V/s

ORDER

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SRI. B.S. KERI, MEMBER

          This complaint is filed by the complainants against the OPs claiming certain reliefs by invoking Consumer Protection Act.

           2.  This case was ordered by this Commission, the order pronounced by the Commission was appealed by the OPs before Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which was allowed and sent back to the Commission and ordered to reassess the loss suffered by each of the farmer/complainant on account of failure of the crop depending upon the yield notification and also price index. 

         3.  The above complaint filed by the complainants, states that they had sowed Onion crop in 2006-07 in their respective lands and insured for the Karif yield and paid the premium through the Nodal Bank.

         4.    The averments of the complaint in brief are:

       That the complainants had sowed the Onion crop for karif season in 2006-07 in their respective lands and insured with the AIC for the yield and paid the premium through the Nodal Bank in 2006-07, the Karif crop failed due to short fall of rain. The OP No.1 has failed to settle the Insurance amount to the Complainants, hence there is a deficiency in service and prayed to order the OP’s to pay the maximum insured amount along with court expenses.  The complainants have paid the premium amount under crop insurance for their respective lands as under:

        5.   The OPs appeared through their counsel stated that the above complaint is 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 2006-07 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.

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

         7.  As per the reminder of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to dispose the complaint as ordered, this Commission called for the Report from the District Statistical Department through OP No.4 to produce the statistical crop survey report of the respective years, the department sent the written answer that the department had not conducted any crop cutting survey in the year 2006-07 after hearing the arguments from both the Counsel and on pursuance of the materials, placed by the complainants and OP, following points arises for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
2. Whether the complainants had proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as averred in the complaint?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
4. What Order?

Our findings to the

Point No. 1: Negative

Point No. 2 : Affirmative

Point No. 3 : Partially Affirmative

Point No. 4 : as per the final Order.

R E A S O N S

      8.  POINT NO.1   Perused the records, the Complainants in the above case are claiming the insured amount for the short fall yield for the year 2006-07. The complainants have filed this case in the year 2009.  Hence, the OP had prayed to dismiss the case on delay. As per C.P 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. This Commission heard and allowed the complaint 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 Negative.

       9.  POINT NO. 2: As stated above the OP had appealed before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the appeal was allowed and sent back to this Commission and ordered to reassess the loss suffered by each of the farmer/complainant on account of failure of the crop depending upon the yield notification and also price index.  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 Onion crop during the karif season in 2006-07. 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 Onion for the year 2006-07. Hence, the Karif yield data furnished by the OP cannot be considered.  Each complainants have filed their respective affidavit evidence stating about the loss suffered by them for failure of their crop during 2006-07 Khariff season and stating that, they are the eligible farmers.  But, OP No.1 has not settled their claims towards crop insurance.  While the complainants approached the OP to settle the claims in pursuance of Insurance coverage, it was not considered.  The OP No.1 has not produced any document to show that, the complainants are not entitled or beneficiaries under the scheme.  Moreover, OP No.1 is not denied the claim made by the complainant as per the list mentioned by the complainant regarding payment and OP No.1 is merely saying that, the complainant is not the beneficiary to the claim is not satisfied by this Commission to disbelieve the complainants since there is no authenticated document to prove their defence. Hence, the Commission comes to the conclusion that, the complainants in this complaint are eligible to get the sum insured amount under the crop insurance scheme as under:

Hence, there is deficiency in service by OP No.1, hence we answer Point No.2 is in affirmative.

      10.  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 pass the following:

//O R D E R//

         1.  The Complaint is partially allowed against OP No.1.

         2.   The OP No.1 is directed to pay the Insured Amount as mentioned in the chart above at para No.9 along with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of filing of this Complaint till realization.

3.  All the Complainants are entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- as special compensation.  In case, the Insured Complainants are deceased, all LRs are liable to receive only Rs.5,000/- as special compensation.

4.  The Complainants are entitled to receive Rs.3,000/- towards the cost of litigation for each Complaints.

5.  The above Orders shall comply within a period of one month from the date of this order, fails to pay the said amount within one month, the complainants are entitled to get interest at 14% p.a. from the date of this order.

6.  Claim against remaining OPs are hereby dismissed.

          7.  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 28^th day of April, 2021)

           (Shri B.S.Keri)                               (Smt.C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar)

               MEMBER                                                 PRESIDENT