This C.C. is coming before us for hearing in the presence of Sri Gollapudi Rama Rao, Advocate for complainant; and of Sri A. Koteshwar Rao, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 & 2; and of Sri. M.S. Raju, Advocate for opposite party No.3; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

ORDER

(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.      The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is an Agriculturist, having land to an extent of Ac.1-20 gts out of Survey Nos.306/E & 307/A in Nellipaka Village, Khammam District.  He obtained an agricultural loan for an amount of Rs.16,100/- from the opposite party No.1 for cultivating Paddy crop for Kharif 2009-10 season.  The opposite party No.1 deducted Rs.630/- towards premium amount from the loan amount of complainant and paid the same to the opposite party No.3 for crop insurance.  The complainant further submitted that his crop was extensively damaged due to drought conditions, prevailing in the village.  The Tahasildar, Aswapuram issued Annawari Certificate dt. 08-02-2010 stating that the Paddy/Chilli/Cotton crops were damaged due to drought conditions in Nellipaka Village.  The complainant also stated that as per National Agricultural Insurance Scheme, introduced by the State Government, the damages has to be paid to the insured immediately after announcement of percentage of damage, caused to the crop.  The main aim of the Scheme is to protect the farmers from natural calamities, but there was no response from the opposite parties in payment of compensation even after making so many rounds, due to which, the complainant suffered a lot, for payment of compensation and insurance amount, represented the matter to the opposite parties No.1 and 2 on 29-06-2012 by informing the damage of crop, caused due to drought conditions.  As there was no response, prayed this Forum to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.16,100/- towards insurance amount together with interest @24% per annum and Rs.20,000/- towards expenses for making representations and Rs.30,000/- towards damages and costs. 

3.      In support of his case, the complainant filed affidavit and also filed some documents, those were marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-14.

4.           On being noticed, the opposite parties appeared and filed their counters by denying the averments as mentioned in the complaint. 

In their counter, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 admitted that the complainant had obtained loan amount of Rs.16,100/- from the opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.1 and also submitted that after submission of application on crop damage, immediately, forwarded the same to the opposite party No.3 but they have not received any reply from the insurer.  The complainant did not furnish the documentary proof regarding the crop, which was irrigated and other particulars regarding the extent and its survey number.  The opposite parties No.1 and 2 also submitted that as per the guidelines of Central Government, the liability in settlement of claim is only on the agricultural insurance company not on the opposite parties No.1 and 2 and as such there is no deficiency of service in settling the claim on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

5.      In its counter, the opposite party No.3 submitted that the National Agricultural Crop Insurance Programme is formulated by the government of India and implemented through the Agricultural Insurance Company of India.  As per the scheme provisions, the state level coordination committee on crop insurance is constituted for declaring the notified crops, areas and seasonality discipline for a particular season.  Under National Agricultural Insurance Scheme, the farmers availed crop loans during April 2009 to September 2009 for Kharif season and the premium was debited at the time of disbursement of loan.  The present complaint was filed on 02-08-2012 i.e. beyond two years from availing of loan, which is barred by limitation, in this regard the opposite party No.3 referred the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court of India in State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries II (2009) CPJ 29 SC, Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Company Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. III 2009 CPJ 75 SC  and also referred the citation in Rama Madhavi Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., IV (2011) CPJ 210 NC.  The opposite party No.3 further submitted that the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme operates on ‘area approach’ basis, adopts a broad principle of equity and provides compensation to the farmers on group basis on average production in defined area.  Establishment of actual average yield in a defined area through the crop cutting experiments by formation of notified areas.  The claims und NAIS are payable basing on the final yield data, established on the basis of crop cutting experiments, conducted by Directorate of Economics and Statistics, on the basis of area approach not on the basis of Annawari Certificate / Gazette Notification, declaring the area as drought / flood / cyclone effected etc., by the District Collector.  Further the opposite party No.3 also stated that under said scheme, the estimation of threshold yield (guarantee yield) is fixed on the basis of past 3 years average yield data in case of Paddy and the other crops it is 5 years average yield data compiled by the Director of Economics and Statistics through crop cutting experiments multiplied by the applicable level of indemnity for the crop.  The actual yield of a particular notified area for a particular crop for the insured season is assessed through the crop cutting experiments.  The actual yield of a notified crop in a notified area is less than the threshold yield fixed for that area, whose crop loans have been insured will become eligible for compensation.  The compensation is calculated as         claims payable = short fall in yield X sum insured ÷ threshold yield, where, the short fall in yield = threshold yield – actual yield.  As per N.A.I.S., while disbursing the loan amounts for notified crops, the loan disbursing branches debit the insurance premium from the account of farmer and consolidate the crop wise, month wise, notified area wise and submit the details to the nodal banks in a prescribed format i.e. declaration form.  During Kharif 2009 season, the State Government has notified village as unit for Paddy crop in Khammam District vide G.O.Rt.No.655 Agriculture and Cooperation (F.P.II) dt. 12-06-2009. For that, it had received 5 declarations from the opposite party No.2 pertaining to Nellipaka village.  In case of Paddy crop, Government has notified village / group of villages as insurance unit and in case of Chilli and cotton the insurance unit is Mandal / Group of Mandals.  As per data furnished by D.E.S. the actual yield in Paddy crop for the relevant Kharif season is Rs.3,000/- Kilograms per hectare whereas, threshold yield is 2705 Kilograms per hectare so the actual yield of Paddy crop is more than the threshold yield in Nellipaka Village.  The actual yield for chilli (irrigated), cotton (irrigated and cotton un-irrigated) were also more than the threshold yield in Aswapuram Mandal and as such the claims are not payable under said Scheme.  The claims under N.A.I.S are payable basing on the final yield data, declared by D.E.S., State Government neither on the basis of Annawari Certificate nor on the basis of declaration of insured farmer and as such there is no deficiency of service on its part and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.         

6.      In support of its case, the opposite party No.3 referred the bunch of judgments, delivered by the Hon’ble Higher Forums and on behalf of opposite party No.3 exhibits B-1 and B-2 were marked.

7.      In support of their averments, the complainant and the opposite parties no.1 and 2 filed written arguments by reiterating the same averments as mentioned supra.  In addition to the averments of complaint, in his written arguments, the complainant alleges that the opposite parties never conducted the crop cutting experiments either in Aswapuram Mandal or in Nellipaka Revenue Village.  The statistics given by the opposite party No.3 are created only in their office without conducting the field inspection.  

8.      In view of above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

Point:-       

          According to the aforementioned averments and basing on the material available on record, it is clear that the complainant had obtained crop loan from the opposite party No.2 bank through opposite party No.1.  The opposite party No.1 deducted the premium amount from the loan amount and paid the same to the opposite party No.3 towards crop insurance under National Agricultural Insurance Scheme.  For implementation of said scheme, the state government had issued G.O.Rt. No.655, dt. 12-06-2009 to protect the farmers from damage of crop arising out of natural calamities, pests and diseases, in this connection, the farmers of Nellipaka Village, Aswapuram Mandal, Khammam district have obtained crop insurance for Paddy, Chilli and Cotton crops for Kharif 2009-10 season, evidenced under Exhibits A-1, A-2 and A-4.  Among them, 24 farmers including the complainant filed the consumer complaints vide C.C.Nos.50/2012 to CC.No.61/2012 and CC.No.63/2012 to CC.No.72/2012, CC.No.45/2012 and CC.No.5/2013 before this Forum by alleging the deficiency of service in payment of insurance amount towards damage of their crops due to drought conditions in their village.  In the present case, the complainant averred that his crop, insured with the opposite party No.3 was damaged due to drought condition, existed during the relevant period and as such represented the same to the opposite parties by claiming damages and compensation under N.A.I.S., due to non-payment of crop insurance amount, the complainant approached this Forum for redressal, in support of his case, placed Annawari Certificate dt.08-02-2010, which shows the damage of Paddy, Chilli, Cotton, Groundnut and Red gram crops in Aswapuram Mandal, including the data of Nellipaka village, marked under Exhibit A5.  On the other hand, the opposite parties denied their liability by contending that the present complaint was barred by limitation as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and the claims under N.A.I.S. were not payable during the Kharif 2009 season for irrigation of Paddy, Chilli (Irrigated), Cotton (irrigated, un-irrigated) crops in Khammam District.  Since there is no documentary proof in respect of rejection or repudiation of claim, the plea with regard to the limitation is not sustainable.  The other contention with respect of liability is concerned, exhibits B-1 & B-2 were marked on behalf of opposite party No.3.  Exhibit B-1 is the Gazette Notification vide G.O.Rt.No.655, Agriculture and Cooperation (F.P.II) dt. 12-06-2009, wherein, it was clearly stated that in Khammam district, the village as a unit for Paddy.  For other crops, the assessment for average yield is basing on the unit wise estimates.  And as per the said Government Order, the claims under N.A.I.S. will be settled only on the basis of yield data, furnished by D.E.S. for notified crops, collected through regular crop estimation surveys i.e. crop cutting experiments and not on any other basis, such as Annawari Certificate, declaration of drought, flood and cyclone through Gazette notification etc., by any department/authority.  But it is the case of the complainant that the claims were not settled till the date of complaint and the data, furnished by the opposite party No.3 is false and not basing on the crop cutting experiments, created, without inspecting the fields.  Though, he did not specifically mention the particulars regarding the yielding and the percentage of loss, which he had suffered. 

During the course of proceedings, he filed a petition vide IA.No.114/2015 by praying to direct the Joint Director and Chief Planning Officer, Khammam to furnish the Panchanama Reports pertaining to the actual yield of Paddy, Chilli and Cotton crops in Nellikpaka Village for Kharif 2009-10 season.  Having received the notice from this Forum, The Joint Director and Chief Planning Officer, Khammam furnished the panchanama reports pertaining to the Paddy crop in Nellipaka village in CC.No.50/2012 on the whole, marked under exhibit A-15.  As per exhibit A-15, furnished in CC.No.50/2012 the normal yield was achieved by the farmers in Nellipaka village for kharif 2009-10 season. And as per data furnished by The Director of D.E.S., and the State government, the actual yield is more than the threshold yield.

          In view of above discussion and according to the guidelines of N.A.I.S., there is no liability in payment of crop insurance amounts to the complainant on the part of opposite parties as alleged, therefore, the point is answered accordingly against the complainant.

9.      In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

           Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this the 8^th day of November, 2017.

Member                   Member               President

                                                          District Consumer Forum,

Khammam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party  

       None                                                                          None

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party

Member                   Member               President

                                                          District Consumer Forum,

Khammam.