Complainant/s:            Shekappa S/o Kalappa Yavagal,

                                     Age:53 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Hytapura, Taluk: Mundargi, District: Gadag.

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

V/s

JUDGMENT

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SRI. D.Y. BASAPUR, PRESIDENT

            The complainant has filed the complaint U/Sec.12 of the C.P. Act 1986 claiming compensation of Rs.70,212-15 with interest @ 18%, mental agony Rs.10,000/- and cost.

             The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

          2.       The complainant had sowed Jowar and Bengalgram crops in 2016-17 Rabi season in his lands bearing Sy. Nos.428/*/1 measuring 4-08 Acres, 15/*/1 measuring 1-20 Acres and 52/*/1+2+3/2  measuring 3-26 Acres situated at Hytapura village of Dambal  Hobli and insured the said crop with AIC for the yield and paid the total premium amount of Rs.1,053-18 in 2016-17 Rabi season under PMFBY for a sum assured amount of  Rs.72,212-15.  The said crops were good and healthy and the complainant hoped that he would get good yield from the above said crops for the said year.  It is further submitted that, the crop failed completely due to shortfall of rain. The complainant is the non-loanee farmer.  The complainant approached the OPs and requested to release the crop insurance amount but, it went in vain, which shows the deficiency in service.  The above said scheme encouraged the farmers to get compensation for such damages.  The main aim of the said scheme is to meet out the problems of the farmers under such circumstances.     The complainant perceived that none of the OPs have come to aid with this matter.    The complainant lost his crop due to lack of rain and lost his hard earned money investing in the faulty scheme of the OPs. Therefore, the complainant got issued legal notice to the OPs on 04.02.2020 calling upon them to pay the compensation but, the OPs failed to give reply to the notice.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 04.02.2020  when the complainant issued legal notice to the OPs.   Hence there is a deficiency in service and prayed to order the OPs to pay the total loss and damages of the crop under the scheme with interest @ 18% p.m from the date of premium, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental stress, loss and damages with costs of the proceedings and such other reliefs.

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

                   The brief facts of the Written Version filed by OP No.1 are as under:

        4.   OP No.1 stated that, the above complaint is not maintainable both in law and also on facts. The Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana is being implemented in the country under the orders of Government of India vide Ref: No.13015/03/2016/credit II dated 23.02.2016 of the Ministry  of  Agriculture,    Department  of  Agriculture  and  cooperation,   New   Delhi    w.e.f., 07.10.2016. The main conditions relating to PMFBY which are binding on States/UT are as follows:

1. State has to conduct requisite number of crop cutting experiments at the level of notified insurance unit area;
2. CCE based yield data will be submitted to insurance company within the prescribed time limit;
3. State/UT will make necessary budgetary provision in State/UT budget, to release premium subsidy based on fair estimates, at the beginning of the crop season;
4. State/UT should be willing to facilitate strengthening of weather station network. 
5. Adoption of innovative technology especially smart phones/hand held devices for capturing conducting of CCEs.  

State Government already looking after implementation of National Agriculture Insurance Scheme (NAIS)/National Crop Insurance Programme (NCIP) may be designated as Nodal Department for implementation of PMFBY.  The State Level Coordination Committee on Crop Insurance (SLCCCI) presently overseeing the implementation of NAIS and NCIP may be authorized to oversee implementation of  PMFBY.  It is submitted that, the scheme operates on the basis of “Area Approach” i.e., defined Areas of each notified crop for widespread calamities and insurance unit is village/village Panchayat level, to be decided by the State/UT Government.  Yield date will be furnished to insurance company by State Government/UT, in accordance with the cut-off dates fixed and crops and areas notified, based on total number of CCEs being conducted.  Insurance company should be given complete access to co-witness the CCEs, as also the digital images of the CCEs and relevant data in the requisite format by the State Government.  It is further submitted that, if “Actual yield” per hectare of insured crop for the insurance unit in insured season, falls short of specified “Threshold Yield”, all insured farmers growing that crop in the defined area are deemed to have suffered shortfall in yield of similar magnitude. 

          Claim shall be calculated as per the following formula:

          (Threshold Yield – Actual Yield) X Sum insured

Threshold Yield

It is further submitted that, the complainant has demanded for claim settlement in respect of Jowar and Bengalgram crops pertaining to Dambal Hobli, Gadag District under Rabi 2016-17.  In respect of above crop pertaining to Hobli, OPs have already settled the eligible claim as per the scheme to the complainant for Jowar and Greengram crops through NEFT on 24.06.2019.   As per the data, there is a shortfall in the area claimed by the complainant and claims that the complainant is hiding the material facts and fraudulently claiming the undue amount and prays to dismiss the complaint.

          The brief facts of the Written Version filed by OP No.2 are as under:

        OP No.2 denied the contents of the complaint and contended that, complainant is not a consumer to OP No.1 and no way concerned to the case as the role of this OP is to advise and create awareness to the farmers regarding crop insurance and hence, prays to dismiss the complaint.

          The brief facts of the Written Version filed by OP No.3 are as under:

          OP No.3 submits that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, the same is barred by time and does not come within the purview of the Limitation Act.  It is true that, the complainant has insured his Jowar and Bengalgram crops during 2016-17 Rabi for PMFBY Scheme by paying premium through this OP.  By virtue of directions issued by the OP No.2, OP No.3 forwarded the premium amount on 12.01.2017 through RTGS to the concerned AIC through A/c No.9010200008570 under UTR No.KVGBH, 17012079898 and the same is already informed to the complainant.  OP No.3 only a collecting agent and mediator between the farmers and Insurance Company and the scope of responsibility of these OPs is very limited one.  It is the duty of OP-3 to receive the application/proposal forms and to collect the required premium as per the guidelines of AIC and to forward the same to AIC and whatever the claim amount is received from the AIC will be credited to the respective farmers, savings Bank Account.  It is further submitted that, there is a separate machinery to assess the percentage of failure of respective crop and fixing of the percentage and quantum of compensation to be payable to the respective farmers, these OPs are neither concerned to the facts of fixing of premium and assessing the loss nor fixing of the compensation to the farmers.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on their part and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

        5.  To prove the case, complainant filed affidavit evidence, examined as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex.C-1 to C-12.  OP No.3 filed affidavit evidence, examined as RW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex.OP-1 to 12.

            6.      Counsel for complainant filed written arguments. Heard the arguments on both the side. 

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

1. Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of OPs?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any    relief?

3. What Order?

 8.   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

           9.      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 as sought for.  The learned DGP and counsel for OP No.1 and 3 argued that, complaint is not maintainable as already shortfall amount is credited to the account of the complainant.

          10.     On perusal of the materials placed before us, it is an undisputed fact that, complainant sowed Jowar and Bengalgram crops in 2016-17 Rabi season in his lands bearing Sy. Nos.428/*/1 measuring 4-08 Acres, 15/*/1 measuring 1-20 Acres and 52/*/1+2+3/2 measuring 3-26 Acres situated at Hytapura village of Dambal  Hobli and insured the said crop with AIC for the yield and paid the total premium amount of Rs.1,053-18 in 2016-17 Rabi season under PMFBY for a sum assured amount of  Rs.72,212-15 with AIC for the yield.  PW-1 stated that, he experienced less rain and suffered loss.  But, OP No.1 deposited less amount in the account by wrong calculation after filing of this complaint.  OP No.3 submitted that, they have acted as a mediator between OP No.1 and complainant.  After receiving the premium amount, the same has been transferred to OP No.1.  As per conditions of the scheme, farmer should inform about the loss occurred in his field within 48 hours of the incident to the Agriculture Department or else to the Insurance Company.  Some of the time frame has been mentioned in that guideline. Of course, in the year 2016-17 OP No.2 declared that, the above said village is hit by drought.  Rules and Regulations clearly says that, claim amount has to be settled within September-October-2017, but, OPs have not settled the claim within time.  OP No.1 contended that, they have settled it as per the data received from the District Statistical Office and the crop cutting experiment report.  Complainant has not produced any documents to show that, he has suffered complete loss during 2016-17.  RW-1 stated in his affidavit that, they have already sent the premium amount to the AIC through NEFT. 

          11.     As per OPs, they have settled the shortfall claim amount as per the guidelines.  Ex.OP-11 clearly goes to show that, an amount of Rs.6,999-10 paid to A/c No.17199026006 on 24.06.2019.  On perusal of Ex.OP-1 to OP-12 clearly goes to show that, as per the Government Order for the year 2016-17, Taluka wise yield data for Rabi and summer season and synthetic crop yield data for Rabi 2016-17 for the crop under Pradhana Mantri Fasal Bheema Yojana, calculation of shortfall and claim percentage of Jowar and Bengalgram and other documents, OPs properly calculated the shortfall and already deposited to the account of the complainant. There is no irregularity or fault found with OPs and they have acted as per the guidelines.  The documents produced by the complainant Ex.C-1 to C-12 i.e., RTC, village accountant report, notice and other documents are not disputed.  Complainant has not produced any scrap of paper to show that, the OPs have intentionally rejected his claim.  Merely Government declared the drought due to shortfall of rain is not a sole ground to award entire sum insured amount.  If the Government declared the drought for the year or season, separate compensation will be paid to each farmers. 

          12.     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 rainfall or drought, the crops did 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 has gone on 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 affected by 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 of 7 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 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) of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes 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 draught, 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.

          13.     For the above complainant has failed to prove that, OPs have failed to settle the claim.  As stated above, OPs have already settled the shortfall amount as per the Rules and Regulations and Guidelines issued by the Government.  Hence, complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of service of OPs and he is not entitled for the relief as sought for.  Accordingly, we answer both the points are in negative.

          14.     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 us in the Open Court on this 6^th day of July-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: Shekappa Kalappa Yavagal.

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.P-1 & 2: View Proposal

Ex.P-3 to 5: RTCs

Ex.P-6 to 8: Postal receipts

Ex.P-9 to 11: Postal Acknowledgements

Ex.P-12: Legal Notice

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

RW-1: Mohiuddin Mohammadbudan Jamadar

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

Ex.OP-1: Letter by Joint Director of Agriculture, Gadag dated                          16.10.2021

Ex.OP-2: Letter by Commissioner of Agriculture, Bangalore dated       

              20.09.2021

Ex.OP-3 to 5: 2016 Rabi AY Details

Ex.OP-6: Proposal Form

Ex.OP-7: Acknowledgement

Ex.OP-8: Proposal Form

Ex.OP-9 & 10: Acknowledgements

Ex.C-11: Bank statement

Ex.OP-12: Remitting customer details

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

        MEMBER                 PRESIDENT              WOMAN MEMBER