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 crop loan insurance amount as shown in schedule para-4, with interest @ 18% p.a., Rs.2,000/- to each towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- to each towards cost.

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

          Complainants are resident of  Basaragod & Madalageri village of RonTaluk Dist:Gadag.  They have grown Sunflower and  Jowar 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.

           2.     In pursuance of service of notice, OP No. 1  appeared through counsel. Op No.2 appeared in person.  OP No.3 appeared through DGP and Op No.1 &  3 filed written version. 

          3.       The brief facts of 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 crop Sunflower and Jowar during the year 2003-04 for Rabi season.   As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall. Hence, claim is not settled.  So, there is no deficiency of service. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          4. The brief facts of  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 crop during the Rabi season 2003-04.  Complainants are not a consumer as this Op has only supervising power over the other Ops.  So, there is no deficiency of service. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          5. After hearing, my predecessor passed common judgment on 30.12.2008, complaint is partly allowed and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.1747/2009 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes    Redressal   Commission,   Bengaluru,   the   same   came  to  be allowed on 26.11.2009 and remanded for fresh disposal.

          6. After receipt of the records, notice issued to the parties.  After hearing, my predecessor again passed common judgment on 27.05.2010 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an  Appeal No.2726/10 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru and the same came to be allowed on 28.10.2010 and remanded for fresh disposal.

7. After receipt of the records, notice was issued to the parties.  After hearing, my predecessor again passed common judgment on 14.12.2015 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an Appeal No.277/16 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru and the same came to be allowed on 03.02.2020 and remanded for fresh disposal.

          8. After receipt of the records, notice was issued to the parties. Notices were served to complainant No.1 & 2 who remained absent. Complainant No.3,4 ,8 and 10 arecreported as dead and no LRs are brought on record. Complainant No.3 had earlier filed affidavit dtd:15.12.2008 and was examined as CW-1 and got marked documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-30. Notices were served to OP No.1 to 3.  KVK, Adv. filed power for OP No.1. OP No.2 appeared in person. Shri. SHP, Adv. undertakes to appear for OP No.2, later nobody appeared. DGP filed M/A and written version of OP No.3.  Ops have not chosen to file affidavit evidence.

9.       Heard, argument on both sides,

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

1. Whether the complainants prove that, there is a deficiency of  service committed by  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:  Partly affirmative.

               Point No. 2:  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, CW-1 had filed affidavit and reiterated the contents of complaint. CW-1 has  stated that, Complainants are resident of  Basaragod & Madalageri village of RonTaluk Dist:Gadag.  They have grown Sunflower and  Jowar 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. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-30  RTCs and other documents are not disputed by the Ops. Main contention of Op No.1 is that there was a no shortfall as per yield data report issued by statistical department. In the written version filed by Op No.1 have shown in the schedule details about Betageri and Gadag Hobli. Wherein, there is no shortfall. But, complainants are claiming the compensation of Ron Hobli. So, Op No.1 instead of filing written version of Ron Hobli, have wrongly submitted the details of  Gadag-Betageri Hobli. Even though OP No.1 filed written version in the year 2011, they have not made attempt to amend the written version or file additional written version for Ron Hobli. Even, OP No.1 to 3 have not chosen to file affidavit evidence and documents to show that there was a shortfall or no shortfall for Ron Hobli. Such being the case, there is no reasons to disbelieve the oral and documentary evidence of the complainants. The case of the complainants are remained unchallenged in respect of Ron Hobli. Notification issued by Deputy Commissioner Gadag, dtd:22.07.2004 reveals that for the year 2003-04 entire Ron Hobli is declared as drought and waived the Revenue Tax, documents issued by statistical Department  reveal that crop cutting experiment is conducted. So, Ops have committed the deficiency of service.

15. The conduct of the Ops is not proper and they are not diligent to participate in the proceedings and assist the Commission by filing written version in respect of Ron Hobli, or adduce affidavit evidence and produce the documents. Op No.1 is in the habit of repeatedly filing the appeal and have succeeded to remand the case and again remained absent. Op No.1 preferred an Appeal No.1747/2009, 2726/10 and without filing the written version after remand they have filed the written version on 23.05.2011. And again preferred third time an appeal No.277/16, and Appeal came to be allowed and provided an opportunity. However, Op No.1 remained careless and were not diligent to file either addition written version or amended written version to submit the details of Ron Hobli and assist this Commission. Complainants  being farmer have  knocked  the door of this Commission on 13.08.2008 yet, they have  not succeeded in receiving the entitled relief for  more than 12 Years. 

16. This Commission passed judgment in CC. No.140/19 and partly allowed and awarded compensation at 75%. Being aggrieved Op No.1 challenged the said judgment  and preferred an Appeal No.1155/21 the same is dismissed on 18.02.2022 and confirmed the 75% compensation. Hon’ble State Commission observed in Appeal No.1155/21-1159/21 in common Judgment as under:-

“Heard the counsel for appellant. Perused the order.  The District Form on the objections raised by OP found that there is no evidence to show that complainants have suffered complete loss during 2016-2017 Rabi crop.  Further, found that claim fixed on the crop loss proof produced  by Department of Agriculture, fixed percentage of loss at 75%.  Accordingly, ordered to pay amount of 75% of sum assured to the complainant, failing which it will carry interest at 18% and also ordered to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.1,000/- litigation cost.

As per the criteria the farmer should inform the loss occurred in their fields within 48 hours of the incident to the Department of Agricultures 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 drought 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 reasons 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”.

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 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.

18. For the above, Complainants have proved that, Ops have committed deficiency of service and are entitled for the relief. Complainants are seeking relief for the entire assured amount. As per guidelines they are not entitled for the entire assured amount. However, they are entitled the compensation at 75% of assured amount respectively. Already Op No.1 has deposited a sum of Rs.19,595/- as per order passed in Appeal No.277/16 dtd:26.06.2020. So, Op No.1 is liable to pay remaining amount excluding the already deposited amount. Complainant No.3,4,8 and 10 are reported as dead and no LRs are brought on record. However, LRs of complainant No.3,4,8 and 10 are entitled for the compensation.

19. Complainants are claiming interest at the rate of 18 % p.a. it is on higher sider.  So, as per rate of interest in the Nationalized Bank it is proper to award interest @ 6% p.a. from the date complaint till realization. Complainants have suffered mental agony, even though they have paid the premium for their lands, they did not receive the claim due to the fault of Ops.  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.          

          20.     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 partly allowed against Op No.1 complaint is dismissed against OPNo.2 & 3.

Complainant No.1, 2, 5 to 7 & 9 and LRs. Of complainant No.3,4, 8 & 10 are entitled for 75% of the sum assured from OP No.1with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization.

Further, the complainants are entitled for Rs.5,000/- each towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- each towards cost of litigation.

Op No.1 is directed to pay the said amount within two months, after excluding already deposited amount of
Rs.19,595/-.

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 Court on this 21^st  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 : Hasangouda Gousugouda Patil

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1 & 2: Legal notice.

Ex.C-3 :Postal receipts.

Ex.C-4 : Proposal form.

Ex.C-5 : Crop certificate issued by village accountant.

Ex.C-6 & 9: Proposal forms.

Ex.C-10: Crop certificate issued by village accountant.

Ex.C-11:Proposal form.

Ex.C-12 : Crop certificate issued by village accountant.

Ex.C-13 to 15: Proposal forms.

Ex.C-16 to 27: RTCs

Ex.C-28 & 29: Letter from Dist. Statistical Officer, Gadag

Ex.C-30:Letters from Joint Director of Crop Insurance.

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