount to the account of beneficiaries within a week. This will be transferred online directly by the Insurance company into the accounts of farmers.
• The list of the beneficiaries (bank-wise and insured area-wise) may also be uploaded on the crop insurance portal and website of the concerned insurance companies.
• About 5% of the beneficiaries may be verified by the Regional Offices/ Local level Offices of Insurance Companies who will send the feed back to concerned District Level Monitoring Committee (DLMC) and State Government/ State Level Coordination Committee on Crop Insurance (SLCCCI).
• At least 10% of the beneficiaries verified by the insurance company may be cross verified by the concerned District Level Monitoring Committee (DLMC) and they should send the feed back to State Government.
• 1 to 2% of the beneficiaries may be verified by the Head Offices of the insurance company/ Independent Agencies appointed by the Central Government/ National Level Monitoring Committee and they should send the necessary feed back to Central Government.

Moreover, District Level Monitoring Committee (DLMC) already overseeing the implementation & monitoring of the ongoing crop insurance schemes like National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS), Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme (WBCIS), Modified National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (MNAIS) and Coconut Palm Insurance Scheme (CPIS) shall be responsible for proper management of the Scheme.

14.  In the present case the complainant alleged that in the year 2017-18 he has sown the Ragi Groundnut Maiza,  Musukina Jwala in the above said land by investing huge amount and he insured the said crops under PMFBY for a sum of Rs18,211.50/- and in this connection he also paid premium of Rs. 364=23/- and on 27/08/2017, the OP.2 agreed to pay the insured amount in case crops is destroyed due to failure of rainfall or natural calamities and other reasons, the concern authorities have declared that various Districts and Taluks in Karnataka State are fallen under draught including the area of Challakere Taluk, due to draught he has also suffered heavy loss due to yielding of crops in his lands, he has demanded the OPs for insurance claim for which they are postponing, in-spite of receiving legal notice in this regard.

15.  The OPs contended that, the complainant paid premium of Rs364=23  to cover groundnut crop for a sum of Rs.18,211.50/- State Govt in Samrakshne portal 2017 mentioned that in Chitradurga Dist, Challakere Taluk, Nayakanhatti  G.P., Groundnut  Threshold Yield is 1308.78 and CCE Actual yield is 2033 and excess/shortfall is -55.406944 entered. As per data given by Govt, there is no losing of crops in the said village in the year 2017. On verification of  application of complainant, is shows that, CCE yield is higher than the threshold yield, hence there is no crop loss of the former and no claim is reflected in the portal, accordingly, the OPs  are not liable to pay compensation.

16.  Under the scheme, the Actual yield of the notified crop in a notified area is less than the threshold yield fixed for that area whose crop have been insured will become eligible for compensation. The compensation is calculated as where, claims payable short fall in yield X sum insured threshold yield, the as per NAIS, while disbursing the short fall in yield actual yield, loan amount of former and consolidate the crop wise, month wise, notified area wise and submit the details to the nodal banks in a prescribed format. The claim under NAIS are payable basing on the final yield data, declared by DES State Govt,  neither on the basis of Annawari certificate nor on the basis of declaration of insured former.

17.  On perusal of entire records, there is no documentary proof in respect of rejection of claim of the complainant. Further the OP 2 clearly contended that the assessment for average yield is basing on the unit wise estimates. And as per the Govt order, the claim under NAIS will be settled only on the basis of yield data, furnished by DES for notified crops, collected through regular crop estimation surveys, i.e., crop cutting experiments.

18.   It is the case of the complainant that the claim was not settled till now. Admittedly, the complainant did not specifically mention the particulars regarding the yielding and the percentage of loss, which he had suffered. Further he also failed to furnish documents to show that during the year there was a lose of crop in the said village. The OP said that as per data given by Govt, there is no losing of crops in the said village in the year 2017 and further stated that on verification of  application of complainant, they found that, CCE yield is higher than the threshold yield, hence there is no crop loss of the former and no claim is reflected in the portal. In view of the above, and according to the guidelines of NAIS there is no liability in payment of crop insurance amount to complainant on the part of OPs as alleged. Therefore points No.1 and 2 are answered accordingly against the complainant.

Point No.3:-

19.  In view of the facts discussed in point No.1 and 2 we pass the following order.

Order

The present complaint is dismissed.

No orders on cost.

The assistant registrar is directed to send free copies of this order to the all the parties free of cost within a week from today.

(Typed directly on the computer to the dictation given to stenographer, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced by us on  23^rd June  2020.)

 

 

 

 

       (B.H.Yashoda)                                                           (H.N. Meena)          

         Member                                                                      President.

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:-Complainant by filing affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	R.T.C of Land
02	Ex-A-2:-	Insurance Copy
03	Ex-A-3:-	Legal Notice
04	Ex.A-4:-	Two Postal receipts
05	EA.A-5:-	acknowledgements.

 

 

DW-1: Sri. Ramesh P S/o K Puttaramu, Senior Executive by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Documents marked on behalf of OP No. 2

01	Ex-B-1:-	Government order dated 12/05/2017
02	Ex-B-2:-	Proceedings of the Government of Karnataka
03	Ex-B-3:-	Samrakshane

 

 

                               

 

MEMBER                                                      PRESIDENT

  

 

Kms