V/s

JUDGEMENT

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SRI. RAJU.N.METRI, MEMBER,

          The complainants No.7,8,10,12,16,17,19,20,21,27,30(a),34,39,40,46,47, 55, 56, 57, 61 to 71  and other complainants have filed the complaint U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 along with other complainants, for crop insurance amount of Rs.14,92,281/- with 18% p.a. Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and  cost of litigation.

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

          Complainants are resident of Abbigeri village of Ron Taluk.  They had sowed Onion for the year 2003-04 in Kharif season and paid the premium amount through OP No.2 for  Kharif season and paid the premium amount as shown in the schedule. 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.

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

          4.       The brief facts of the 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 Onion for the Kharif seasons 2003-04.  As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall to the said crops in Kharif season. There is no deficiency of service committed by this OP.  Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

5. The brief facts of  written version filed by OP No.2 are as under:

          OP No.2 has denied the various allegations and contended that, complainant has  claimed for the loss of his crops during the Rabi season 2003-04.  OP No.2 stated that, they are acting as a collecting agent and mediator between the complainant and OP No.1, they have received the proposal forms, premium amount and submitted to OP No.1.  They are not responsible and there is no deficiency of service committed by OP No.2. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          6. The brief facts of the 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 Kharif season 2003-04. OP No.3 is not a consumer of this Op and have only supervising power over the other Ops.  So there is no deficiency of service. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          7. After hearing, complaint is partly allowed in common judgment passed on 04.04.2007, of complainant No.1 to 6, 9,11,13 to 15, 18, 22 to 26, 28, 29, 31 to 33, 35 to 38, 41 to 45, 48 to 54, 58 to 60 and 72 are awarded compensation. Op No.1 has preferred an appeal No.2909/08 before the Hon’ble State Commission, Bengaluru,  the same came to be dismissed on 02.01.2009. Complaint filed by complainants No.7,8,10,12,16,17,19,20,21,27,30,34,39,40,46,47,55,56,57,61 to 71 is dismissed on 04.04.2007 and they have filed an appeal No.796/07 the same came to be allowed on 13.11.2007 and awarded compensation.  Again Op No.1 has preferred R.P No.3642/08 before Hon’ble National Commission, and same came to be allowed and remanded for fresh disposal.

          8. After receipt of the records, notices were issued to the parties.  After hearing, my predecessor, again passed a common judgment on 09.06.2010 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 has again preferred an Appeal No.2623/10 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore and the same came to be allowed on 29.11.2010 and remanded for fresh disposal.

9. After receipt of the records, notices were issued to the parties.  After hearing, my predecessor, again passed a common judgment on 14.12.2015 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 has again preferred an Appeal No.278/16 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore and the same came to be allowed on 03.02.2020 and remanded for fresh disposal.

          10. After receipt of the records, notices were issued to the parties. Notices were served to Complainant No.10,12,19, 47 and Ops No.1 to 3.  Complainant No.7,17, 20, 21,39, 55, 62, 66, 67 & 71 are reported as dead. LRs of complainant No.30 is brought on record.  KVK, Adv. filed power for Op No.1. NSB, Adv. filed power for Op No.2 and DGP filed M/A and written version for Op No.3.  Complainant No.8, 12,16,19,27,30(a)34,40,46,56,61,63,64,65,68,69 filed affidavit and examined as
PW-21,15,14,28,22,24,36,7,10,11,3,16,8,17,4,18  and marked the documents of these complainants  along with other complainants  as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-316   KVK, Adv. filed affidavit for OP No.1 and examined as RW-1 and marked the document as Ex.Op-1 to Ex.Op-13. Op No.2 & 3 have not chosen to file affidavit evidence.

          11.     Heard the arguments on both sides.

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

1. Whether the complainants prove that, there is a deficiency of service committed by the OPs?

2. Whether the complainants prove that, they are          

entitled for the relief?

3. What Order?

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

               Point No. 1:  In the affirmative.

               Point No. 2:  In the partly affirmative.

               Point No. 3:  As per the final Order

R E A S O N S

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

            15.   On careful perusal of the materials placed before us,
PW-21,15,14,28,22,24,36,7,10,11,3,16,8,17,4,18  have filed affidavits and reiterated the contents of complaint. PW-21,15,14,28,22,24,36,7,10,11,3,16,8,17,4,18  have stated that, Complainants are resident of Abbigeri village of Ron Taluk.  They had sowed Onion for the year 2003-04 in Kharif season and paid the premium amount through OP No.2 for  Kharif season and paid the premium amount as shown in the schedule. 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

16. Per contra, RW-1 has filed affidavit and reiterated the contents of written version filed by Op No.1 complainants have claimed for the loss of their Onion crop. for the Kharif seasons 2003-04.  As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall to the said crops in Kharif season. There is no deficiency of service committed by this OP. 

 17. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-316 RTCs and other documents of present complainants and also other complainants are not disputed by the Ops. Main contention of Op No.1 is that there was no shortfall as per yield data report issued by statistical department. In the written version filed by Op No.1 for Naregal Hobli, for crop of Onion, Threshold yield is 1465, Assessed yield is 2778  and shortfall is NIL, for the year 2003-04 for Kharif season and there is no shortfall. 

          18. Whereas, in the affidavit of RW-1 has not mentioned the details regarding Threshold yield and Assessed yield for the crop of Onion as shown in the written version. In Ex.Op-10  details of Assessed yield for the year 2003-04 Kharif season of Naregal Hobli, for the crop of Onion  is not mentioned in details of Assessed yield. So, Op No.1 has not produced the corroborated document to prove the contention taken in written version regarding Assessed yield and Threshold yield. There is a quite inconsistent contention taken in written version, affidavit and documents. Threshold yield and Assessed yield mentioned in written version is different from documents produced by Op No.1. Op No.1 has not followed the guidelines issued by the Government. Thus, there is a deficiency of service committed by Op No.1.

19. It is pertinent to note here that, already complaint file by complainant No.1 to 6, 9,11,13 to 15, 18, 22 to 26, 28, 29, 31 to 33, 35 to 38, 41 to 45, 48 to 54, 58 to 60 and 72 in this complaint is partly allowed  and awarded the compensation.  Op No.1 has preferred an appeal No.2909/08 before the Hon’ble State Commission, Bengaluru,  the same came to be dismissed on 02.01.2009.  Op No.1 did not challenged the Judgment passed in Appeal No.2909/08 and it reached finality. Accordingly, Op No.1 has already  paid the compensation to above complainants and complied order passed by this Commission. Such being the case, again the contention of Op No.1 that, there is no shortfall cannot be accepted. Already Op No.1 has paid the compensation to other complainants in this case. So, present complainants are also entitled the relief.

 20.    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 desiredyield, 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)

21.     For the above, the complainants have proved that OPs have committed deficiency of service in respect Onion crop and they are entitled for the relief.   So, far as quantum of compensation is concerned, complainants are claiming entire assured amount. Of course, previously, entire amount has been awarded to other complainants. However, the Hon’ble State Commission passed Judgment in Appeal Nos. 1155/2021 to 1159/2021 in Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., V/s Mallikarjuna S/o Shankarappa Barkera and others. Wherein, the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore  held in para-7 as under:-

          “As per the criteria the farmer should inform the loss occurred in their fields within 48 hours of the incident to the Department of agriculture 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 draught 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 reason 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”.

          22. Further, (2018) CJ 540 (N.C) in Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., V/s Kisan Parasram Rathod.  Wherein, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, held as under:-

          “Insurance-Agricultural Insurance – Deficiency in service on part of Insurance Company on account of its failure to pay to Complainants full amount of compensation, due to them under Agriculture Crop Insurance scheme, launched by Government of India – Amount of compensation modified by State Commission vide impugned order-Regard being had to balance paltry amounts determined by State Commission, it would be travesty of justice to interfere in these cases and subject poor farmers to unwarranted harassment by making them travel all the way from a far flung area in Maharashtra and defend the award-Travel and allied expenses which would be many times more than total amount of compensation payable under a Social security Scheme-Revision petitions dismissed.”

          On careful reading of the above decisions, circumstance and ratio of the above decisions are aptly applicable with the case on hand. 

23. Therefore, the complainants are entitled 75% of the assured amount. Complainants are claiming interest at the rate of 18 % p.a. it is on the higher sider.  So, as per rate of interest in the Nationalized Bank it is proper to award interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization. Complainants have suffered mental agony, even though they paid the premium for their lands they did not receive the claim due to the fault of Op No.1. Rs.10,000/- to each complainant towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- to each complainant towards cost of  litigation.  Accordingly, we answer point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 in the partly affirmative.

          24.    POINT NO. 3: In the result, we pass the following:

//O R D E R//

              The complaint filed by complainants
No.7,8,10,12,16,17,19,20,21,27,30(a),34,39,40,46,47, 55, 56, 57, 61 to 71  U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is partly allowed against Op No.1 and dismissed against Op No.2 & 3.

LRs of Complainant No.7,17,20,21,39,55,62,66,67,

71 and complainant No.8,10,12,16,19,27,30(a) 34,40,46,47,

56,57,61,63,64,65,68,69 and 70 are entitled 75% of the assured amount from OP No.1 as shown below.   

Further, complainants are entitled interest at 6% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization.

Further, the complainants are entitled for Rs.10,000/- each towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- each towards cost of litigation.

Op No.1 is directed to pay the said amount to the complainants within two months from the date of this order.

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 us in the Open Commission on this 23^rd day of December- 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-3: Shantawwa W/o  Mrutyunjaya Choukimath

PW-4 : Basaappa Veerbhadrappa Asuti.

PW-7: Mahantesh Kalasappa Malagi

PW-8 : Kuberappa Shivabasappa Baliger

PW-10 : Shetteppa Sannabalappa Bandiwaddar

PW-11 : Mallikarjun Mahadevappa Kalyashani

PW-14 : Shekhappa Ningappa Jalihal

PW-15 : Muttappa Sangappa Naikar

PW-16: Sangappa Fakirappa Pasard

PW-17 : Channappagouda Shekhargouda Patil

PW-18 : Prakash Narayanrao Kulkarni.

PW-21 : Someshwar Nagappa Shivashimpar

PW-22: Sharanappa Channabasappa Tumbad

PW-24: Rajashekhar Neelakanthappa Shivashimpar

PW-28 : Gulanagouda Linganagouda Yallappagoudra

PW-36 : Mallikarjun Shankrappa Basavaradder

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-316,

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

RW-1 : Praveen Kumar B.R.

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

Ex.Op-1 to Ex.Op-13.

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

              MEMBER                  PRESIDENT            WOMAN MEMBER