Complainant/s:           1. Shekaragouda S/o Shankaragouda Patila,

                                                 Age: 35 Years, Occ: Agriculture,

                                            2. Smt. Paravva W/o Shankaragouda Patila,

                                                 Age: 62 Years, Occ: Agriculture,

                                            3. Ravindragouda S/o Shankaragouda Patila,

                                                 Age: 33 Years, Occ: Agriculture,

                                            4. Veerangaouda S/o Shankaragouda Patila,

                                                 Age: 47 Years, Occ: Agriculture,

                                            5. Shankaragouda S/o Shivanagouda Patila,

                                                 Age: 65 Years, Occ: Agriculture,

          All R/o Hytapura, Taluk: Mundargi,

            Dist: Gadag.

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

                                                          V/s

ORDER

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SRI. B.S. KERI, MEMBER:

            This complaint is filed by the complainant/s against the OPs claiming certain reliefs by invoking Sec 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

           2.  The above complaint filed by the complainant, states that they had sowed Jowar and Bengalgram crops in 2016-17 in their respective lands and insured for the Rabi yield and paid the premium through the Nodal Banks.

            3.    The averments of the complaint in brief are:

       That the complainants have sowed the Jowar and Bengalgram crops in 2016-17 Rabi season in their respective lands bearing sy No.395/5 measuring 04-27 Acres, sy.No.4/1 measuring 10-00 Acres, sy.No.5/4C measuring 3-16 Acres, sy.No.395/4 measuring 4-27 Acres, sy.No.395/3 measuring 4-27 Acres, sy.No.56/3K measuring 3-00 Acres, sy.No.140/1A measuring 3-25 Acres, sy.No.116/1+2+3A+3B+4A+4B+4K+A measuring 5-08 Acres and sy.No.469/1B measuring 5-08 Acres situated at Mevundi and Hytapura village of Dambal Hobli Mundargi Taluk and insured with AIC for the yield and paid the premium amount of Rs.4,053-27 through the Nodal Bank in 2016-17 under PMFB for a sum assured amount of Rs.2,70,217-35, the Rabi crop failed due to shortfall of rain.  The crop of the complainants is good and healthy and was growing well.  The year 2016-17 was hit by draughts, because of lack of rainfall, the whole crops of the complainants were ruined and complainants became unhappy.  The complainant expected to receive the compensation for the total loss of the said Rabi season crop.  The policy coverage in case of any natural calamities/disasters to the crops of insured person/farmers, the policy safeguards under such calamities and on this assurance and encouragement, the complainants have purchased the policy to the said year and eagerly waited to receive the crop insurance compensation for the total loss of the crops under the said scheme by all the OPs, but the complainants have not received the compensation amount till today.  The farmers of the other villages    have   received the crop insurance amount except the complainants.  The complainants approached the OPs personally, but it went in vain.  Therefore, the complainants got issued legal notice to the OPs calling upon them to pay the compensation, the OP No.1 has given evasive reply for the same.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 22.01.2020 when the complainants got issued legal notice through Advocate, the same was not replied by the OPs or paid the compensation.   Hence there is deficiency in service and prayed to order the OPs to pay Rs.2,70,217-35 with interest @ 18% p.a , Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, financial loss and hardship with court expenses.

        4.   In pursuance of the notice issued by this Commission, the OPs appeared through counsel.  OP No.1 to 3 filed their respective written version. 

                                     The brief facts of the Written Version of OP No.1:-

            5.         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 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 complainants have demanded for claim settlement in respect of Bengalgram(Irr) crop pertaining to Dhambal Hobli, Mundargi Taluk, Gadag District under Rabi 2016-17.  It is submitted that as per the shortfall of 232.8 Kgs/hectare for Dambal Hobli.  However due to area correction Factor (ACF), the sum insured is scaled down in the proportionate ratio of 0.0881 in respect of Bengalgram (Irr) crop pertaining to Dambal Hobli.  As per the final yield date received from the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of Karnataka, they have calculated the shortfall and eligible claims have been accordingly settled on 24.06.2019.  It is further submitted that, as per the provisions of scheme, claim has been credited to Nodal Bank and hence, the complainants have no water and service of this OP is not at all deficient.  This OP is not liable to pay any compensation, cost and interest to the complainants and hence prays to dismiss the complaint.

The brief facts of the Written Version of OP No.2:-

            6.         The OP No.2 contended that Complaint of complainant is not maintainable both in law and also on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.  It is further submitted that, the contents of para 2 and 3 are false and the same is to be proved by the complainant.  It is further submitted that, the PMFBY is implemented for the benefits of the farmers.  This OP has not received any crop insurance premium amount from the farmers/complainants.  The complainant is not the consumers of this OP and there is no contract of agreement between the complainants and this OP that of seller and the buyer.  The compensation is depends upon the CCE report.  This OP is made as party unnecessarily and if the Commission comes to the conclusion that, the complainant/s are entitled for the compensation towards loss of crop, the other OPs are liable to pay the same.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of this OP and hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint. 

The brief facts of the Written Version of OP No.3:-

            7.         OP No.3 submits that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, the same is barred by time and is not come up with the purview of the Limitation Act.  It is true that, the complainants have insured the Jowar  and Bengalgram crops during 2016-17 Rabi for PMFBY Scheme by paying premium through these OPs.  By virtue of directions issued by the Agricultural General Insurance Company, Bangalore, OP No.3 forwarded premium amount through RTGS to AIC on 12.01.2017 totally Rs.16,72,000-00  in and the same is already informed to the complainants.  OP No.3 is only a collecting agent and mediator between the farmers and AIC and the scope of responsibility of this OP 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 received from the AIC will be credited to the respective farmers, savings Bank Account.   It is further submitted

that, there is 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, this OP is neither concerned to the facts of fixing of premium and assessing the loss nor fixing of the compensation to be payable to the farmers.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on their part and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

            8.  The complainant No.1 filed Chief affidavit behalf of complainants along with 24 documents.  On the other hand, the Deputy Manager of OP No.1 and Manager of OP No.3 filed affidavit evidence with 20 documents.

COMPLAINANTS FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

                   OPs FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

            9.      On pursuance of the materials, placed by the complainants and OPs, the following points arises for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainants have proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as averred in the complaints?
2. Whether the complainants are entitled to any relief?
3. What Order?

10.   Our findings to the above points are:-

      Point No. 1:  Affirmative,

      Point No. 2:  Partially Affirmative,

      Point No. 3:  As per the final Order

R E A S O N S

             11.  POINT NO.1 AND 2:  Both the points are inter-link and identical. Hence we proceed both the points together.

12.       The Complainant/s filed this Complaint against the Ops for claiming crop insurance 2016-17 on failure of weather. The Complainant/s submits that they have insured their Jowar and Bengalgram crops in 2016-17 Rabi season in their respective lands bearing sy No.395/5 measuring 04-27 Acres, sy.No.4/1 measuring 10-00 Acres, sy.No.5/4C measuring 3-16 Acres, sy.No.395/4 measuring 4-27 Acres, sy.No.395/3 measuring 4-27 Acres, sy.No.56/3K measuring 3-00 Acres, sy.No.140/1A measuring 3-25 Acres, sy.No.116/1+2+3A+3B+4A+4B+4K+A measuring 5-08 Acres and sy.No.469/1B measuring 5-08 Acres situated at Mevundi and Hytapura village of Dambal Hobli Mundargi Taluk and insured with AIC for the yield and paid the premium amount   of Rs4,053-27   through the Nodal

Bank in 2016-17 under PMFB for a sum assured amount of Rs.2,70,217-35, the Rabi crop failed due to shortfall of rain.  The Complainant/s on good faith and for protection of their crop as per publications and advice of OPs insured their crop irrigated Jowar and Bengalgram under Hytapura village. In this year, Complainant/s experienced less rain and suffered loss, but OPs have not paid the insurance amount to the complainants.  Hence, Complainant/s submits that they have not got the sum assured from the OPs. On the other hand, OP No.1 submits that as per the Scheme Condition, the payout is calculated and deposit the amount in the respective account of the Complainant/s and submits that they have received the report from Karnataka State Natural Disaster Monitoring Centre and photocopy of the same had been produced before the Commission and submits that they have deposited the payout amount to the Complainant/s account and they are not responsible any loss or the Company had not made any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the Government, they have paid the insurance amount and prayed to dismiss the case. 

13.       OP No.3 submits that, they have acted as a mediator between the OP No.1 and complainant and after receiving the premium amount, entire total premium amount had been transferred to OP No.1. 

14.       On-going through the records on file, it is an undisputed fact that complainant/s have insured their crops with OP No.1 and it is also undisputed fact that they have received the premium amount from the complainant/s as well as the Government that means OP No.1 received entire premium amount from the complainant/s. The disputed fact is that OP No.1 calculated the loss as per the scheme framed by the Government. We have to discuss clearly about the scheme to conclude the case.

As per the terms and conditions of the Scheme, the criteria is fixed for eligibility of the insurance is that, the farmer should inform about the loss occurred in their fields within 48 hours of the incident to the Agricultural Department or else to the Insurance Company.  Anyhow, as per the guidelines, some of the time frame has been mentioned in that guideline.  It is very necessary to know about all the guidelines to the farmers to inform the same to the concerned authority.  OPs failed to produce such documents to say that, they have educated the farmers as per the scheme.  It is just and necessary to educate the farmer about the scheme because, the premium has been paid by the farmers to the insurance Company.  Such being the fact, OPs have not taken any steps to educate the farmers.  Anyhow, in the year 2016-17, the OP No.2 declared that, the above said villages are hit by draught.  Such being the fact, there is no need of information to OP No.1 and 2 and it is the bounded duty of the OPs to visit fields for crop cutting experiment.  As per their terms and conditions, they should appoint a qualified person for loss assessment in page No.64, the appointment of loss assessor by the insurance Company is as follows:

Appointment of Loss Assessors by the Insurance Company:

The loss assessors would be appointed by the Insurance Company for assessment of losses due to the operations of Localized Risks (Yield Insurance).  The loss assessors appointed by the insurance companies should be in accordance with the IRDAI provisions.  The loss assessors appointed should possess following experience and qualification;

i) Any Graduate (preferably Agriculture i.e., Diploma/B.Sc.(Ag.,) with minimum 2 years experience of crop insurance.

ii) Retired Government officials of Agriculture/Horticulture/Extension Department having Diploma, B.Sc.(Ag.) degree.

iii) Retired Bank officials with experience of crop loaning or Kisan Credit Card (KCC0. For compliance under the above provisions the insurance companies would empanel the suitable loss assessors for using their services as and when required.

The loss would be jointly assessed by a team comprising of loss assessor appointed by the insurer, block level agriculture officer and the concerned farmer.  

            These are the criteria fixed by the Government of India, but the OP No.1 or the OP No.2 have not taken any steps to say that, they have safeguarded the farmers as such.  As per the Rules And Regulations issued by the Govt. of Karnataka in page No.8, it clearly says that, the claim amount has to be settled within September and October 2017, it says as follows:   

2016-17gÀ »AUÁgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉùUÉ ºÀAUÁ«Ä£À°è «ªÀiÁ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨É¼É «ªÀiÁ £ÀµÀÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¯ÉPÀÌ ºÁQ, «ªÉÄ ªÀiÁr¹zÀ gÉÊvÀjUÉ J¯Áè ¨É¼ÉUÀ½UÉ CAwªÀĪÁV »AUÁgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉùUÉ ºÀAUÁªÀÄÄUÀ¼À ¨É¼É «ªÀiÁ £ÀµÀÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÀgÀäªÁV ¸É¥ÀÖA§gï ºÁUÀÆ CPÉÆÖçgï 2017gÀ CAvÀåzÉƼÀUÉ EvÀåxÀð¥Àr¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. 

As stated supra, OP No.1 and 2 have not settled the claim within the time, the said claim however they calculated it should be settled within the time, but they failed to settle the same that to be transferred the meager amount after filing the complaint. 

OP No.1 submits that, they have settled it as per they received data from the District Statistical Office as per the crop cutting experiment.

15.       Of course complainant/s have also not produced any documents to show that they have suffered complete loss during 2016-17. Here we cannot totally disbelieve the prayer of the Complainant/s since there is lot of loopholes from OP No.1 while executing the scheme. Hence, Commission came to the conclusion that the claim is to be fixed on the crop loss proof produced by the Department of Agriculture, on that basis, OP No.1 has to pay 75% of the Sum Assured for their deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence, we answer Point No.1 in Affirmative & Point No.2 is in Partly Affirmative.          

 16.  POINT NO. 3: In view of our findings on the above points, the complaints filed by the complainants are partially allowed. In the result, we pass the following: 

//O R D E R//

1.  The above Complaint is partially allowed against OP No.1.

            2.   The OP No.1 is directed to pay 75% of the Sum Assured to Complainant/s within one month, failing which OP No.1 is liable to pay 18% interest from the date of filing this complaint till realization.

3.  OP No.1 is liable to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant/s towards compensation.  Further, OP No.1 is directed to pay litigation charges of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant/s.

4.  Complaint against OP No.2 and 3 is dismissed.

            5.  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 9^th day of December, 2021)

                  (Shri B.S.Keri)                               (Smt.C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar)

                  MEMBER                                              PRESIDENT