V/s

JUDGEMENT

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SRI. D.Y. BASAPUR, PRESIDENT

          The complainants have filed the complaint U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for recovery of crop loan insurance amount of Rs.1,13,379/- with interest @ 12% p.a, towards mental agony Rs.10,000/- each and cost of the proceedings.

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

          Complainants are resident of Nidagundi village of RonTaluk Dist:Gadag.  They have grown Safflower, Sunflower,  Bengalgram and Jowar for the year 2002 in Rabi season and paid the premium amount as shown in the schedule through OP No.3. 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.

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

          3.       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 crops during the year 2002 in  Rabi seasons.  As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall to the crop of  Sunflower and Jowar and there was a shortfall to the crop of Bengalgram and Safflower for the year 2002 in Rabi season and already they have settled the claim for Bengalgram and Safflower.  So, there is no deficiency of service committed by this OP.  Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

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

          OP No.2 denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crop during the year 2002 in Rabi season. Complainants are not a consumer to this OP and are only having supervising power over the other Ops.  So there is no deficiency of service. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

5. The brief facts of  written version filed by OP No.3 are as under:

          OP No.3 have denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crop during the Rabi season 2002.  OP No.3 stated that, they are acting as collecting agent and mediator between the complainants 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.3. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          6.       After hearing, my predecessor, passed judgment on 17.09.2007 and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes   Redressal   Commission,   Bangalore,   the   same   came  to  be dismissed. Op No.1 preferred R.P No.2171/08 before Hon’ble National Commission, and same came to be allowed and remanded for fresh disposal.

          7.       After receipt of the records, notice was issued to the parties.  After hearing, my predecessor, again passed judgment on 23.03.2010 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.2332/10 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore and the same came to be allowed on 13.12.2010 and remanded for fresh disposal.

          8.  After receipt of the records, notice was issued to the parties.  After hearing, my predecessor, again passed judgment on 14.01.2016 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an appeal in Appeal No.472/16 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.

          9. After receipt of the records, notice was issued to the parties. Complainant No.1 to 3 and LRs of complainant No.4 (a) filed affidavit and examined as PW-1 to PW-4 and marked the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-56.   Notices were served to OP No.1 to  3.  KVK, and NSB, Adv. filed power for OP No.1 & 3.  and MAM. Adv. filed power for complainant No.4(a). VVA, Adv. filed power for complainant No.1 to 3. Ops have not chosen to file affidavit evidence and documents were marked as Ex.OP No.1. OP No.1 filed written arguments.

          10.     Heard the arguments on both sides.

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

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

2. Whether the complainants prove that, they are          

entitled for relief?

3. What Order?

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

               Point No. 1:  Partly affirmative.

               Point No. 2:  Partly affirmative.

               Point No. 3:  As per the final Order

R E A S O N S

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

            14.   On careful perusal of the materials placed before us, case is remanded for fresh disposal with a direction to take affidavit evidence of all complainants. PW-1 to PW-4 filed affidavit and reiterated the contents of complaint. PW-1 to PW-4 has stated that, complainants are resident of Nidagundi village of RonTaluk Dist:Gadag.  They have grown Safflower, Sunflower, Bengalgram and Jowar for the year 2002 in Rabi season and paid the premium amount as shown in the schedule through OP No.3. 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. 

15. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-56 documents are not disputed by the OPs. RTCs, Proposal forms, Copy of passbooks reveal that complainants are owner of their respective lands and paid the premium.

16. In para No.3 of written version of OP No.1 have stated that, for Rabi season during the year 2002 of Naregal Hobli for sunflower, threshold yield is 178 per Hect, assessed yield 226 and shortfall is NIL and Jowar threshold yield is 272 per Hect, assessed yield 605 and shortfall is NIL. For Bengalgram threshold yield is 222 per Hect, assessed yield 85 and shortfall is 137. For Safflower threshold yield is 288 per Hect, assessed yield 275 and shortfall is 13.  As per Op No.1 they have already settled all eligible claims as per the scheme provisions. But no documents are produced to show that, they have settled the claim for Bengalgram and Safflower. OP No.1 has not produced any document to show that, already they have settled the claim through OP No.3 bank and credited to the account of complainants. Even OP No.1 have not chosen to file the affidavit evidence and documents to prove their contention raised in the written version. Mere, defence taken in the written version, without adducing the affidavit evidence and documents, cannot be accepted. Merely, pleading in the written version without supporting oral and documentary evidence, contention of Op No.1 cannot be accepted.   So, it is crystal clear that, OP No.1 has not settled the shortfall amount. Thus, Op No.1 has committed the deficiency of service and is liable to pay the compensation.  Hence, complainants are entitled for the compensation.

 17.    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 desired

yield, 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)

          Further the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in A.No.422/2020 to 441/2020 and 472/2020 to 481/2020 by its order dated 12.01.2021 in the case of A.I.C of India, registered office, Krishi Bhavan, Bangalore, represented by its Manager Vs. Shankrappa Hanumappa Gunjal, Magadi, Shirahatti Taluk wherein it is held as under:

Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision reported in I (2017) CPJ 538 (NC)oftheHon’bleNationalConsumerDisputes

Redressal Commission in the case of Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd., Vs. Hem Shankar & another decided on 01.02.2017 wherein held claims under the scheme will be settled only on the basis of data received from crop-cutting experiments and not on any other basis such as declaration of drought, etc.Order passed by Forum below which are based on figures of damages to crop given by Revenue Department cannot be made basis for determining compensation payable to farmers.

In the above such situation, Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that District Commission failed to ascertain that in these matters appellant already settled the claim vide NEFT on 24.06.2019 and rightly paid the claim under the Government Scheme to the insured which is eligible claim amount as per the terms and conditions of the scheme.In other words, appellant settled the claims of all these respondents and calculated the compensation as per the data provided by the Directorate of Economics and Statistics.

18.     For the above, the complainants are entitled for the compensation for crop Bengalgram and Safflower and are not entitled for the crop of Jowar and Sunflower, as there was no shortfall.  Complainants are claiming interest at the rate of 18 % p.a., it is on higher sider.  So, as per rate of interest in the Nationalized Bank it is proper to award interest @ 8% p.a. from the date complaint till realization. Complainants have suffered mental agony, even though they paid the premium for their lands in the year 2002-03. However, they did not receive the claim due to the fault of Op No.1. So, complainants are entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- each towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- each towards cost of the complaint. Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 and 2 in the partly affirmative.

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

           //O R D E R//

The complaint is filed U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and is partly allowed against Op No.1 and dismissed the complaint against Op No.2 & 3.

Complainants are entitled for the compensation as under:

Complainants are entitled interest @ 8% p.a. from the date filing of the complaint, till realization, a sum of Rs.5,000/-each complainant towards mental agony and a sum of Rs.2,000/- each complainant towards cost from OP No.1.

Op No.1 is directed to pay the above amount 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 me in the Open Commission on this 15^th day of October-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-1: Veerappa Parappa Anagoudra

PW-2: Balappa Parappa Anagoudra

PW-3 : Sharanavva Veerappa Anagoudra

PW-4 :Veeresh Veerappa Hottin

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1 to 3: Bank receipts.

Ex.C-4 to 21 : RTC’s

Ex.C-22: Legal notice.

Ex.C-23 & 24: Courier receipts.

Ex.C-25: Copy of Malaaprabha Grameena Bank Pass book A/c No.48.

Ex.C-26: Copy of  Malaaprabha Grameena Bank Pass book S.B A/c No.4347.

Ex.C-27 : Copy of Malaaprabha Grameena Bank Pass book S.B A/c No.5468.

Ex.C-28 : Copy of Govt. Gazzette dtd:04.09.2003.

Ex.C-29: D.C. Gadag. order dtd:07.06.2003.

Ex.C-30 to 39: RTCs

Ex.C-40 :Copy of form No.24.  

Ex.C-41 : Certificate issued by Village Accountant Nidagundi.

Ex.C-42 & 43: Proposal forms.

Ex.C-44: Copy of form No.24. 

Ex.C-45 : Certificate issued by Village Accountant Nidagundi.

Ex.C-46 & 47 : Proposal forms.

Ex.C-48: Copy of form No.24. 

Ex.C-49: Certificate issued by Village Accountant Nidagundi.

Ex.C-50 & 51 : Proposal forms.

Ex.C-52: Copy of form No.24. 

Ex.C-53 : Certificate issued by Village Accountant Nidagundi.

Ex.C-54 to 56: Proposal forms.

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

         NIL

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

Ex.OP-1: District statistical officer issued crop cutting experiment report on

              11.06.2009.

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

              MEMBER                  PRESIDENT            WOMAN MEMBER