V/s

JUDGEMENT

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

          The complainants have filed the complaint U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for crop insurance amount of Rs.81,863/- with an interest @ 12% p.a, Rs.5,000/-  towards mental agony to each complainant and cost of litigation.  

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

          The Complainants had sown Bengalgram, Wheat, Jowar and Sunflower for the year 2003-04 in Rabi season and paid the premium amount as shown in the schedule through OP No.2. 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.

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

          4.       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 for  the year 2003-04 in Rabi season.  As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was shortfall for Sunflower, Bengalgram, wheat and Jowar, as per the shortfall of crops, the amount of insurance were disbursed to their respective banks or society. So, there is no deficiency of service committed by this OP.   Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

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

          OP No.2 denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crop during the Rabi season 2003-04.  After collecting the premium submitted to OP No.1. So there is no deficiency of service. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          6.       After hearing, my predecessor, passed a 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.1616/2009,  the   same   came  to  be allowed on 27.08.2009  and remanded for fresh disposal.

          7.       After hearing, my predecessor, passed a common judgment on 29.01.2010 and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes   Redressal   Commission,   Bengaluru, in Appeal No.1361/2010,  the   same   came  to  be allowed on 30.08.2010  and remanded for fresh disposal.

         8. After receipt of the records, notices were issued to the parties, Notices were served on complainant No.2 & 4  and Op No.1 & 2.  Complainant No.1 and 3 are reported as dead and their LRs are brought on record. Complainant No. 1,2,4, 1(e) and e(b) have filed their affidavit evidence and are examined as PW-1 to PW-5 and documents were marked  as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-14.  KVK, Adv. filed power for OP No.1 and filed affidavits of Sri. Bhimsen Pralhad Pujar and  Praveenkumar B.R. and were examined as RW-1 & RW-2 and marked the documents as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.Op-14.

 9. Counsel for complainants and counsel for Op No.1 argued.

          10.     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?

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

              Point No. 1:  In the affirmative

              Point No. 2:  In the partly affirmative.

              Point No. 3:  As per the final Order

R E A S O N S

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

            13.   On careful perusal of the materials placed before us, case was remanded for fresh disposal with a direction to take affidavit evidence of all complainants. PW-1 to PW-5 have filed affidavit and reiterated the contents of complaint. PW-1 to PW-5 has stated that, the Complainants had sown Bengalgram, Wheat, Jowar and Sunflower for the year 2003-04 in Rabi season and paid the premium amount as shown in the schedule through OP No.2. 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.   

          14.     RW-1 has reiterated the contents of the written version filed by Op No.1 in affidavit. RW-1 has stated that OP No.1 denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crops for  the year 2003-04 in Rabi season.  As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, and there was shortfall for Sunflower, Bengalgram, wheat and Jowar, as per the shortfall of crops, the amount of insurance were disbursed to their respective banks or society. So, there is no deficiency of service committed by this OP.   OP. Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-14 reveal that as per crop cutting experiment there was shortfall.

15. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-14 RTCs and other documents of presented by complainants are  not disputed by the Ops. Main contention of Op No.1 that, there was shortfall for Sunflower, Bengalgram, wheat and Jowar, as per the shortfall of crops the amount of insurance were disbursed to their respective banks or society as per yield data report issued by statistical department. In the written version filed by Op No.1 shown for Naregal Hobli, for crop of Sunflower Threshold yield is 307, Assessed yield is 237  and shortfall is 70, for crop of Bengalgram Threshold yield is 181, Assessed yield is 143  and shortfall is 38, for crop of Wheat Threshold yield is 103, Assessed yield is 92  and shortfall is 11 and for crop of Jowar Threshold yield is 325, Assessed yield is 259  and shortfall is 66, for the year 2003-04 for Rabi season and there is shortfall crops. 

          16. Whereas, in the affidavit of RW-1 has mentioned the details regarding Threshold yield and Assessed yield for the crop of Sunflower, Bengalgram, wheat and Jowar as there was a shortfall in crop and the amount insurance were disbursed to their respective bank, but Op have not produced a single documents to show that the insurance amount were transferred to either Nodal bank or complainants account. Hence,  Op No.1 has not followed the guidelines issued by the Government. Thus, there is a deficiency of service committed by Op No.1.

17.     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 desiredyield, 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)

18.     For the above, the complainants have proved that OPs have committed deficiency of service for not paying the insurance amount in respect of Sunflower, Bengalgram, Wheat, Greengram, and Jowar crops and they are entitled for the relief.   So, far as quantum of compensation is concerned, complainants are claiming entire assured amount. Of course, previously, entire amount has been awarded to other complainants. However, the Hon’ble State Commission passed Judgment in Appeal Nos. 1155/2021 to 1159/2021 in Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., V/s Mallikarjuna S/o Shankarappa Barkera and others. Wherein, the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore  held in para-7 as under:-

          “As per the criteria the farmer should inform the loss occurred in their fields within 48 hours of the incident to the Department of agriculture or else to the insurance company.  Having noted that the department not educated the farmers as per the scheme, premium said to have been paid by the farmers to the insurance company and also noted that during 2016-17, Op No.2 declared the said villages are hit by draught and it is bounden duty of Ops to visit fields for crop cutting experiments.  Further it is noted loss assessors would be appointed by the insurance company for assessment of loss due to operations of localized risks.  The loss has to be assessed jointly by the loss assessor appointed by the insurer, block level agriculture officer and the concerned farmer.  Though there is no cogent evidence produced regarding loss of crop during the year 2016-17, however, it is the stand of the complainant that crop loss has fixed at 75% of the sum assured.  We do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed.  However, we reduce the rate of interest awarded from 18% to 6%.  Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission”.

          19. Further, (2018) CJ 540 (N.C) in Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., V/s Kisan Parasram Rathod.  Wherein, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, held as under:-

          “Insurance-Agricultural Insurance – Deficiency in service on part of Insurance Company on account of its failure to pay to Complainants full amount of compensation, due to them under Agriculture Crop Insurance scheme, launched by Government of India – Amount of compensation modified by State Commission vide impugned order-Regard being had to balance paltry amounts determined by State Commission, it would be travesty of justice to interfere in these cases and subject poor farmers to unwarranted harassment by making them travel all the way from a far flung area in Maharashtra and defend the award-Travel and allied expenses which would be many times more than total amount of compensation payable under a Social security Scheme-Revision petitions dismissed.”

          On careful reading of the above decisions, circumstance and ratio of the above decisions are aptly applicable with the case on hand. 

20. Therefore, for the crops of Sunflower, Bengalgram, Wheat and Jowar, there is a shortfall and the formula adopted by Op No.1. Complainants are claiming interest at the rate of 18 % p.a. it is on the higher sider.  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 they did not receive the claim due to the fault of Op No.1. Rs.10,000/- to each complainant towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- to each complainant towards cost of  litigation.  Accordingly, we answer point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 in the partly affirmative.       

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

//O R D E R//

• complaint No.2 & 4 filed complaint U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is partly allowed, against Op No.1 and dismissed against Op No.2.

The LRs of complainant No.1 & 3 and complaint No.2 & 4 are entitled as shown below.   

Further, complainants are entitled interest at 6% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization.

Further, the complainants are entitled for Rs.10,000/- each towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- each towards cost of litigation.

Op No.1 is directed to pay the said amount to the complainants 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 us in the Open Commission on this 27^th  day of December- 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: Chanabasappa S/o Parappa Gedageri

PW-2: Kalakayya S/o Shankrayya Annigeri

PW-3: Kalakappa S/o Andappa Mugali

PW-4: Nagesh S/o Channabasappa Gedageri

PW-5: Basavaraj Veerappa Gedageri

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1 to 14:RTCs

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

RW-1 : Bhimsen Pralhad Pujar

RW-2: Praveen Kumar B.R.

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

Ex.Op1 to 5 : Proposal forms.

Ex.Op-6 : Scheme and guidelines.

Ex.Op-7 : Copy of Govt. order dtd:10.10.2003.

Ex.Op-8: Copy of letter issued by Joint Direct Crop Insurance

               dtd:28.06.2019.

Ex.Op-9 : Copy of statement showing yeild (In KGS/Hect) for the Hoblis

                Proposed for notification under RKBY for 2004-05(Rabi,

               Wheat,Irrigated)

Ex.Op-10: Copy of statement showing yeild (In KGS/Hect) for the Hoblis

                Proposed for notification under RKBY for 2004-05(Rabi Wheat,

                Un-irrigated)

Ex.Op-11:Copy of Rashtriya Krishi Bima Yojana-Assessed Yield in KGs/Hect.

               for 2003-04.

Ex.Op-12 : Copy of statement showing yeild (In KGS/Hect) for the Hoblis

                Proposed for notification under RKBY for 2004-05(Rabi Gram

                Un-irrigated)

Ex.Op-13: Copy of Assessed yield, Rabi-2003-04.

Ex.Op-14 : Copy of details of past 5 years Assessed yield data-

                 District/Taluk/Hobli wise.

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

              MEMBER                  PRESIDENT            WOMAN MEMBER