Karnataka

Gadag

CC/291/2007

Shivasangayya. G. Chikkaamath and Others - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Officer In-Charge, AIC Of India and Others - Opp.Party(s)

S.K.Patil

30 Nov 2015

ORDER

COMMON ORDER

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SMT.SAMIUNNISA .C.H., PRESIDENT:

        There are the 18 complaints filed the complainants against the OPs claiming certain reliefs by invoking Sec 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

           2.  The OP’s in all the above complaints are same and also the fact of the cases are one and same, all these complaints are heard together and disposed-off  by this common order. For the convenience sake, the above complaint numbers are mentioned above.

          3.  The cases mentioned above were ordered by the predecessor on the seat, the order pronounced by the Forum was appealed by the OP before Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which was dismissed, OP filed the Revision Petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which was allowed and sent back to the Forum and ordered to fresh disposal after issuing the notices to both the parties. The Forum issued the notices to both the parties as per the direction of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal commission, on pursuance of the report issued by the Statistical Department and the documents produced before the Forum again allowed the complaint. Again the OP appealed before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which was allowed and ordered to hear the complaints as per the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

         4.  The above complaints filed by the complainants, states that they had sowed Sunflower, Ground nut, maize crop in 2003-04 in their respective lands and insured for the Karif/Rabi yield and paid the premium through the Nodal Bank

       5.    The averments of the complaints in brief are :

       That the complainants had sowed the Sunflower, Ground nut, maize etc. karif/Rabi crop in 2003-04 in their respective lands and insured with the AIC for the yield and paid the premium through the Nodal Bank in 2003-04 the Karif/Rabi crop failed due to short fall of rain. The OP No.1 have failed to settle the Insurance amount to the Complainant, hence there is deficiency in service and prayed to order the OP’s to pay the maximum insured amount along with court expenses.

        6.   In pursuance of the notice issued by this Forum, the OP No.1 appeared through his counsel and OP No.2 in some of the cases DGP appeared to the District Administrative Officer and filed his Written Version. OP No.1 stated that the above complaints are not maintainable both in law and also on facts it is submitted that NAIS, RKB is implemented in the country under the order of Government of India vide ref. 13011/15/99 credit II dated 16.07.1999 of the Ministry of Agricultural Department of Agriculture and Co-operation, New Delhi w.e.f 01.10.1999. All the insured farmers growing the crops in the defined area are deemed to have suffered short fall in their yield the scheme seeks to provide coverage against such contingency indemnity shall be calculated as per the following formula (Shortfall in/Threshold yield) x sum insured of the farmer = Indemnity claims where are shortfall in yield = Threshold yield - Actual yield for the defined area. As per NAIS claims in general, will be disbursed through nodal banks as per shortfall in the notified area for the respective notified crop during karif/Rabi 2003-04 the OP have settled all eligible claims as per the scheme to all insured farmers under area approach. The director of Economics and Statistics had furnished crop wise hobli wise yield data for all crops during the season. As per the data there is no shortfall in the area claimed by the complainants and claims that the complainants are hiding the material facts and fraudulently claiming the undue amount and prays to dismiss the complaint.

       7.  OP No.2 in some of the cases DGP appeared to the District Commissioner, Gadag and filed his Written Version and in some cases remained absent.

      8.  All the complainants have produced the premium receipts which had been issued by the nodal bank, RTC copy along with affidavits.

      9.  As per the reminder of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to dispose the complaint as ordered in the Appeal by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Forum called for the Report from the District Statistical Department, and to produce the statistical crop survey report of the respective years, the department sent the written answer that the department had not conducted any crop cutting survey in the year 2003-04 after hearing the arguments from both the Counsel and on pursuance of the materials, placed by the complainants and OP, following points arises for our consideration:-

1. Weather the complaints are barred by limitation?
2. Weather the complainant had proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP as averred in the complaint?
3. Weather the complainant is entitled to any relief?
4. What Order?

Our findings to the

Point No. 1: Negative

Point No. 2 : Affirmative

Point No. 3 : Partially Affirmative

Point No. 4 : as per the final Order

 

R E A S O N S

      10.  POINT NO.1 Perused the records, The Complainants of the above cases are that the complainants claims the insured amount for the short fall yield for the year 2003-04. The complainants have filed these cases in the year 2007, 2008, 2009.  Hence the OP had prayed to dismiss the case on delay. As per CP act 24(a) the complaint should be filed within 2 years, the specified reason should be given to condone the delay. The objection filed by the OP is significant. The Predecessor on the seat have heard and allowed the complaint for the reason stated the delay had been condoned and the objection filed by the OP had been rejected. Hence the answer to point No.1 is in Negative.

       11.  POINT NO. 2: As stated above the OP had appealed before the State and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the appeal was allowed and ordered to hear the complaint again. The OP filed objection that the claims will be settled on the data furnished by the Economics and Statistical Department and filed the data stating that there is no short fall in yield of maize, sunflower Groundnut and Onion crop during the karif/Rabi season in 2003-04. The Economics and Statistics Department of Gadag Dist. have filed a letter on 10.07.2012 that they have not conducted any data survey for the shortfall of Karif/Rabi yield of Sunflower, Maize, and Groundnut for the year 2003-04. Hence, the Karif/Rabi yield data furnished by the OP cannot be considered. While the complainants approached the OP to settle the claims in the pursuance of Insurance coverage, it was not considered. Hence there is deficiency in service by OP No.1, the answer to Point No.2 is affirmative.

      12.  POINT NO. 3: In view of our findings on the above points, the complaints filed by the complainants are partially allowed. In the result, we pass the following : 

//O R D E R//

            The above 18 Complaint Nos.93/2009, 361/2007, 368/2007, 95/2009, 369/2007, 360/2007, 287/2007, 286/2007, 296/2007, 359/2007, 385/2007, 434/2008, 373/2007, 91/2009, 364/2007, 288/2007, 289/2007 and 291/2007 are partially allowed against OP No.1-AIC.

         2.   The OP No.1-AIC directed to pay the Maximum Insured Amount along with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of filing of these Complaints till realization.

3.  All the Complainants are entitled to receive Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) as special compensation. In some Complaints, the Insured Complainants are deceased in such cases, all LRs are liable to receive only Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) as special compensation.

4.  The Complainants are entitled to receive Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) towards the cost of litigation for each Complaints.

5.  The above Orders shall comply within a period of one month from the date of this order, fails to pay the said amount within one month, the complainants are entitled to get interest at 14% p.a. from the date of this order.

6.  Claim against remaining Ops are hereby dismissed.

          7.  Send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

8.  The original order shall be kept in Complaint No.93/2009 and copy thereof to other Complaints for reference.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 30^th day of November 2015)

 

           Member                              Member                                       President