COMPLAINT FILED ON: 31/01/2019                                                              DISPOSED ON: 10/12//2019

APPEAL ORDER ON: 20/08/2020

                                                  REMANDED COMPLAINT ON: 14/09/2020

REMANDED ORDER ON: 31/03/2023

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

PRESENT: Kum. H.N. MEENA, B.A., LL.B., PRESIDENT

                Smt. B.H. YASHODA, B.A., LL.B., LADY MEMBER                          Sri. H.JANARDHAN, B.A.L., LL.B., MEMBER  

:JUDGEMENT:

Delivered by Hon’ble President, Kum. H.N. MEENA.

The complainant has filed this complaint against the OPs for issued direction to pay the insurance amount of Rs. 1,07,426/- with interest and Rs. 30,000/- towards mental agony and loss of time and Rs.8,000/- towards complaint fees total amount of Rs.1,45,426/-  and such other reliefs.

2. After hearing the matter on merits the said complaint is allowed on 10/12/2019. Thereafter the opponent No.1 has preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble state commission Karnataka in appeal No.512/2020, therein the Hon’ble state commission Karnataka remanded the said case to decide the afresh in accordance with law thereafter the complainant advocate has made the party as opposite party No.3 as per order of Hon’ble state commission by filing an proper application.   

3. Brief facts of the present case:-

The complainant is the absolute owner of the land bearing
Sy. No.29/2 measuring 1-20 acres, Sy. No.33/2P2 measuring 2-acres and Sy. No.33/4 measuring 1-acres, situated at Chikkappanahalli Village. The complainant has yielding Maize crop. On 02/08/2017 the complainant has paid total premium amount sum of Rs. 2,147/- as a premium amount through OP-2 to the OP-1 Pradhan Manthri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) is implemented in the country Under the Orders of Government with an objectives of, 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 and diseases. Accordingly maize crop of the complainant was failed due to rain fed and losing of crops in the said village in year 2017-18. As per the applications of complainant CSC001-884733, 884193 and 883787. The complainant has borrowed and sowed maize crop in his land, but the crop is loss. The complainant is dependent on agriculture for his livelihood purpose.

4. Complainant further submits that, the complainant has requested the opposite parties many times for insurance compensation amount due to crop loss. But due to the fact that the opponent has been delaying by giving false excuses, the complainant has issued a legal notice on date: 28/11/2018, but the opponent will not give any insurance amount to the complainant. Hence, complainant filed the complaint.

5. After issuance of notice to the OPs one Sri KM Mohan Bhatt filed Vakalath for OP-1 and OP-2 as per order dated 14/03/2019 notice to OP-2 refused, called out absent hence placed ex-parte. According to the version filed by the OP-1 it is true that the complainant is having the land bearing Sy. No.29/2 measuring 1-20 acres, Sy. No.33/2P2 measuring 2-acres and Sy. No.33/4 measuring 1-acres, in Chikkappanahalli village. And further true that he was having the SB account. It is true he was obtained insurance premium for Maize crop and paid total premium amount sum of Rs. 2,147/- has a premium amount to the OP-1 through OP-2. Accordingly the OP-2 have issued the endorsement.

6. According to the version filed by the OP-1 that the complainant case is not maintainable either in law or facts since there in deficiency of service on the part of the OP-1. The allegation stated in para 2 to 5 are denied as false. The premium of Rs. 2,147/- to cover Sy. No.29/2 measuring 1-20 acres, Sy. No.33/2P2 measuring 2-acres and Sy. No.33/4 measuring 1-acres, sum of Rs. 1,07,426/- through saving account under ACK No. CSC001-884733, 884193 and 883787 to cover Maize (makka) Irrigated. State Government in Samrakshne Portal 2017 mentioned Chitradurga District, Turuvanuru Hobli, Maize (Makka) (Irrigated). Threshold yield is 3124.62 and CCE Actual yield is 5171.646 and shortfall is -65.512793. As per the data given by the Government, there is no losing of crops in the said village in year 2017. As per the application of complainant 884733, 884193 and 883787 this OP-1 would like to inform to this Hon'ble Court that the CCE Yield is higher than the threshold yield. Hence there is no crop loss of the farmer and hence no claim is reflected in the Portal. PMFBY is being implemented in the country under the orders of Government with an objectives 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 and diseases. The para 5 to 9 of the complaint is denied has false and pray for dismissal of the complaint against this OP-1.

7. After remanded the case Hon’ble Commission issued the Notice to OP No.3 made its appearance through its counsel Sri Vidyadhara.S., D.G.P., Advocate, Chitradurga filed their version.

8. The OP No.3 stated that, Crop Insurance Scheme in Karnataka State is being implemented in a transparent manner through Samrakshne Portal. OP No.3 it is not known that the complainant has paid money for crop insurance for their masked maize crop (Irrigated) as per the information of Conservation Portal 2017-18. Government of Karnataka Order dated: 12/05/2017 under General Crop Estimate Survey conducted by the State Government to calculate and settle the crop insurance loss by considering only the yield information found on the basis of the crop harvesting experiment. Other yield estimation methods such as guarantee or any department, organization, state government has notified that the yield loss estimation information declared as famine, drought and flood shall not be considered for calculating crop insurance loss compensation under this scheme.

9. OP No.3 further submits that, complainant stated in the complaint it is not known whether the scheme has been insured for an amount of Rs.1,07,426/-. Further, it is not correct that the complainant has asked for compensation of Rs.30,000/- also complaint fees Rs.8,000/- total amount of Rs.1,45,426/-. Because the OP No.3 has not committed service deficiency. According to the information of the Joint Director of Agriculture (Crop Insurance), Agriculture Commissionerate, there is -65.5128 crop insurance difference for masked maize (irrigated) crop in Chitradurga Taluk, Turvanur Hobali Insurance Unit for Monsoon season 2017-18. Therefore, in the complaint filed by the complainant, the OP No.3 have been requested to be removed and acquitted.

10. After remanded the case, complainant himself examined as PW marked document is Ex.A-4. and OP No.3 examined as DW Sri P. Ramesh Kumar, Joint Director, Agriculture Department, Chitradurga by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.B-1 and 2 were got marked and closed their side.  

   11. Arguments heard, now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that:

1. Complainant prove that whether the village has been declared drought prone by the appropriate authorities? And whether the maize crop of the complainant's farm is a rain fed crop?

2. Whether complainant proves deficiency service on the part of the OP and whether complainant is entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint?

3.  What order?

12. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

Point No. 1: In the negative

Point No. 2: In the negative

Point No. 3: As per final order

         REASONS

          13. Point No.1 & 2: We have gone through the entire documents filed by both the parties.  The complainant is the absolute owner of land bearing Sy. No.29/2 measuring 1-20 acres, Sy. No.33/2P2 measuring 2-acres and Sy. No.33/4 measuring 1-acres, situated at Chikkappanahalli Village, Chitradurga taluk and District. The complainant was sowed the Maize crop during the year 2017 Khariff season in the said land. On 20/07/2017 the complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 2,147/- as a premium amount through OP-2 to the OP-1 under Pradhan Manthri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) as implemented in the country under the orders of Government with an objectives of, 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 and diseases. Accordingly. Maize crop of the complainant was failed due to shortfall of rain and sustained loss of crops in the said village in the year 2017. Due to loss of the maize crop, the complainant has approached the OP No.1 claiming compensation amount. But the OP No.1 has repudiated the same stating that there no crop loss of the former in the said village due to shortfall of rain therefore, the OP No.1 has repudiated the claim of the complainant.

14. Version filed by the OP No.1, it is admitted that complainant is having the land bearing Sy. No.29/2 measuring 1-20 acres, Sy. No.33/2P2 measuring 2-acres and Sy. No.33/4 measuring 1-acres, Guntas in Chikkappanahalli village. Further it is admitted that, he was having the SB A/c. OP-1 has received the insurance premium amount for Maize crop for a sum of Rs 2,147/- through OP-2. Accordingly the OP-2 has issued the endorsement for having received the premium amount. The OP-2 has received the premium amount of Rs 2,147/- to cover Sy. No.29/2 measuring 1-20 acres, Sy. No.33/2P2 measuring 2-acres and Sy. No.33/4 measuring 1-acres, for a sum assured amount of Rs. 1,07,426/-. The State Government in Samrakshne Portal 2017, mentioned Chitradurga District, Turuvanuru Hobli under irrigated crop failed during the Khariff-2017 season Threshold yield is 3124.62 and CCE Actual yield is 5171.646 and shortfall is -65.512793. As per the data given by the Government, there is no losing of crops in the said village in year 2017.As per the applications of complainant CSC001-884733, 884193 and 883787, that the CCE Yield is higher than the threshold yield. Hence there is no crop loss of the farmer and hence no claim is reflected in the Portal.

15. The complainant has raised maize crop and insured the same by paying premium amount under PMFBY at CSC center through OP No.2 and the OP No.2 send the premium amount to OP No.1 within the cutoff time the amount has been paid by the complainant to the OP No.2.  Subsequently, the OP No.2 sent the premium amount to OP No.1 within the cutoff time as fixed by the Government. The OP No.3 filed their in the version in the year of 2017-18, it is very clearly shows that, the State Government in Samrakshne Portal 2017, mentioned Chitradurga District, Turuvanuru Hobli under irrigated crop failed during the Khariff-2017 season Threshold yield is 3124.62 and CCE Actual yield is 5171.646 and shortfall is -65.512793. As per the data given by the Government, there is no losing of crops in the said village in year 2017.

16. The crux of the present case is, whether the complainant has tried to convince us that the village has been declared drought prone by the appropriate authorities? And has the complainant proved that the maize crop grown in his land is a rain dependent crop? But the complainant has not submitted any document that the appropriate authorities have declared the village as a drought-prone village. As no record is available in the complaint, OP-3 stated in the version that, the crop of the complainant is not a Rain fed crop but an irrigated crop.

17. We perused all the documents and observed that, Proceedings of the Government of Karnataka, Government Order No.KRUEI/75/KRUKAIU/2017, Bengaluru, Dated 29/08/2017 in the said order as follows….

For reasons mentioned in the preamble, the provision for prevented/failed sowing and prevented planting/germination claims is hereby invoked for the Gram Panchayaths. of Hiriyur and Challakere taluk for the Groundnut (RF) crop, Chitradurga taluk for the Maize (RF) crop and Hiriyur taluk for the Sunflower (RF) crop of Chitradurga District during Kharif 2017 as annexed.

In the annexed mentioned Madanayakanahalli, Grama Panchayath Maize Rain Fed (RF) Crops.

18. The complainant has failed to convince the Hon’ble Commission to prove that the said village has been declared drought prone by the appropriate authorities and that the maize crop grown on their land is a rain dependent crop. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Therefore, the Point No.1 and 2 is answered in the Negative. 

19. Point No.3:  Hence, in the light of above discussion we proceed to pass the following.

::ORDER::

       The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.

       Communicate the order to both the parties.

(Typed directly on the computer to the dictation given to stenographer, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced by us on 31^st  March 2023.)

Sd/-                               Sd/-                                     Sd/-

LADY MEMBER               MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

Witness examined on behalf of Complainant after remanded:

PW: Sri K. Thippeswamy S/o Late Kanumappa, by way of    

          affidavit evidence.

Witness examined on behalf of OPs after remanded:

DW: Sri. Ramesh Kumar P. Joint Director of Agricultural  

           Department by way of affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of OP-3 after remanded:

1. Ex-B-1 Circular dated 12.05 2017.
2. Ex-B-2 Kharif 2017-2018 Statement of shortfall difference.

                Sd/-                               Sd/-                                     Sd/-

LADY MEMBER               MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

GM*