V/s

JUDGEMENT

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

          The complainants have filed the complaint U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for recovery of crop loan insurance amount of Rs.3,31,265/- with interest @ 12% p.a, towards mental agony Rs.5,000/- to each complainant and cost of the proceedings.

           1.  The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

          Complainants are resident of Hirehal village of RonTaluk Dist:Gadag.  They have grown Sunflower,  Jowar, Wheat and Bengalgram for the year 2003-04 in Rabi season and paid the premium amount as shown in the schedule through OP No.3. Due to shortage of rain, complainants have suffered loss.  Inspite of repeated request to Ops, they did not settle the claim.  So, Ops have committed the deficiency of service.  Hence, filed this complaint.

          2.       In pursuance of service of notice, OP No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version. 

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

          OP No.1 denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crops during the year 2003-04 in Rabi season.  As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall for the crops of Sunflower for Ron Hobli. Whereas, there is a shortfall for Jowar, Wheat and Bengalram for Ron Hobli, and the same is already settled for the year 2003-04. So, there is no deficiency of service committed by this OP.  Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

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

          OP No.2 has denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crops during the Rabi season 2006-07.  OP No.2 stated that, they are acting as a collecting agent and mediator between the complainants and OP No.1, they have received the proposal forms, premium amount and submitted to OP No.1.  They are not responsible and there is no deficiency of service committed by OP No.2. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          5.       After hearing, my predecessor, passed common judgment on 30.09.2008 and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes   Redressal   Commission,   Bengaluru, in Appeal No.1891/09,  the   same   came  to  be allowed on 10.09.2009 and remanded for fresh disposal.

          6.       After receipt of the records, notice was issued to the parties.  After hearing, my predecessor, again passed common judgment on 29.01.2010 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 has again preferred an Appeal No.1351/10 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore and the same came to be allowed on 30.08.2010 and remanded for fresh disposal.

          7. After receipt of the records, notice was issued to the parties. Notices were served to complainant No.1 to 12, 14 to 16 and Op No.1 & 2.  Complainant No.13 reported as addressee left.  Complainant No.1 & 7 filed affidavit and examined as PW-1 & PW-2 and marked the documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-87.   KVK, Adv. filed power for OP No.1 and NSB, Adv. filed power  for OP No.2.  Ops have not chosen to file  affidavit evidence and no documents are produced.

          8.       Heard the arguments on both sides.

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

1. Whether the complainants prove that, there is a deficiency of service committed by the OPs?

2. Whether the complainants prove that, they are          

entitled for relief?

3. What Order?

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

               Point No. 1:  Partly affirmative.

               Point No. 2:  Partly affirmative.

               Point No. 3:  As per the final Order

R E A S O N S

              11.   Point No.1 & 2:- The points are taken together to avoid the repetition of facts.

            12.   On careful perusal of the materials placed before us, case is remanded for fresh disposal with a direction to take affidavit evidence of all complainants. PW-1 & PW-2 filed affidavit and reiterated the contents of complaint. PW-1 & PW-2 has stated that, Complainants are resident of Hirehal village of RonTaluk Dist:Gadag.  They have grown Sunflower,  Jowar, Wheat and Bengalgram for the year 2003-04 in Rabi season and paid the premium amount as shown in the schedule through OP No.3. Due to shortage of rain, complainants have suffered loss.  Inspite of repeated request to Ops, they did not settle the claim.  So, Ops have committed the deficiency of service. 

13. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-87 documents are not disputed by the OPs. RTCs, Proposal forms, Certificate issued by bank and other documents reveal that complainants are owner of their respective lands and paid the premium.

14. In para No.3 of written version of OP No.1 have stated that, there was no shortfall to the crops of Sunflower of Ron Hobli and for Jowar and Bengalram and Wheat of Ron Hobli there was a shortfall and same is already settled for the year 2003-04. But, OP No.1 has not chosen to file affidavit evidence and documents to show that, they have already settled the claim. Mere, pleading in the written version that, they have already settled the claim for shortfall without producing the oral and  documentary evidence cannot be accepted. Therefore, the complainants are entitled for the claim.

15.     The  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:

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.

16.     For the above, the complainants are entitled for the compensation for crop of Wheat (RF), Jowar (RF) and Bengalgram(RF). They are not entitled for Sunflower crop. Complainants are claiming interest at the rate of 18 % p.a., it is on higher side.  So, as per rate of interest in the Nationalized Bank it is proper to award interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization. Complainants have suffered mental agony, even though they paid the premium for their lands in the year 2003-04. However, they did not receive the claim due to the fault of Op No.1. So, complainants are entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- each towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- each towards cost of the complaint. Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 and 2 in the partly affirmative.

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

          //O R D E R//

The complaint is filed U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and is partly allowed against Op No.1 and dismissed against Op No.2.

Complainants are entitled for the compensation as under:

Complainants are entitled interest @ 8% p.a. from the date filing of the complaint, till realization, a sum of Rs.5,000/-to each complainant towards mental agony and a sum of Rs.2,000/- to each complainant towards cost from OP No.1.

Op No.1 is directed to pay the above amount within two months from the date of this order.

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

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Commission on this 18^th day of October-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: Amrutagouda Ningangouda Goudar

PW-2: Honappa Ningappa Muttalgeri

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1 : Form No.8A

Ex.C-2 to 4: Certificate issued by Village Accountant.

Ex.C-5 to7: Proposal forms.

Ex.C-8: RTC

Ex.C-9: Form No.24.

Ex.C-10: Certificate issued by Village Accountant.

Ex.C-11 & 12 : Proposal forms.

Ex.C-13 :RTC.

Ex.C-14: Form No.24.

Ex.C-15 : Certificate issued by Village Accountant.

Ex.C-16 to 18:Proposal forms.

Ex.C-19 : RTC

Ex.C-20: Form No.24

Ex.C-21: Certificate issued by Village Accountant.

Ex.C-22 & 23 : Proposal forms.

Ex.C-24 : RTC

Ex.C-25: Form No.8A

Ex.C-26: Certificate issued by Village Accountant.

Ex.C-27 & 28: Proposal forms.

Ex.C-29: RTC 

Ex.C-30 : Form No.8A

Ex.C-31: Certificate issued by Village Accountant.

Ex.C-32 & 33:Proposal forms.

Ex.C-34:Form No.8A.

Ex.C-35: Certificate issued by Village Accountant.

Ex.C-36 to 39:Proposal forms.

Ex.C-40:RTC

Ex.C-41: Form No.8A

Ex.C-42: Certificate issued by Village Accountant.

Ex.C-43 to 45:Propsal forms

Ex.C-46:RTC.

Ex.C-47:Form No.24.

Ex.C-48: Certificate issued by Village Accountant.

Ex.C-49 to 51:Proposal forms.

Ex.C-52:RTC.

Ex.C-53:Form No.8A

Ex.C-54: Certificate issued by Village Accountant.

Ex.C-55:Proposal form.

Ex.C-56:RTC.

Ex.C-57: Form No.8A

Ex.C-58: Certificate issued by Village Accountant.

Ex.C-59 & 60:Proposal form.

Ex.C-61:RTC.

Ex.C-62:Form No.24.

Ex.C-63: Certificate issued by Village Accountant.

Ex.C-64 to 66:Proposal forms.

Ex.C-67:RTC.

Ex.C-68:Form No.24.

Ex.C-69: Certificate issued by Village Accountant.

Ex.C-70 & 71:Proposal forms.

Ex.C-72:RTC

Ex.C-73:Form No.24.

Ex.C-74& 75: Certificate issued by Village Accountant.

Ex.C-76 & 77: Proposal forms.

Ex.C-78:RTC

Ex.C-79:Form No.24.

Ex.C-80: Certificate issued by Village Accountant.

Ex.C-81& 82:Proposal forms.

Ex.C-83:RTC.

Ex.C-84:Form No.8A

Ex.C-85: Certificate issued by Village Accountant.

Ex.C-86 & 87:Proposal forms.

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

         -NIL-

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

        -NIL-

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

              MEMBER                  PRESIDENT            WOMAN MEMBER