Complainant/s:            1. Malleshappa Ningappa Hottina,  Age:45 Years, Occ: Agriculture,

                                             2.  Veerappa Pavadeppa Anagoudra, since dead, his LR Balappa Veerappa Anagoudra, Age: 46 Years, Occ: Agriculture,

                                             3.  Shivappa Adappa Amaragola @ Anagoudra, Age: 65  Years, Occ: Agriculture,

                                             4.  Smt. Kalakawwa D/o Veerabhadrappa Mulemani @ Anagoudra, Age: 40 Years, Occ: Household work,

                                             5.  Jawahara Balappa Hottina, Age:38 Years, Occ: Agriculture,

                                             6.  Ashoka Balappa Hottina, represented by GPA Jawahara Balappa Hottina, Age; 38 Years, Occ: Agriculture,

                                             All R/o Nidagundi, Taluk:Ron, District: Gadag.

                                            (Rep. by Sri.S.B.Malashetti, Advocate)   

V/s

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

            The complainants have filed the complaint U/Sec.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986, to pay the remaining crop insurance amount towards loss of crop with interest @ 12% from the date of part payment, compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony with cost.

             The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

          2.       The complainants had sowed Sunflower in Sy.No.566/2A+2B measuring 4-01 Acres, Sy.No.255/1 measuring 2-13 Acres, Sy.No.375/1 measuring 0-34 Acres, Sy.No.554/2 measuring 1-24 Acres, Sy.No.7/3B measuring 1-10 Acres, Sy.No.603/2 measuring 3-36 Acres, Sy.No.579 measuring 3-40 Acres, Sy.No.428 measuring 3-25 Acres, Sy.No.451/4A, Sy.No.102/2A, Sy.No.528/2, 604/1A and Sy.No.79/4 measuring 6-00 Acres, Sy.No.5/2 measuring 1-30 Acres, Sy.No.298/1+2 measuring 5-83 Acres, Sy.No.653/1B measuring 2-00 Acres, Sy.No. 590/1 measuring 1-30 Acres and Sy.No.592/1 measuring 1-12 Acres and for Bengalgram crop in Sy.No.298/1+2 measuring 1-60 Acres, Sy.No.186/2 measuring 4-82 Acres, Sy.No.579 measuring 4-00 Acres, Sy.No.428 measuring 4-00 Acres, Sy.No.35/1+2B  measuring 3-11 Acres and Sy.No.569/6 measuring 1-85 Acres and for Jowar crop in Sy.No.428 measuring 2-80 Acres, Sy.No.453/2B and Sy.No.453/1B measuring 3-30 Acres and for Wheat crop in Sy.No.453/2A measuring 1-60 Acres during the year 2003-04 in their respective lands situated at Nidagundi village of Naregal Hobli in Ron Taluk and insured the said crops with AIC for the yield and paid the total premium for all above stated crops, amount of Rs.20,332/- in 2003-04 under RKBY for a sum assured amount of  Rs.3,79,601/-.  The said crops were good and healthy and the complainants hoped that they would get good yield from the above said crops for the said year.  It is further submitted that, the said crops have failed completely due drought.  Thereafter, the Government has declared the said area as hit by drought during the said period. The complainants are the non-loanee farmers.  The OPs have paid part of the insurance amount in the year 2005 except Sunflower crop but, failed to pay the remaining amount.  Complainants approached the OP No.2 and 3 and requested to release the crop insurance amount but, it went in vain, which shows the deficiency in service.  Therefore, the complainants got issued legal notice to the OPs but, the OPs failed to give reply to the notice.  The cause of action for this complaint arose when the complainants issued legal notice to the OPs.   Hence there is a deficiency in service and prayed to order the OPs to pay the remaining insurance amount  with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of part payment made by the OPs, Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental stress, loss and damages with costs of the proceedings and such other reliefs.

        3.   In pursuance service of notice, OP No.1 and 2 appeared through their respective counsels.  OP No.3 through DGP. OP No.1 to 3 filed their respective written version. 

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

        4.   OP No.1 stated that, the above complaint is not maintainable both in law and also on facts. The National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS)/Rashtriya Krishi Bhima Yojana (RKBY) is being implemented in the country under the orders of Government of India vide Ref: No.13011/15/99/credit II dated 16.07.1999 of the Ministry  of the Ministry of Agriculture,    Department  of  Agriculture  and  cooperation,   New   Delhi    w.e.f., 01.10.1999.    The complainants have wrongly interpreted the scheme stating that this OP agreed to compensate the loss in the event of failure of crops.  In the terms of the scheme, all the Banks who extend short term production crop loans for the notified crops in the notified areas are required to debit the premium amount compulsorily to the crop loan account and remit the same through their Nodal Offices in respect of their loanee farmers to the AIC of India Ltd.,  In case of non-loanee farmers to take part in the scheme, those who are cultivating the notified crop in the notified area may at their option, lodge the proposal along with the respective premium to the Bank Branch within the stipulated cutoff date fixe for this purpose by the SLCCCI.    It is further submitted that, indemnity is based on the  “Actual yield” per hectare of the insured crop for the defined area on the basis of requisite number of crop cutting experiments in the insured season, falls short of the specified area are deemed to have suffered shortfall in the 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 of the farmer = Indemnity claims

Whereas

Shortfall in Yield = Threshold Yield – Actual Yield for the defined area

          It is further submitted that, the complainants have demanded for claim settlement in respect of Sunflower, Bengalgram and Jowar crops pertaining to Naregal Hobli, Ron Taluk, Gadag District under Rabi 2003-04.  In respect of above crop pertaining to the said Hobli, OP No.1 has not aware whether the complainants have paid the premium for the said crop and in what season, what is the notified area etc.  The acceptance of the premium by the Banks should be as per the seasonality discipline.  If there is any violation, as per the scheme, Bank only shall make good all such losses.  The liability of this OP arise if and only if the premium of the farmer is duly accepted by the Bank as per provisions of the scheme and forwarded by the concerned Nodal Bank to this OP within the prescribed cut-off date during the season and only if there is shortfall in yield for the insured crop in the insured area during a particular season.  It is further submitted that, as per NAIS, claims in general will be disbursed through Nodal Banks, as per shortfall in the notified area for the respective notified crop as was already mentioned.  However, during Rabi 2003-04 season for eligible crops they have settled all eligible claims as per scheme, to all insured farmers under area/approach.  However, in respect of all Hobilis of Nargal.  The Director of Economics and Statistics has thus furnished to this OP, crop wise, Hobli wise yield data for all crops during the season.  Hence, as per the scheme provisions, this OP is not liable to settle any claims for Sunflower, Bengalgram and Jowar during the season.  The State Government cannot play hot and cold at the same time.  Data based on CCEs conducted by the Karnataka State Government and supplied to AIC of India, Yield Data for the year Rabi 2003-04 are as follows:

          As per the scheme, for insured crops where there was shortfall in yield, as per which this OP has already settled all eligible claims during the season as per the declarations, received by this OP through the Nodal Banks.  Wherever shortfall was there, they have settled the claims as per the yield data given.  The complainants might have already received the eligible claims, the same is hiding by the complainants and fraudulently claiming through this Commission.    As per the data, the OP has settled the eligible claim to the farmers/complainants where there is a shortfall in the area.  The complainants are hiding the material facts and are fraudulently claiming the undue amount and hence, prays to dismiss the complaint.

          The brief facts of the Written Version filed by OP No.2 are as under:

          OP No.2 submits that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  It is submitted that, as regards the payment aspects if any, it has to be settled by the insurance company/OP No.1.  This OP has remitted the necessary premium collected to the insurance company.  Therefore, it is for the insurance company to consider case of the Complainant.  The complainants have insured the crops as per the enclosed proposal form and sowing certificates.  It is further submitted that, the crop insurance, by its very nature, has to be done on the basis of Area Approach.  The crop insurance scheme provides indemnity based on the yield data that would be ascertained scientifically by crop cutting experiment.  It is further submitted that, the actual average yield of a notified crop in a notified area is less than the threshold yield fixed for the area, all insured farmers whose crops have been insured will become eligible for claim compensation as per NAIS.  The insured company has already disbursed eligible and legitimate claims for the season to these complainants and the season is already closed.  This OP is acting as Nodal agency only for collection of crop insurance premium on the notified crop and remittance of the premium amount collected, to the AIC.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of this OP and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

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

          OP No.3 denied the contents of the complaint and contended that, complainant is not a consumer to OP No.1 and no way concerned to the case as the role of this OP is to advise and create awareness to the farmers regarding crop insurance and hence, prays to dismiss the complaint.

            5.  To prove the case, complainant No.4 filed affidavit evidence, examined as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex.C-1 to C-54.  Documents of OPs got marked as Ex.OP-1 to 21.

            6.      No arguments advanced either by complainants or by OP No.1 as no representation made out.  Counsel for OP No.2 and DGP for OP No.3 argued. 

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

1. Whether the complainants have prove the     

deficiency in service on the part of OPs as averred in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainants are entitled to any    relief?

3. What Order?

 8.   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

          REASONS

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

          10.     On perusal of the materials placed before us, it is an undisputed fact that, complainants had sowed Sunflower in Sy.No.566/2A+2B measuring 4-01 Acres, Sy.No.255/1 measuring 2-13 Acres, Sy.No.375/1 measuring 0-34 Acres, Sy.No.554/2 measuring 1-24 Acres, Sy.No.7/3B measuring 1-10 Acres, Sy.No.603/2 measuring 3-36 Acres, Sy.No.579 measuring 3-40 Acres, Sy.No.428 measuring 3-25 Acres, Sy.No.451/4A, Sy.No.102/2A, Sy.No.528/2, 604/1A and Sy.No.79/4 measuring 6-00 Acres, Sy.No.5/2 measuring 1-30 Acres, Sy.No.298/1+2 measuring 5-83 Acres, Sy.No.653/1B measuring 2-00 Acres, Sy.No. 590/1 measuring 1-30 Acres and Sy.No.592/1 measuring 1-12 Acres, Bengalgram crop in Sy.No.298/1+2 measuring 1-60 Acres, Sy.No.186/2 measuring 4-82 Acres, Sy.No.579 measuring 4-00 Acres, Sy.No.428 measuring 4-00 Acres, Sy.No.35/1+2B  measuring 3-11 Acres and Sy.No.569/6 measuring 1-85 Acres and Jowar crop in Sy.No.428 measuring 2-80 Acres, Sy.No.453/2B and Sy.No.453/1B measuring 3-30 Acres, Wheat crop in Sy.No.453/2A measuring 1-60 Acres during the year 2003-04 in their respective lands situated at Nidagundi village of Naregal Hobli in Ron Taluk and insured the said crops with AIC for the yield and paid the total premium amount of Rs.20,332/- in 2003-04 under RKBY for a sum assured amount of  Rs.3,79,601/- with AIC for the yield.  PW-1 stated that, they experienced less rain and suffered loss.  But, OP No.1 deposited less amount in the account.

          11.     OP No.3 submitted that, they have acted as a mediator between OP No.1 and complainants.  After receiving the premium amount, the same has been transferred to OP No.1.  Of course, in the year 2003-04 OP No.3 declared that, the above said village is hit by drought.  OP No.1 contended that, they have settled it as per the data received from the District Statistical Office and the crop cutting experiment report as regards the shortfall, OP has produced Xerox copy of document pertaining to the yield data for the year 2003-04.  Complainants have not produced any documents to show that, they have suffered complete loss during 2003-04. 

        12.     Previously my predecessor passed the judgment and allowed the complaint.  OPs preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in A.No.1349/2010 with connected cases and the same came to be allowed and remanded back for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in R.P No. 2393-2394/2008 after affording opportunity to both the parties to adduce their evidence in support of their case after notice to them.  Accordingly, this Commission issued notice to all the complainants but, no body has come forward to file their evidence or produced any documents in support of their complaint. 

          13.     On perusing the evidence on affidavit of complainant No.4 and documents and claim for entire assured amount for loss of crop during the year 2003-04 period and also perused the objections and documents submitted by OP No.1 to 3 as they prayed that the complaint is not maintainable as they have already settled all the eligible claim during the season wherever the shortfall was there they have settled all the claims and hence, the insurance amount was not payable to them.  

          14.     On perusing the complaint filed by the complainants they have submitted that, they have received the part payment of the crop insured amount and they have not received any amount for sunflower crop and they have entitled for entire loss of crop during 2003-04 Rabi season.  Under RKBY, calculation of shortfall and claim percentage of crops and other documents, OPs properly calculated the shortfall and already deposited to the account of the complainant. There is no irregularity or fault found with OPs and they have acted as per the guidelines.  The documents produced by the complainant Ex.C-1 to C-54 i.e., RTC, village accountant report, notice and other documents are not disputed.  Complainants have not produced any scrap of paper to show that, the OPs have intentionally rejected their claim.  Merely Government declared the drought due to shortfall of rain is not a sole ground to award entire sum insured amount.  If the Government declared the drought for the year or season, separate compensation will be paid to each farmers. 

          15.     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, the crops 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)

                    17.     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, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Court on this 31^st day of May-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: Smt. Kalakawwa Ningappa Mulimani @ Anagoudra.

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1:Certificate by KVG Bank

Ex.C-2: Village Form No.8A

Ex.C-3:Crop Certificate

Ex.C-4: Bank Challan

Ex.C-5: Crop Certificate

Ex.C-6: Bank Challan

Ex.C-7: Crop Certificate

Ex.C-8: Loan proposal Form

Ex.C-9: Bank Challan

Ex.C-10: Village Form No.24

Ex.C-11: Crop Certificate

Ex.C-12: Certificate from KVG Bank

Ex.C-13:Village Form No.8A

Ex.C-14: Crop Certificate

Ex.C-15: Village Form No.24

Ex.C-16: Certificate from KVG Bank

Ex.C-17: Crop Certificate

Ex.C-18: Village Form No.8A

Ex.C-19: Certificate from KVG Bank

Ex.C-20: Crop Certificate

Ex.C-21 to 46: RTCs

Ex.C-47: Legal Notice

Ex.C-48 & 49: Courier receipts

Ex.C-50: Notification by DC, Gadag dated 22.07.2004

Ex.C-51: GPA given by Ashok Balappa Hottin to Javahar Balappa Hottin

Ex.C-52 to 54: Loan proposal Forms

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

                 -NIL-

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

Ex.OP-1: Crop Certificate

Ex.OP-2 & 3: Loan proposal Forms

Ex.OP-4: Crop Certificate

Ex.OP-5: Loan proposal Form

Ex.OP-6: Crop Certificate

Ex.OP-7: Loan Proposal Form

Ex.OP-8: Crop Certificate

Ex.OP-9 to 11: Loan proposal Forms

Ex.OP-12 to 14: Crop Certificates

Ex.OP-15 to 19: Loan proposal Forms

Ex.OP-20: Crop Certificate

Ex.OP-21: Loan proposal Form

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

        MEMBER                 PRESIDENT              WOMAN MEMBER