V/s

JUDGEMENT

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

            The complainants have filed the complaint U/Sec.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 for compensation towards crop insurance a sum of Rs.2,69,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony with cost.

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

            The complainants are residing in the same village and they are having common interest and cause of action as they have grown Onion, Groundnut and Greengram in their respective lands as mentioned in the complaint.  Complainants paid insurance premium amount for the year 2005-06 Khariff season.  Government declared 70% of drought condition in the said area.  In spite of requests, OPs have not paid the crop insurance amount.  Hence, filed this complaint.   

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

            4.         The brief facts of the Written Version filed by OP No.1 are as under:-

            OP No.1 denied the various allegations in the complaint and contended that, as per the report of the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall in the yield of Onion(RF), Groundnut(Irri) and (RF) and Greengram(RF) crops of Ron Hobli during 2005-06 Khariff Season.  Further contended that, complaint is debarred of limit as it has been filed after lapse of two years.  Hence, prays to dismiss the complaint.

          Subsequently, OP No.3, the Deputy Commissioner was impleaded as a party, who appeared through DGP and filed written version.

          The brief facts of the Written Version filed by OP No.3 are as under:-

           OP No.3 contended that, complaint is not maintainable as complainants are not a consumer of this OP No.3.  OP No.3 is neither necessary nor property party.  As per guidelines, insurance will be fixed.  Hence, prays to dismiss the complaint. 

          5.       After trial, my predecessor passed common judgment in Complaint No.337/2008, 338/2008, 442/20098 to 445/2008 on 13.11.2008 and partly allowed and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the same, OP preferred an appeal in Appeal No.1885/2009 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the appeal came to be allowed on 10.09.2009 and remanded for fresh disposal.  After receipt of the records, again passed judgment on 28.05.2010.  Being aggrieved by the same, OP preferred an appeal in Appeal No.2689/2010 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the appeal came to be allowed on 28.10.2010 and remanded for fresh disposal.  After receipt of the records, my predecessor passed common judgment on 30.12.2015 in the above cases.  OP No.1 preferred an appeal in Appeal No.394/2016 and the same is allowed on 03.02.2020 and remanded for fresh disposal.  After receipt of the records, notice was issued to parties.  Complainants appeared through their counsel and filed their affidavit evidence separately and examined as PW-1 to PW-10 and got marked the documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-42.  OPs have not chosen to file their

affidavits and documents.  OP No.1 had filed written arguments on 22.12.2011.  While the case is posted for arguments, no representation is made out for complainants, OP No.1 and 2 and is taken as no arguments.  DGP for OP No.3 argued.                    

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

1. Whether the complainants have proved that, the complaint is not barred by limitation?

2. Whether the complainants have proved that, there is a deficiency in service by the OPs?

3. Whether the complainants proved that, they are        

entitled for relief?

4. What Order?

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

               Point No. 1:  Negative.

               Point No. 2:  Negative

               Point No. 3:  Negative

              Point No.4:  As per the final Order

R E A S O N S

              8.     Point No.1 to 3:- The points are taken together to avoid the repetition of facts. The learned DGP argued that, complainants have failed to prove that, they are the consumers of OP No.3. 

          9.       On perusal of the materials placed before us, PW-1 to PW-3 have filed their separate affidavits in-lieu of their chief examination.  They have stated that, they are residing in the same village and they are having common interest and cause of action as they have grown Onion, Groundnut and Greengram in their respective lands as mentioned in the complaint.  Complainants paid insurance premium amount for the year 2005-06 Khariff season.  Government declared 70% of drought condition in the said area.  In spite of requests, OPs have not paid the crop insurance amount.

          10.     OP No.1 raised main objection that, delay in filing complaint is not explained, it is barred by limitation.   It is true that, complainants have claimrd compensation for the year 2005-06 and the complaint is lodged in the year 2008.  Neither in the complaint or in the affidavits, have they not whispered single word regarding delay in filing the complaint.  The complaint is lodged after more than 2 years and they have not stated a single word for alleged delay or filed an application for condoning the delay.  So, complaint is not maintainable without condoning the delay. 

          11.     Ex.C-1, Ex.C-3, Ex.C-5, Ex.C-7,  Ex.C-9, Ex.C-11, Ex.C-13, Ex.C-15, Ex.C-17 and Ex.C-19 the certificate and endorsement issued by OP No.2 Karnataka Vikasa Grameen Bank reveals that, when the farmers borrowed loan, they have not obtained the proposal form for crop insurance and also stated that, premium amount will be deducted in the loan and also stated that, what was the premium amount collected from the complainants.  These documents clearly go to show that, complainants paid the premium, even Bank has also not specifically mentioned the survey number and extent of the lands.  So, the amount paid for premium by the complainants is not disputed but, for which land they have paid the insurance is not mentioned.  Ex.C-2, Ex.C-4, Ex.C-6, Ex.C-8, Ex.C-10, Ex.C-12, Ex.C-14, Ex.C-16, Ex.C-18 and Ex.C-20 are the RTCs reveal that, complainants are the owners of the lands bearing Sy.No.200/1B, 509/1B, 178/3, 360/1+2/1B/1, 215/1A/2+1B, 514/1, 498/3A+B, 486/2C, 495/3 and 339.   Of course, complainants are the owners of the said lands but, whether they have paid the insurance for the said lands is not mentioned.  Ex.C-21 and 22 are letters issued by District Statistical Department, Gadag to this Commission and submitted the crop cutting experiment reports Ex.C-23 to Ex.C-42.  These documents reveal that, Government conducted CCEs in the different areas and on different crops.  Complainants have not produced the single document to show that, there was a shortfall during the year 2005-06.  It is a settled law that, merely Government declaring drought for a particular season or year is not a ground to believe that, there was a shortfall.  Shortfall will be assessed only on the basis of crop cutting experiment and as per guidelines of the Government.        Complainants have simply stated that, there is a

loss in the Onion, Groundnut and Greengram crops due to shortage of rain and they have not specifically mentioned what extent they have grown and how much they have suffered shortfall.  OP No.1 specifically contended in the written version that, as per the report of the Director of Economics and Statistics, yield data for Groundnut during Khariff season 2005-06 that there is no shortfall for the Ron Hobli. Onion yield in Kgs mentioned as 1661, actual yield in Kgs is 6200, Greengram (RF) yield in Kgs mentioned as 88, actual yield in Kgs is 266, Groundnut (Irri) yield in Kgs mentioned as 312, actual yield in Kgs is 860 and so also Groundnut (RF) 135 and 801 in the column of shortfall mentioned as Nil.  Of course, OP No.1 has not chosen to file affidavit and produced the documents.  However, letter issued by the Director of Economics and Statistics dated 31.03.2006 to OP No.1 and furnished the state wise assessed yield.  Letter is furnished in CC No.444/2006 which is pending in this Commission reveals that, Ron Hobli experiments plan 10 enlarged assessed yield is 602.  This document is supported by the contention raised by the OP No.1 that, Onion assessed yield is 602, Groundnut assessed yield is 801 and Greengram assessed yield is 266.  So, it is crystal clear that, there is no shortfall during the year 2005-06 for Groundnut crop during Khariff season both rain-fed and irrigation.        

          12.     It is pertinent to note here that, 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 rainfall or drought, thecrops did 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 has gone on 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 affected by 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 of 7 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) of the Hon’ble National Consumer DisputesRedressal 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.

          13.     For the above complainants have failed to prove that, there was a shortfall during the year 2005-06 and entitled to relief.  Hence, complainants have failed to prove the deficiency of service of OPs and they are not entitled for the relief as sought for.  Accordingly, we answer point No.1 to 3 are in negative.

          14.     Point No.4:-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 return the amount to the OPs deposited in this case, if OPs failed to receive the amount, amount shall be kept in Fixed Deposit.

Office is directed to 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 27^th day of JUNE-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:Irappa Kotrappa Gedageri

PW-2:Sangappa Srishylappa Dandina

PW-3:Virappa Sangappa Bhoodihala

PW-4:Shankaragouda Veeranagouda Doddanagoudra

PW-5:Marithammappa Sangappa Paraddi

PW-6:Somappa Keriyappa Mannura

PW-7:Paruthappa Sangappa Paraddi

PW-8:Sanganagouda Fakkeeragouda Policepatila

PW-9:Kuberappa Mallappa Paraddi

PW-10:Santhosha Srishylappa Gadaga 

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1: Certificate issued by KVG Bank

Ex.C-2: Record of Rights

Ex.P-3: Certificate issued by KVG Bank

Ex.P-4: Record of Rights

Ex.P-5: Certificate issued by KVG Bank

Ex.P-6: Record of Rights

Ex.P-7: Certificate issued by KVG Bank

Ex.P-8: Record of Rights

Ex.P-9: Certificate issued by KVG Bank

Ex.P-10:Record of Rights

Ex.P-11:Certificate issued by KVG Bank

Ex.P-12:Record of Rights

Ex.P-13:Certificate issued by KVG Bank

Ex.P-14:Record of Rights

Ex.P-16:Record of Rights

Ex.P-17:Certificate issued by KVG Bank

Ex.P-18:Record of Rights

Ex.P-19:Certificate issued by KVG Bank

Ex.P-20:Record of Rights

Ex.P-21 & 22: Letters issued by District Statistical Office, Gadag dated 10.09.2012 & 29.09.2012

Ex.P-23 to 42: CCE Reports

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