V/s

JUDGMENT

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

            The complainants have filed the complaint U/Sec.12 of the C.P. Act 1986, for claiming crop insurance amount of Rs.4,18,664/- with interest @ 18% p.a. Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards cost to each complainant.

             The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

          2.       The complainants had sowed Onion crop in year 2016-17 Kharif season in their dry lands as shown in the schedule.  The  premium amount paid through OP No.3 for the year  2016-17 for Kharif season under PMFBY.  Government declared as drought area due to failure of rain and  he suffered loss of the crops. The complainant got issued legal notice to the OPs calling upon them to pay the compensation.  So, there is a deficiency in service committed by the OPs. Hence, filed this complaint.

           3.   In pursuance of service of notice, OP No.1 to 3 appeared through their counsel.  OP No.4 appeared through DGP and Op No.1 to 4 filed written version.      

          4.       The brief facts of written version filed by OP No.1 are as under:

          OP No.1 denied the various allegations and contended that,  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  written version filed by OP No.2 &_3 are as under:

          OP No. 2 & 3 denied the various allegations and contended that,  they are acting as collecting agent and mediator between the complainant and OP No.1. They have received proposal forms for premium amount and submitted to OP No.1.  They are not responsible and no deficiency of service is committed by this OP No.2 & 3. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

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

          OP No.4 denied the various allegations and contended that, complainant is not a consumer to this Op, the role of this OP, is only supervising power over the other Ops.  So, there is no deficiency of service. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

            7.     To prove the case, the complainants have filed their affidavits and examined as PW-1 to PW-3 got marked the documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-21.
Sri. Shivanand M. Mudhol  for Op No.1 filed affidavit evidence and examined as RW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex.OP-1.

           8.      Heard the arguments on both sides.

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

      1. Whether the complainants prove the deficiency                       of service committed by OPs?

      2. Whether the complainants are entitled for the                         relief as sought for?

              Point No. 1:  Negative.

              Point No. 2:  Negative.

              Point No. 3:  As per the final Order.

REASONS

           11.    Point No.1 & 2:- The points are taken together to avoid the repetition of facts. The learned counsel for the complainants argued that, as per the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3  and Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-21 complainants are proved the deficiency of service committed by the Ops and  entitled for the relief.  The learned DGP  for Op No.4 and counsel for OP No.1 to 3 argued that, there is no deficiency of service committed by the Ops as there is no shortfall.

          12.     On perusal of the materials placed before us, PW-1 to PW-3 have filed affidavit and reiterated the contents of the complaint. PW-1 to PW-3 have  stated that, The complainants had sowed Onion crop in year 2016-17 Kharif season in their dry lands as shown in the schedule.  The  premium amount paid through OP No.3 for the year  2016-17 for Kharif season under PMFBY.  Government declared as drought area due to failure of rain and  he suffered loss of the crops. The complainant got issued legal notice to the OPs calling upon them to pay the compensation.  So, there is a deficiency in service committed by the OPs.

          13. Per contra, RW-1 has filed affidavit and reiterated the contents of the written version filed by OP-1. RW-1 has stated that, Op No.1contended that,  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.

13.     Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-21 RTCs Proposal forms and other documents are not disputed by the Ops. Proposal forms issued by Op No.3 reveals that premium paid by the complainants to Onion crop for rainfed. Accordingly, RTC also reveals as dry land.  Accordingly, Ops considered the premium for rainfed. It is not the case of complainants that, Op considered for irrigated instead of rainfed. Ex.C-12 to Ex.C-21 are summoned by Statistical Department on the request application filed by the complainant, reveal that Ops have adopted the crop cutting experiments as per guidelines. Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10 are 2016 Kharif minor crops issued by Asst. Director of Agriculture are also clearly goes to show that there is no shortfall. Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10  shortfall details reveals  that for Kharif season of Ron Hobli Threshold yield is 3103.36, CCE actual yield 6329.524 and shortfall is (-)103.95713 and there is no shortfall. So Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10 corroborates with the main contention taken by Op No.1 that there is no shortfall and thereby no deficiency of service is committed by OP No.1.

          The present counsel is filed written arguments in CC No.154/2009      for the same year and relief of crop insurance and also relying a decisions and said case is already disposed-off. Wherein, it is observed as under:-

14. In the written arguments, counsel for complainants contended that, Ops have not conducted the crop cutting experiments as per guidelines, as no notices were issued and drew the mahazar, in presence of Bank Officials and complainants. Complainant has not stated these contentions in the complaint. If, there is a specific pleading in the complaint regarding the grievance as now raised in the written arguments, then Op No.1 would have answered in the written version.    However, Ex.OP-1, Ex.OP-2, Ex.OP-7and Ex.C-113 clearly goes to show that, Ops have conducted the CCE as per guidelines.

15. The learned counsel is relying on a judgment passed in Writ Appeal No.3001/2012 (GM-RES) in Agricultural Insurance Co, of India Ltd., V/S Bhimanagouda Neelanagouda Patil and another, facts and circumstances of the said case is not similar with case on hand as in the said case Insurance Company did not produce the yield data, but in the case on hand yield data documents are produced. Further relying on a Judgment in AIC V/S Kemlegouda, the Hon’ble National Commission, observed that, the Insurance Co., has rejected the claim by denying as the farmer has not sown the Potato crop, but the records submitted by the Revenue Department clearly shows that the farmer has sown the Potato crops.  The facts and circumstances of the said case is not similar with case on hand. Further, in written arguments its stated that, Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the Bajaj Allianz  V/s Dhanian Raj 2022, directed to settle the compensation of post harvesting. The facts and circumstances of the above case is also not similar with the case on hand, as complainants have not pleaded a single word regarding loss of post harvesting. 

          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)

          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.

17.  Mere allegations made in the complaint, without producing oral and documentary evidence to show that Ops  have not followed the guidelines and there is a shortfall.  Therefore, complainants have failed to prove that OPs have committed deficiency of service and they are entitled for the reliefs.   Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 and 2 in the negative. 

             18.  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.

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 31^st  day of  March- 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:   Ramappa S/o Yallappa Jigaloor

PW-2 : Ramesh S/o Bheemappa Tallihal

PW-3 : Bheerappa S/o Lakshmappa Tallihal

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1 : Proposal form

Ex.C-2: RTC

Ex.C-3 : Proposal form.

Ex.C-4: RTC

Ex.C-5: Proposal form.

Ex.C-6:RTC

Ex.C-7 & 8: Letters from Asst. Agriculture Director, Gadag dtd:30.08.2021.

Ex.C-9 & 10:  Asst. Agriculture Director, Gadag 2016-Kharif Minor Crops

                     reports.

Ex.C-11: Letter from Dist. Statistical Officer, Gadag dtd:14.12.2021.

Ex.C-12 to 21: Copies of crop cutting experiments form No.2

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

RW-1 : Shivanand M. Mudhol

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

Ex.OP-1: Letter of Authority.

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

      MEMBER                   PRESIDENT                     WOMAN MEMBER