V/s

JUDGEMENT

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SMT.YASHODA.B.PATIL, WOMAN MEMBER

          The complainants have filed the complaint U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for recovery of crop insurance amount of Rs.1,97,446/- with an interest @ 18% p.a, Rs.5,000/-  towards mental agony and cost.  

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

          The complainants had sown Greengram, Groundnut, Onion and Maize for the year 2005-06 in Kharif 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 appeared through counsel and DGP appeared for OP No.3. OP No.2 remained absent.  OP  No.1 & 3 have filed written version. 

          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 2005-06 in Kharif season.  As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall for the all crops. 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.3 are as under:

          OP No.3 denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crops for the year 2005-06 in Kharif season. Complainants are not a consumer of OP-3, this OP is having  supervising power only over the other Ops.  So there is no deficiency of service. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          6.       After hearing, my predecessor, passed common judgment on 21.05.2010 and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes   Redressal   Commission,   Bengaluru, in Appeal No.3226/2010,  the   same   came  to  be allowed on 31.01.2011  and remanded for fresh disposal.

          7.       After hearing, my predecessor, passed common judgment on 30.12.2015 and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes   Redressal   Commission,   Bengaluru, in Appeal No.380/2016,  the   same   came  to  be allowed on 03.02.2020  and remanded for fresh disposal.

          8. After receipt of the records, notices were issued to the parties, notice was served to complainant No.1 to 4, 7,8,10 to 12 and Ops, Notice of  complainant No.13 not returned. They are called out absent. Complainant No.14 endorsed as addressee left.   Complainant No.5,6 & 9 are reported as dead and LRs of complainant No.9 is brought on record and no LRs of complainant No.5 & 6 are brought on record. Complainant No.1,3,7,10,11,13,14 and 12 (9)b have filed affidavit and examined as PW-1 to PW-9 and were got marked  the documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-78.  DGP filed M/A for OP No.3. KVK, Adv. filed power for OP No.1  Sri. Praveen Kumar B.R. for OP No.1 filed affidavit and examined as RW-1 and got documents marked as Ex.Op-1 to Ex.Op-12.

 9. Counsel for complainants, DGP for Op No.3 and counsel for Op No.1 argued and counsel for Op No.1filed written arguments. 

          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:  Negative.

              Point No. 2:  Negative

              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-9 have filed affidavit and reiterated the contents of complaint. PW-1 to PW-9 have stated that, The complainants had sown Greengram, Groundnut, Onion and Maize for the year 2005-06 in Kharif 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.  Ex.C-1 to C-78  RTCs and other documents are not disputed by the Ops.

14. Per contra, RW-1 filed affidavit and reiterated the contents of written version filed by Op No.1. RW-1 has stated that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crops for  the year 2005-06 in Kharif season.  As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall to the said crops. So, there is no deficiency of service committed by this OP. Ex.Op-1 to Ex.Op-12 reveal that, Ops have adopted the crop cutting experiments, and there is no shortfall. 

15. However, in CC No.154/2009 documents were marked. Wherein, the Advocate, OPs, crops, season, Hobli and year are one and the same. The said case is also posted for Judgment today. The learned counsel for complainants has filed written arguments in CC No.154/2009 and also a memo to adopt the same arguments in this case also. Therefore, the observations made in the said case is as under:-

16. So, the  Ex.OP-1 and Ex.C-113  reveal that yield data pertaining to Kharif-2005 season of Ron Hobli, to Greengram(RF) CCE conducted in the month of August-2005, Threshold yield is 88, Assessed yield is 266 and shortfall is NIL to Maize(RF) CCE conducted in the month of October/November-2005, Threshold yield is 1062, Assessed yield is 2322 and shortfall is NIL, to Groundnut(RF) CCE conducted in the month of September to November-2005, Threshold yield is 135, Assessed yield is 801 and shortfall is NIL and to Onion(RF) CCE conducted in the month of  November-2005, Threshold yield is 1661 Assessed yield is 6002 and shortfall is NIL. Ex.OP-7 is past five years Assessed yield data also shown is Hobliwise. Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-5, Ex.OP-8 to Ex.OP-25 reveal that Ops have conducted the CCE in time and the experiment is also done at the time of harvesting all the crops. 

          17. Previously my predecessor, has partly allowed the complaint and awarded the compensation.  OP No.1 preferred Appeal before State Commission, Bengaluru in Appeal No.380/16 to 408/16 the Hon’ble Commission has passed common judgment and allowed the appeals on 03.02.2020 and remanded for fresh disposal with a direction to collect the individual evidence from each of the complainant and to rely upon the crop cutting experiment report of Director of Economics and Statistical Department. As per the observation, complainants have filed their individual affidavit evidence and also collected the crop cutting experiment report of Director of Economics and Statistical Department.

          18. In the written arguments, counsel for complainants contended that, Ops have not conducted the crop cutting experiments as per guidelines, as no notices were issued and drew the mahazar, in presence of Bank Officials and complainants. Complainant has not stated these contentions in the complaint. If, there is a specific pleading in the complaint regarding the grievance which is raised now in the written arguments, then Op No.1 would have answered in the written version.    However, Ex.OP-1 to  Ex.OP-7 & Ex.C-113 clearly goes to show that, Ops have conducted the CCE as per guidelines.

          19. The learned counsel is relying on a judgment passed in Writ Appeal No.3001/2012 (GM-RES) in Agricultural Insurance Co, of India Ltd., V/S Bhimanagouda Neelanagouda Patil and another, facts and circumstances of the said case is not similar with case on hand as in the said case Insurance Company did not produce the yield data, but in the case on hand yield data documents are produced. Further relying on a Judgment in AIC V/S Kemlegouda, the Hon’ble National Commission, observed that, the Insurance Co.,  rejected the claim by denying as the farmer has not Sown the Potato crop, but the records submitted by the Revenue Department is clearly shown as the farmer has sown the Potato crops.  The facts and circumstances of the said case is not similar with case on hand. Further, in written arguments stated that, Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the Bajaj Alianz  V/s Dhanian Raj 2022, directed to settle the compensation of post harvesting. The facts and circumstances of the above case is also not similar with case on hand, as complainant have not pleaded a single word regarding loss of post harvesting. 

          20.     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)

          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.

21.  Even no cause of action arose to file this complaint as there is no deficiency of service committed by Ops. Complainants are claiming compensation for the loss of crops for the year 2005-06 and the complaint is filed after 4 years in the year 2009. Mere allegation are made in the complaint, without producing oral and documentary evidence to show that Ops  have not followed the guidelines and there is shortfall. Therefore, complainants have failed to prove that OPs have committed deficiency of service and they are entitled for the reliefs.   Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 and 2 in Negative.

22.     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, directly on computer corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this 23^rd 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: Chandrakant Shivamurtappa Chavadi

PW-2: Gundappa Mudakappa Shirabadagi

PW-3: Mallappa Chandappa Madalageri

PW-4: Sharanappa Channabasappa Madalageri

PW-5: Ningabasappa Sharanappa Andi

PW-6: Rudrappa Ningappa Andi

PW-7: Shashidhar Hanumgouda Patil

PW-8: Ishappa Ningappa Andi

PW-9: Sharanappa S/o Channabasappa Madalageri

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1 :Form No.24

Ex.C-2 : Certificates issued by village accountant.

Ex.C-3 : Proposal form.

Ex.C-4 to 6:RTCs

Ex.C-7: Certificate issued by village accountant.

Ex.C-8: Certificate issued by village accountant.

Ex.C-:Proposal forms.

Ex.C-9 :RTC

Ex.C-10: Form No.8A

Ex.C-11: Certificate issued by village accountant

Ex.C-12: Proposal form.

Ex.C-13 : Form No.8A

Ex.C-14: Certificate issued by village accountant

Ex.C-15: Proposal form.

Ex.C-16 & 17: RTCs

Ex.C-18: Form No.24

Ex.C-19 : Certificates issued by village accountant

Ex.C-20:Proposal form.

Ex.C-21 to 26: RTCs

Ex.C-27:Form No.24.

Ex.C-28: Certificate issued by village accountant.

Ex.C-29:Proposal form.

Ex.C-30: RTC

Ex.C-31: Form No.8A

Ex.C-32 & 33 : Certificates issued by village accountant.

Ex.C-34 &35:Proposal forms.

Ex.C-36 to 38:RTCs

Ex.C-39: Proposal form.

Ex.C-40 & 41: RTCs

Ex.C-42 :Form No.24

Ex.C-43: Certificate issued by village accountant.

Ex.C-44 to  46:Proposal forms

Ex.C-47 & 48: RTCs

Ex.C-49: Form No.24

Ex.C-50: Certificate issued by village accountant.

Ex.C-51: Proposal form.

Ex.C-52 & 53: RTCs

Ex.C-54 to 56:Proposal forms.

Ex.C-57:RTC

Ex.C-58:Form 8A.

Ex.C-59: Certificate issued by village accountant.

Ex.C-60 & 61:Proposal forms.

Ex.C-62 & 63: RTCs

Ex.C-64: Proposal forms.

Ex.C-65:RTC

Ex.C-66 :Form No.24

Ex.C-67: Certificate issued by village accountant.

Ex.C-68 to 70: Proposal forms.

Ex.C-71 to 74: RTCs

Ex.C-75 : Form No.8A

Ex.C-76: Certificate issued by village accountant.

Ex.C-77:Proposal form.

Ex.C-78:RTC

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

RW-1 : Praveen Kumar B.R.

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

Ex.Op-1 :  Scheme and guidelines.

Ex.Op-2 : Circular for Kharif-2005, Instruction to Nodal Banks.

Ex.Op-3 : Copy of statement showing year wise yield (in KGs/Hect) for the

               Hoblis proposed for notification under RKBY for 2004-05.

Ex.Op-4 : Copy of Rashtriya Krishi Bima Yojana Assessed yield 2004-05.

Ex.Op-5 : Copy of letter from Directorate of Economics & Statistics 

                dtd:31.03.2006.

Ex.Op-6 : Copy of statement showing year wise yield (in KGs/Hect) for the

               Hoblis proposed for notification under RKBY for 2004-05.

Ex.Op-7 : Copy of Rashtriya Krishi Bima Yojana Assessed yield 2004-05.

Ex.Op-8 : Copy of Rashtriya Krishi Bima Yojana Assessed yield in Kgs/Hect. for   

               2005-06.

Ex.Op-9 : Copy of statement showing year wise yield (in KGs/Hect) for the

               Hoblis proposed for notification under RKBY for 2004-05.

Ex.OP-10: Copy of Rashtriya Krishi Bima Yojana Assessed yield in KGs/Hect.

                for 2004-05.

Ex.Op-11 : Copy of letter from Directorate of Economics & Statistics

                 dtd:15.04.2005.

Ex.Op-12 : Details of past 5 years Assessed yield Data-District/Taluk/Hoble

                 wise.

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

              MEMBER                  PRESIDENT            WOMAN MEMBER