These complaints coming up before us for hearing on 13-05-14                                in the presence of Sri J. Muralee Dhar, advocate for complainants, Government Pleader representing on behalf of 1^st opposite party; and                        Sri V. Nageswara Rao, advocate for 2^nd opposite party, upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-      The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking the insured amount of Rs.90,000/- (loss of crop); Rs.24,300/- being the interest on Rs.90,000/- @24% p.a., from 23-12-11 to 23-02-13; Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony; Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards costs.  

2.   In brief  averments of the complaint are these:

          The complainant is having three acres of dry land in Paladugu village of Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur district and raised chilli crop in the Khariff season of 2010. The complainant insured chilli crop with the                         2^nd opposite party relying on publicity and encouragement of the 1^st opposite party.   The 1^st opposite party collected Rs.1622/- per acre towards premium in Medikonduru from the complainant and premiums along with some other farmers and forwarded the same to the 2^nd opposite party.   The premium was towards coverage of weather based crop insurance scheme.  The nature of policy is purely based on weather conditions like less/heavy rain fall and high temperature.   The risk commenced from 20-09-10.  The said insurance scheme has to indemnify all weather based risks or perils.   Inspite of his best efforts the complainant sustained total loss of crop due to bad weather conditions.     Due to loss of crop the complainant is unable to discharge crop loan.    The complainant informed about the loss of crop to the 2^nd opposite party with all relevant documents on 14-12-11 through his advocate.   The opposite party repudiated the claim on 23-12-11 with false and baseless allegations.   For the said period the Government of Andhra Pradesh suomoto settled the damaged crop due to bad weather to all farmers of Medikonduru Mandal by paying nominal amounts to farmers.   Thus there is inconsistency between the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the 2^nd opposite party insurance scheme in respect of bad weather for the said Khariff season.   The               2^nd opposite party committed deficiency in service. 

3.   The contention of the 1^st opposite party in nutshell is hereunder:

          The complainant himself came to the office of the 1^st opposite party, enquired about the scheme and after satisfying himself the complainant took the said policy from the 2^nd opposite party.    The 1^st opposite party collected Rs.1622/- per acre towards premium in Medikonduru from the complainant  and similarly some other ryots.  As per guidelines of Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture the 1^st opposite party collected the above mentioned amount and forwarded the same 2^nd opposite party.   As per guidelines of Government of Andhra Pradesh the 1^st opposite party has to take up wide publicity and awareness camps in co-ordination with the 2^nd opposite party.   After taking the policy from the 2^nd opposite party the complainant never informed condition of the crop to the 1^st opposite party.   The 1^st opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service and the complaint may be dismissed.

4.   The contention of the 2^nd opposite party in nutshell is hereunder:

          The complaint filed on 19-03-13 is barred by limitation.   Mere payment of premium by the complainant did not make him entitled for crop insurance claims under Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme (WBCIS).   The 2^nd opposite party implemented WBCIS in accordance with the administrative instructions of the Department of Agriculture and                         co-operation, Ministry of Agriculture, Union of India vide letter dated                        03-03-10.  The Government of Andhra Pradesh notified the crops and areas under WBCIS vide GO No.875 dated 01-07-10 for the Khariff season 2010.  The WBCIS scheme is operated on area approach wherein reference unit areas are linked to specific weather stations and the reference unit areas are the geographical areas situated around the reference weather stations.          Medikonduru Mandal was one of the reference unit area for chilli crop in Guntur district during Khariff 2010 season and the reference weather station was Automatic Weather Station (AWS), Medikonduru installed by Government of AP vide GO No.875.   The complainant in his complaint did not specify under which parameter he sustained crop loss.   The complainant is partly aware of the Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme.   The risk period covered from 11-07-10 to 31-10-10.   The risk period was further divided into phases i.e., 11-07-10 to 31-07-10; 01-08-10 to 15-09-10; and 16-09-10 to 31-10-10.   In 1^st phase the claims are payable when the rainfall is more than 125 mm for two consecutive days, the pay out is Rs.40.00/mm of excess rainfall the exit trigger is 200mm.   In the 2^nd phase the claims are payable when the rainfall is more than 150 mm for two consecutive days, the pay out is Rs.50.00/mm of excess rainfall the exit trigger is 250mm.   In the 3^rd phase the claims are payable when the rainfall is more than 100 mm for two consecutive days, the pay out is Rs.75.00/mm of excess rainfall the exit trigger is 200mm.  The maximum payout is Rs.3000/-, 5000/-, and 7500/- respectively.   According to notifications, the triggers of weather perils have been indicated for rainfall and temperature for each Mandal.   Based on weather data provided online by Andhra Pradesh State Disaster Mitigation Society (APSDMS) the payouts have been worked out.   The compensation payable was location specific and absolute based on the weather data.   As per the weather data provided by the State Government, there were no adverse weather incidence deviations in weather data from the pre-specified trigger values.  Hence no claims were payable under the above weather index criteria in Medikonduru Mandal for Khariff 200 season for chilli crop.   The 2^nd opposite party acted as per the provisions of the scheme and settled all the crop insurance claims to all eligible farmers.  The 2^nd opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service.  The complaint therefore be dismissed.

5.      Exs.A-1 to A-4 and X-1 on behalf of the complainant and Exs.B-1 to    B-5 on behalf of the 2^nd opposite party were marked.

6.      Now the points that arose for consideration in this case are        

          these:

1. Whether the complaint is barred by time?
2. Whether the 2^nd opposite party committed deficiency of service?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and if so to what amount?
4. To what relief?

7.      Admitted facts in this case are these

1. Exchange of notices between the complainant and 2^nd opposite party(Exs.A-1 to A-3)
2. The complainant paid the requisite premium to the 2^nd opposite party (Ex.A-4).
3. Paladugu village, Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur district, State of Andhra Pradesh was covered under weather based crop insurance scheme.
4. Weather based crop insurance scheme in the said area covered chilli crop during Khariff season- 2010.

8.      POINT NO.1:-  The learned counsel for the 2^nd opposite party contended that the claim is barred by time as filed on 26-02-13 and relied on decisions reported in State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries, 2009 (2) C.P.J 29 (SC); Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Complaint., Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another, 2009 (3) C.P.J 75 (Sc); Ganapat Rama Madhavi Vs New India Assurance Company Limited 2011 (4) C.P.J 210 (NC).  The learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand opposed that the said complaint is in time as filed within two years from the date of repudiation.

9.      In State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries, 2009 (2) C.P.J 29 (SC) and Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Complaint., Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another, 2009 (3) C.P.J 75 (Sc) it was held that exchange of letters took place between the parties cannot extend limitation.

10.  In Ganapat Rama Madhavi Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited 2011 (4) C.P.J 210 (NC) it was held that the aggrieved insured could not have waited indefinitely    and would have had to file consumer complaint from date of occurrence of peril.

11.  Relying on the judgment of Supreme Court rendered in Kandimalla Raghavaiah and company vs. National Insurance Company Limited (2009 CTJ 950 (SC)) the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Lakshmi Bhai and others vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited and others 2011 (4) CPR 64 NC held 

                   “The cases where such payment is not made,                                would fall in one of the following categories—

1).  Where no claim is made either with nodal officer or the Insurance Company, within 2 years of date of death such claims shall be barred by limitation.

2).  Cases where claim is made to nodal officer or nodal officer has forwarded the claim to Insurance Company or claim has been directly filed with Insurance Company within 2 years of the death and the claim has remained undecided. In such a case the cause of action will continue till the day the Respondent/insurance Company pays or rejects the claim.

      3). In a case where the Respondent/insurance company rejects  

        the claim, the cause of action arises again from the date of such

        rejection.

12.    In this case the complainant made his claim in writing on               14-12-11 under Ex.A-1.  The 2^nd opposite party in its reply under Ex.A-3 dated 23-12-11 repudiated the claim.

13.    The complaint was filed on 26-02-13 i.e., within two years from the date of repudiation. The decisions relied on by the 2^nd opposite party as mentioned supra have no application to the facts of the case as distinguishable on facts.  Relying on the decision in in Lakshmi Bhai and others vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited and others 2011 (4) CPR 64 NC we are of the considered opinion that the complaint is in time.  We therefore answer this point in favour of the complainant. 

14.    POINT NO.2:- Burden is on the complainant to prove that he sustained loss due to bad weather and is entitled to the insured amount.  The complainant did not file any other land record to show the crop yielded in his land and also the then existed weather conditions to be taken into consideration.  But the complainant summoned Ex.X-1 from the office of the Mandal Revenue Office of Medikonduru.  The learned counsel for the complainant relied on the decision reported in 2013 (4) C.P.J 425 (NC).

15.  The 2^nd opposite party contended that individual farmers are not entitled to any insured amount as weather crop based insurance scheme was issued on area wise basis and relied on the decision rendered by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 22-04-09 in RP Nos.2393 of 2008 and its batch. 

16.   The Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India by its letter dated 03-03-10 gave administrative instructions to Agricultural Insurance Company and State Governments to implement weather based crop insurance scheme for the Kharif season-2010 as seen from Ex.B-1.  Under Ex.B-1 the Government of India requested the State Governments to make necessary budget provision for meeting financial liability on account of premium subsidy payable to insurance companies through agricultural insurance company.  Basing on Ex.B-1 the Government of Andhra Pradesh notified red chilli crop (I&UI) in Guntur and Warangal districts for implementation under weather based crop insurance scheme (WBCIS) for kharif season appending operation modalities of the scheme and term sheets (Ex.B-2).

17.  Clause 13 of appendix-2 & 18 of Ex.B-2 are extracted below for better appreciation:  

1. SUBMISSION & STORING OF WEATHER DATA:  Weather data will be provided by Automatic Weather Stations set up by Andhra Pradesh state Disaster Mitigation Society of planning dept. of Govt. of Andhra Pradesh to AIC on day to day basis for the season.

REFERENCE WEATHER STATION :  This refers to the Automatic Weather Station operating for the particular Reference Unit Area i.e., Mandal (as detailed in the annexure) operating for the relevant Reference Unit Area for generating the Weather Data during the current season based on which payouts are processed. 

BACK-UP WEATHER STATION; It is a substitute Weather Station to be used only in case the weather data from the specified Reference Weather Station for the current season is unavailable for any reason.  Names of both Reference and back-up weather stations are detailed in annexure.  

                18.  LIMITATIONS & DISCLAIMERS: (a).  The Scheme is NOT a yield guarantee scheme and is based on “Area Approach” as opposed to “Individual Approach” – whereby assessment of compensation would be made on Reference Unit Area Basis and not on the basis of every individual insured who might have suffered a loss: 

(b). The Scheme shall be null and void and no benefit shall be payable in the event of untrue or incorrect statements, misrepresentation or on non-disclosure in any material fact in the proposal form/personal statement/declaration and connected documents, or any material information having been concealed, or a claim being fraudulent or any fraudulent means or devices being used by the insured or any one action on his behalf to obtain any benefit under this Scheme.

18.  The contention of the 2^nd opposite party about WBIS operating on reference unit area basis but not on the basis of every individual insured who suffered a loss is corroborated by Ex.B-2.  The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in RP Nos.2393-2394 of 2008 and its batch on 22-04-09 held

“If any one 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 envisaged 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”.

19.    Page 45 of Ex.X-1 revealed that chilli crop in an extent of 2.4 hectares belonging to six persons was damaged in Paladug(r)u village of Medikonduru Mandal, Guntur District.  The revenue authorities mentioned names of the six affected farmers at page 51 of Ex.X-1.  Name of the complainant did not find place at page 51 of Ex.X-1.  The complainant failed to adduce contra evidence to Ex.X-1.  The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that due to political reasons name of the complainant was not mentioned by the concerned authority.  In the absence of any evidence contrary to Ex.X-1 (at pages 45 & 51) the judgment relied on by the learned counsel reported in Agricultural Insurance Company of India Vs. Prahlad singh and others 2013 (4) C.P.J 425 (NC) in our considered opinion will not help complainant.  It can therefore be inferred that the complainant failed to establish that the sustained loss due to bad weather conditions.  We therefore opine that the 2^nd opposite party repudiating the claim under Ex.A-3 is justifiable and did not commit any deficiency of service.  We therefore answer this point against the complainant.

20.    POINT NO.3 :  In view of our findings on point No.2 the complainant is not entitled to any compensation much less the amount claimed and we answer this issue also against the complainant.  

21.    POINT NO.4:  In view of above findings in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.

MEMBER                                MEMBER                          PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For 2^nd opposite party:-

By the Witness:-

PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.