COMMON ORDER

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SMT.SAMIUNNISA .C.H., PRESIDENT:

          These are the 3 complaints filed the complainants against the OPs claiming certain reliefs by invoking Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

            2.  The OP’s in all the above complaints are same and also the fact of the cases are one and same, all these complaints are heard together and disposed-off  by this Common Order. For the convenience sake, the complaint Nos. and No. of complainants are mentioned below.

          3. Complaint No. 110/2010, there are 15 complainants filed this complaint, states that they had sowed Sunflower, Ground nut, maize crop in 2008-09 in their respective lands and insured for the Karif yield and paid the premium through the Nodal Bank.

         4. Complaint No. 111/2010, there are 15 complainants filed this complaint, states that they had sowed Sunflower, Ground nut, maize crop in 2008-09 in their respective lands and insured for the Karif yield and paid the premium through the Nodal Bank.

        5.   Complaint No. 112/2010 there are 11 complainants filed this complaint, states that they had sowed Sunflower, Ground nut, maize crop in 2008-09 in their respective lands and insured for the Karif yield and paid the premium through the Nodal Bank.

        6.  The averments of the complaints in brief are :

         That the complainants had sowed the sowed Sunflower, Ground nut, maize Karif crop in 2008-09 in their respective lands and insured with the AIC for the yield and paid the premium through the Nodal Bank in 2008-09 the Karif crop failed due to short fall of rain. The OP’s have failed to settle the Insurance amount to the Complainant, hence there is deficiency in service and prayed to order the OP’s to pay the maximum insured amount along with court expenses.

        7.    In pursuance of the notice issued by this Forum, the OP No.1 and 3 appeared through their counsel but OP No.2 is absent and OP No.3 is not filed his version and OP No.1 filed his versions that the above complaints are not maintainable both in law and also on facts. It is submitted that NAIS, RKB is implemented in the country under the order of Government of India vide ref. 13011/15/99 credit II dated 16.07.1999 of the Ministry of Agricultural Department of Agriculture and Co-operation, New Delhi w.e.f 01.10.1999. All the insured farmers growing the crops in the defined area are deemed to have suffered short fall in their yield the scheme seeks to provide coverage against such contingency indemnity shall be calculated as per the following formula (Shortfall in/Threshold yield) x sum insured of the farmer = Indemnity claims where are shortfall in yield = Threshold yield - Actual yield for the defined area. As per NAIS claims in general, will be disbursed through nodal banks as per shortfall in the notified area for the respective notified crop during karif 2008-09 the OP have settled all eligible claims as per the scheme to all insured farmers under area approach. The director of Economics and Statistics had furnished crop-wise hobli-wise yield data for all crops during the season. As per the data, there is no shortfall in the area claimed by the complainants and claims that the complainants are hiding the material facts and fraudulently claiming the undue amount and prays to dismiss the complaint.

        8.   OP No.2 was absent OP No.3 was present but he had not filed any version.

        9.  All the complainants have produced the premium receipts which had been issued by the nodal bank, RTC copy along with affidavits.

        10.  On perusal of the materials placed by the complainants following points arises for our consideration:-

1. Weather the complaints are barred by limitation?
2. Weather the complainants have proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP as averred in the complaint?
3. Weather the complainants have entitled to any relief?
4. What Order?

     Our findings to the

     Point No. 1: Affirmative

     Point No. 2 : Affirmative

     Point No. 3 : Partially Affirmative

     Point No. 4 : as per the final Order

R E A S O N S

      11. POINT NO.1  Perused the records, the Complainants of these 3 cases are that the complainants claims the insured amount for the short fall yield for the year 2008-09. The complainants have filed these cases in the year 2010, hence the OP had prayed to dismiss the case on delay. As per CP act 24(a) the complaint should be filed within 2 years, the specified reason should be given to condone the delay. The objection filed by the OP is significant. The OP No.1 had settled the amount to other farmers in 2008-09 except the complainants, In a hope that the OP may settle the claims of the complainants in next days at last when the OP failed to settle, the Complainants sent the legal notices through their counsels in the year 2010 for the reason stated the delay had been condoned and the objection filed by the OP had been rejected. Hence the answer to Point No.1 is in Affirmative.

      12. POINT NO. 2:  The OP filed objection that the claims will be settled on the data furnished by the Economics and Statistical Department and filed the data stating that there is no short fall in yield of Maize, Sunflower, Groundnut and Onion crop during the karif season in 2008-09. The Economics and Statistics Department of Gadag Dist. have filed a letter on 10.07.2012 that they have not conducted any data survey for the shortfall of karif yield of Sunflower, Maize and Groundnut for the year 2008-09. Hence the karif yield data furnished by the OP cannot be considered. While the complainants approached the OP to settle the claims in the pursuance of Insurance coverage, it was not considered. Hence, there is deficiency in service by OP, the answer to point No.2 is in affirmative.

         13. POINT NO. 3: In view of our findings on the above points, the complaints filed by the complainants are partially allowed. In the result, we proceed to pass the following : 

//O R D E R//

           1. The Complaint Nos. 110/2010, 111/2010 and 112/2010 are partially allowed against the OP No.1.

         2.  OP No.1 had directed to calculate the insurance amount as the complainants are individually eligible and pay the maximum sum assured along with the interest @ 10% p.a. from the date the respective complaints filed to all the complainants in all 3 complaints within one month from the date of this order.

       3.  The complainants in all three complaints are entitled to receive a compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) each.

       4.  The complainants in all the three complaints are entitled to receive court expenses of Rs.1,000 (Rupees one thousand) each.

      5.  The complaints against OP No. 2 and 3 are dismissed.

      6. Send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

      7. The copy of this order should be kept in all the above mentioned cases.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 09^th day of November 2015)

      Member                             Member                   President