V/s

JUDGEMENT

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

          The complainants have filed the complaint U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for recovery of crop insurance amount of Rs.4,16,078/- with interest @ 12% p.a. Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony to each complainant and cost of the proceedings to each complainant.

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

          The complainants had sown Onion & Wheat for the year 2003-04 in Kharif/Rabi seasons and paid the premium amount as shown in the schedule through OP No.2. 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 appeared through counsel and DGP appeared for OP No.3. Op No.2 remained absent. Op No.1 & 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 crops during the year 2003-04 for Kharif/Rabi seasons.   As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall. Hence, claim is not settled.  So, there is no deficiency of service. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          5.       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 year 2003-04 in Kharif/Rabi seasons. Complainants are not a consumer to this OP, and having supervising power over the other Ops.  So there is no deficiency of service. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          6.       After hearing, my predecessor, passed a judgment on 09.01.2008 and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment and preferred Appeal before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes   Redressal   Commission,   Bangalore,   the   same   came  to  be dismissed. OP No.1 has challenged the said order in R.P. 1714/2009  before the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, allowed on 25.05.2009  and remanded for fresh disposal.

          7.       After receipt of the records, notices were issued to the parties.  After hearing, my predecessor, again passed judgment on 14.12.2015 and awarded compensation.  Being aggrieved by the judgment, OP No.1 again preferred an  Appeal No.287/16 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.

          8.       After receipt of the records, notices were issued to the parties. Notices were served on the complainant No.1 to 4, 7 to 9, 12,14,15 and Op No.1 to 3. Complainant No.5,6,10,11 & 13 are reported as dead and no LRs  brought on record. Complainant No.1,4,6,7,8,9,12,14,15 and 10 have filed their affidavits and examined as PW-1 to PW-10 and got marked the documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-69.   KVK, Advocate, filed power Op No.1 and affidavit of Shri. Praveenkumar. B.R. and examined as RW-1 and got marked the documents as  Ex.Op-1 to Ex.Op-14.  DGP filed M/A and written version for Op No.3.  Op No.2 remained absent. OP No.2 &3  have not chosen to file their affidavit evidence.  

 9.      Heard, the arguments on both sides.

          10.     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?

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

               Point No. 1:  Negative.  

               Point No. 2:  Negative.  

               Point No. 3:  As per the final Order

R E A S O N S

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

            13.   On careful perusal of the materials placed before us, case remanded for fresh disposal with a direction take affidavit evidence of all complainants. PW-1 to PW-10 have  filed affidavit and reiterated contents of complaint. PW-1 to PW-10 has stated that, the complainants had sown Onion & Wheat for the year 2003-04 in Rabi seasons and paid the premium amount as shown in the schedule through OP No.2. 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. 

          14.     RW-1 has filed affidavit and reiterated the contents of the written version. RW-1 has stated that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crops during the year 2003-04 for Rabi seasons.   As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall. Hence, claim is not settled.  So, there is no deficiency of service. Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-14 reveal that as per crop cutting experiment, there is no shortfall.

15.     Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-69 RTCs and other documents are not disputed by the Ops. In written version  OP No.1 specifically stated that, there was no shortfall as per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics for crops.  So, there is no deficiency of service committed by the OP No.1. As per Assessed yield in respect of Kharif season 2003-04 issued by statistical department of Naregal Hobli, for crop of Onion,Threshold yield is 2178 KG/per Hect, Assessed yield is 4548 and shortfall is NIL, for crop of Groundnut, Threshold yield is 143 KG/per Hect, Assessed yield is 356 and shortfall is NIL,  and Rabi 2003-04 season for crop of Wheat, Threshold yield is 704 KG/per Hect, Assessed yield is 1762 and shortfall is NIL, Therefore, Assessed yield is more than threshold yield. Hence, the shortfall is NIL. Ex.Op-1to Ex.Op-14 clearly goes to show that, there is no shortfall as contention taken by the Op No.1.

16.     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)

17.  Even no cause of action arose to file this complaint as there is no deficiency of service committed by Ops. Complainants claiming compensation for the loss of crops for the year 2003-04 and complaint filed after 4 years in the year 2008. Even complaint is barred by limitation. Without proving the case with affidavit evidence and documents, complainants are not entitled the relief. Mere allegation made in the complaint without producing documentary evidence to show that there is a shortfall, they cannot be entitled the reliefs.

          18.     For the above, complainants have failed to prove that OPs have committed deficiency of service and they are entitled for the relief.   Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 and 2 in the Negative.         

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

//O R D E R//

              The complaint filed U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is dismissed.No order as to costs.

Amount transferred from State Commission, deposited by OP No.1 is ordered to return to OP No.1 after appeal period.

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 Court on this  3^rd  day of January- 2023)

,,

           (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: Allabakshi Muktumsab Nadaf

PW-2: Shekargouda Ningangouda Jakkangoud

PW-3: Mahadevagouda Urf Suresh Basangouda Amatigoudra

PW-4: Veerangoudara Veerbhadrgouda Amatigoudra

PW-5: Hanamappa Maritimappa Bevinkatti

PW-6: Yamanappa Hanamappa Madar

PW-7: Lakhamappa Kallappa Bevinkatti

PW-8: Chandrakant Khandappa Chougale

PW-9: Hanamappa Tippanna Talawar

PW-10: Hanamappa Maritimappa Bevinkatti

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1to 28 : Proposal forms.  

Ex.C-29 & 30: Certificate issued by village accountant.

Ex.C-31 : Letter issued by complainant to Village accountant.

Ex.C-32 to 38: Certificate issued by village accountant.

Ex.C-39 to 44: Form No.24

Ex.C-45 to 67: RTCs

Ex.C-68: Postal acknowledgment.

Ex.C-69: Legal notice

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

RW-1: Praveen Kumar B.R.

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

Ex.OP-1 : Copy of Rashtriya Krishi Bima Yojana-2003-04(Onion, Kharif)

Ex.Op-2 : Copy of Rashtriya Krishi Bima Yojana-2003-04(Groundnut Kharif)

Ex.Op-3 : Letter from Dist. Statistical officer, Gadag dtd:29.09.2012.

Ex.Op-4 : Letter from Dist. Statistical officer, Gadag dtd:03.11.2009.

Ex.Op-5 : Letter from Dist. Statistical officer, Gadag dtd:10.09.2012.

Ex.Op-6 : Copy of Scheme & Guidelines.

Ex.Op-7 : Circular for Kharif-2003, instructions to Nodal Banks.

Ex.Op-8 : Circular for Rabi & Summer 2003-04, instructions to Nodal Banks.

Ex.Op-9 : Copy of letter from Director of Economics and Statistics, Bangalore.

Ex.Op-10: Copy of Director of Economics and Statistics, Bangalore

               dtd:03.02.2003. 

Ex.Op-11 : Copy of letter from Director of Economics and Statistics, Bangalore

                 dtd:25.03.2003.

Ex.Op-12 :Copy of Rashtriya Krishi Bima Yojana, Assessed yield, 2003-04.

Ex.Op-13 : Copy of Rashtriya Krishi Bima Yojana-Assessed yield in KGs/Hect,

                  for 2003-04. (Groundnut, Kharif)

Ex.Op-14 : Copy of letter issued by Joint Director of Economics and Statistics,

                  Bangalore   dtd:28.06.2019.

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

              MEMBER                  PRESIDENT            WOMAN MEMBER