Karnataka

Gadag

CC/70/2019

Mahantayya. S. Kalyanimath - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Person-In-Charge, AIC of India and Others - Opp.Party(s)

S.B.Hiremath

17 Mar 2020

ORDER

ORDER

 

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

        This complaint is filed by the complainant/s against the OPs claiming certain reliefs by invoking Sec 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

           2.  The above complaint filed by the complainant, states that they had sowed Jowar crop in 2016-17 in their respective lands and insured for the Rabi yield and paid the premium through the Nodal Banks.

         3.    The averments of the complaint in brief are:

       That the complainants have sowed the Jowar Rabi crop in 2016-17 in their respective lands bearing sy No.126/3A measuring 3-04 Acres situated at Magadi village and insured with AIC for the yield and paid the premium amount of Rs.677-43 through the Nodal Banks in 2016-17 under PMFB for a sum assured amount of Rs.45,162-00, the Rabi crop failed due to shortfall of rain. The complainants are the non-loanee farmers.  The crop of the complainants is good and healthy and was growing well.  The year 2016-17 was hit by draughts, because of lack of rainfall, the whole Jowar crop of the complainant was ruined and complainant became unhappy.  The complainant expected to receive the compensation for the total loss of the said Rabi season crop.  The policy coverage in case of any natural calamities/disasters to the crops of insured person/farmers, the policy safeguards under such calamities and on this assurance and encouragement, the complainants have purchased the policy to the said year and eagerly waited to receive the crop insurance compensation for the total loss of the Jowar crops under the said scheme by all the OPs, but the complainants have not received the compensation amount till today.  Therefore, the complainants got issued legal notice to the OPs calling upon them to pay the compensation, but till today the OPs have not replied for the same.  The cause of action for this complaint arose when the OPs failed to comply with the notice.   Hence there is deficiency in service and prayed to order the OPs to pay the total loss and damages of the crop with interest @ 18% p.m from the date of payment till payment, Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and hardship and Rs.5,000/- towards court expenses.

        4.   In pursuance of the notice issued by this Forum, the OPs appeared through their counsels.  OP No.1, 4 and 5 filed their respective written version, but OP No.2 and 3 failed to file written version. 

          The brief facts of the Written Version of OP No.1:-

            5.         OP No.1 stated that the above complaint is not maintainable both in law and also on facts. The Pradhan Mantri Fasal   Bima Yojana is being implemented in the country under the

 

orders of Government of India vide ref: No.13015/03/2016/credit II dated 23.02.2016 of the Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and cooperation, New Delhi w.e.f., 07.10.2016.  The main conditions relating to PMFBY which are binding on States/UT are as follows:

1. State has to conduct requisite number of crop cutting experiments at the level of notified insurance unit area;
2. CCE based yield data will be submitted to insurance company within the prescribed time limit;
3. State/UT will make necessary budgetary provision in State/UT budget, to release premium subsidy based on fair estimates, at the beginning of the crop season;
4. State/UT should be willing to facilitate strengthening of weather station network. 
5. Adoption of innovative technology especially smart phones/hand held devices for capturing conducting of CCEs.  

State Government already looking after implementation of National Agriculture Insurance Scheme (NAIS)/National Crop Insurance Programme (NCIP) may be designated as Nodal Department for implementation of PMFBY.  The State Level Coordination Committee on Crop Insurance (SLCCCI) presently overseeing implementation of NAIS and NCIP may be authorized to oversee implementation of PMFBY.  It is submitted that, the scheme operates on the basis of “Area Approach” i.e., defined Areas of each notified crop for widespread calamities and insurance unit is village/village panchayat level, to be decided by the State/UT Government.  Yield date will be furnished to insurance company by State Government/UT, in accordance with the cut-off dates fixed and crops and areas notified, based on total number of CCEs being conducted.  Insurance company should be given complete access to co-witness the CCEs, as also the digital images of the CCEs and relevant data in the requisite format by the State Government.  It is further submitted that, if “Actual yield” per hectare of insured crop for the insurance unit in insured season, falls short of specified “Threshold Yield”, all insured farmers growing that crop in the defined area are deemed to have suffered shortfall in yield of similar magnitude.     

            Claim shall be calculated as per the following formula:

            (Threshold Yield – Actual Yield) X Sum insured

Threshold Yield

It is further submitted that, the complainant has demanded for claim settlement in respect of Jowar crop pertaining to Lakshmeshwar Hobli, Lakshmeshwar Taluk, Gadag under Rabi 2016-17.  In respect of Jowar pertaining to Lakshmeshwar Hobli, OPs have not received the final yield data for Jowar crop from the Directorate of Economics and Statistics pertaining to Rabi 2016-17 Season.     The   yield   data   for   the  above crop/notified area, is not yet finalized due to lack of

 

required IU level Crop cutting Experiments (CCEs).  As per Technical Advisory Committee Meeting of GOI dated 27.12.2018, the State Government was directed to recalculate the AY using synthetic yield and finalize the claim process.  The State Government are yet to finalize the synthetic yield and upload the data into Samrakshane Portal. In addition to the version filed, OP No.1 filed additional version stating that, they have settled the eligible claims on 24.06.2019. 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.

The brief facts of the Written Version of OP No.4 & 5:-

          6.  OP No.4 and 5 submits that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, the same is barred by time and is not come up with the purview of the Limitation Act.  It is true that, the complainants have insured the Jowar crop during 2016-17 for PMFBY Scheme by paying premium through these OPs.  By virtue of directions issued by the Agricultural General Insurance Company, Bangalore, OP No.4 forwarded total premium amount of Rs.2,65,278-90 on 13.01.2017 through RTGS to AIC in our A/c No.9010200008570 under UTR No.KVGBH 17013100108 and the same is already informed to the complainants.  OP No.4 is only a collecting agent and mediator between the farmers and AIC and the scope of responsibility of this OP is very limited one.  It is the duty of OP-4 to receive the application/proposal forms and to collect the required premium as per the guidelines of AIC and to forward the same to AIC and whatever the claim amount received from the AIC will be credited to the respective farmers, savings Bank Account.  It is further submitted that, there is separate machinery to assess the percentage of failure of respective crop and fixing of the percentage and quantum of compensation to be payable to the respective farmers, this OP is neither concerned to the facts of fixing of premium and assessing the loss nor fixing of the compensation to be payable to the farmers.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on their part and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

            7.  The complainant filed Chief affidavit along with 04 documents.  On the other hand, the Deputy Manager of OP No.4 filed Chief Affidavit and Manager of OP No.4 along with 02 documents.

COMPLAINANTS FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

	Particulars of Documents	Date of Document
C-1	View Proposal
C-2	Postal Receipt
C-3	Postal Acknowledgement
C-4	Legal Notice

         

           

 

             OP FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

	Particulars of Documents	Date of Document
OP-1	Claim settled details
OP-2	Calculation of shortfall and claim percentage of Jowar (Irri)

            8.      on pursuance of the materials, placed by the complainants and OPs, the following points arises for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainants have proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as averred in the complaints?
2. Whether the complainants are entitled to any relief?
3. What Order?

9.   Our findings to the above points are:-

Point No. 1:  Affirmative,

Point No. 2:  Partially Affirmative,

Point No. 3:  As per the final Order

R E A S O N S

             10.  POINT NO.1 AND 2:  Both the points are inter-link and identical. Hence we proceed both the points together.

11.       The Complainant/s filed this Complaint against the Ops for claiming crop insurance 2016-17 on failure of weather. The Complainant/s submits that they have insured their crops with OP’s in the year 2016-17 for the crop of Jowar for Rabi season in the PMFBY which is Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme. The Complainant/s on good faith and for protection of their crop as per publications and advice of OPs insured their crop irrigated Jowar under Magadi village, Lakshmeshwar Hobli, Shirahatti Taluk and paid the premium of Rs.677-43 for 3-04 Acres with OP No.1 and obtained receipt and Sum Assured was Rs.45,162-00.  In this year, Complainant/s experienced less rain and suffered loss, but OP No.1 deposited less amount in the Complainant/s account by wrong calculation after filing this complaint before this Forum. OP No.1 deposited Rs.209-90. Meantime, the Complainant/s approached OP No.3, but OP No.3 submitted that they directed to deposit the amount to their account. Hence, Complainant/s submits that they have not got the sum assured from the OPs. On the other hand, OP No.1 submits that as per the Scheme Condition, the payout is calculated and deposit the amount in the respective account of the Complainant/s and submits that they have received the report from Karnataka State Natural Disaster Monitoring Centre and photocopy of the same had been produced    before    the    Forum   and submits that they have deposited the payout amount to the

 

Complainant/s account and they are not responsible any loss or the Company had not made any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the Government, they have paid the insurance amount and prayed to dismiss the case. 

OP No.4 and 5 submits that, they have acted as a mediator between the OP No.1 and complainant and after receiving the premium amount, entire total premium amount had been transferred to OP No.1. 

12.       On-going through the records on file, it is an undisputed fact that complainant/s have insured their crops with OP No.1 and it is also undisputed fact that they have received the premium amount from the complainant/s as well as the Government that means OP No.1 received entire premium amount from the complainant/s. The disputed fact is that OP No.1 calculated the loss as per the scheme framed by the Government. We have to discuss clearly about the scheme to conclude the case.

As per the terms and conditions of the Scheme, the criteria is fixed for eligibility of the insurance is that, the farmer should inform about the loss occurred in their fields within 48 hours of the incident to the Agricultural Department or else to the Insurance Company.  As per the terms and conditions placed before us by OP No.1 operational guidelines speaks in Sl.No.15 at page No.64 of the guidelines about the appointment of the assessor by the insurance Company and the time framed for loss assessment and submission of the report and condition has been explained.  Anyhow, as per the guidelines, some of the time frame has been mentioned in that guideline.  It is very necessary to know about all the guidelines to the farmers to inform the same to the concerned authority.  OPs failed to produce such documents to say that, they have educated the farmers as per the scheme.  It is just and necessary to educate the farmer about the scheme because, the premium has been paid by the farmers to the insurance Company.  Such being the fact, Ops have not taken any steps to educate the farmers.  Anyhow, in the year 2016-17, the OP No.2 himself declared that, the above said village is hit by draught.  Such being the fact, there is no need of information to OP No.1 and 2 and it is the bounded duty of the OPs to visit fields for crop cutting experiment.  As per their terms and conditions, they should appoint a qualified person for loss assessment in page No.64, the appointment of loss assessor by the insurance Company is as follows:

Appointment of Loss Assessors by the Insurance Company:

The loss assessors would be appointed by the Insurance Company for assessment of losses due to the operations of Localized Risks (Yield Insurance).  The loss assessors appointed by the insurance companies should be in accordance with the IRDAI provisions.  The loss assessors appointed should possess following experience and qualification;

i) Any Graduate (preferably Agriculture i.e., Diploma/B.Sc.(Ag.,) with minimum 2 years experience of crop insurance.

 

ii) Retired Government officials of Agriculture/Horticulture/Extension Department having Diploma, B.Sc.(Ag.) degree.

iii) Retired Bank officials with experience of crop loaning or Kisan Credit Card (KCC0. For compliance under the above provisions the insurance companies would empanel the suitable loss assessors for using their services as and when required.

The loss would be jointly assessed by a team comprising of loss assessor appointed by the insurer, block level agriculture officer and the concerned farmer.  

            These are the criteria fixed by the Government of India, but the OP No.1 or the OP No.2 have not taken any steps to say that, they have safeguarded the farmers as such.  OP No.2 was not present before the Forum to say what are the steps they are taken for safeguarding the farmers and on what basis the OP No.1 transferred the amount to the complainant/s of Rs.209-90 on 24.06.2019.  it is clear that, here also both the OPs made deficiency on their part.  As per the Rules And Regulations issued by the Govt. of Karnataka produced by the OP No.1, in page No.8, it clearly says that, the claim amount has to be settled within September and October 2017, it says as follows:   

2016-17gÀ »AUÁgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉùUÉ ºÀAUÁ«Ä£À°è «ªÀiÁ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨É¼É «ªÀiÁ £ÀµÀÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¯ÉPÀÌ ºÁQ, «ªÉÄ ªÀiÁr¹zÀ gÉÊvÀjUÉ J¯Áè ¨É¼ÉUÀ½UÉ CAwªÀĪÁV »AUÁgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉùUÉ ºÀAUÁªÀÄÄUÀ¼À ¨É¼É «ªÀiÁ £ÀµÀÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÀgÀäªÁV ¸É¥ÀÖA§gï ºÁUÀÆ CPÉÆÖçgï 2017gÀ CAvÀåzÉƼÀUÉ EvÀåxÀð¥Àr¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. 

 As stated supra, OP No.1 and 2 have not settled the claim within the time, the said claim however they calculated it should be settled within the time, but they failed to settle the same that to be transferred the meager amount after filing the complaint. 

OP No.1 submits that, they have settled it as per they received data from the District Statistical Office as per the crop cutting experiment and also filed the documents pertaining to the yield data of 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, as per that data they calculated the claim. The said report is said to be issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi on 09.01.2019.  The said crop cutting experiment and yield data is mentioned in the document, but OP failed to produce the original document issued by the above said Department.  The document which has been produced by OP No.1 is not attested by the OP.

The payout calculated by the OP No.3 is less than the premium they received from the Complainant/s During the argument, the learned counsel for the complainant submits that, these areas are hit by the draught and the same has been confirmed by the OP No.2 itself.  The laymen says that without proper foundation building cannot be constructed like this only if the farmers does not get proper rainfall it is difficult to get good yielding.

13.       Of course complainant/s have also not produced any documents to show that they have   complete   loss   during   2016-17.    Here   we   cannot  totally disbelieve the prayer of the

 

Complainant/s since there is lot of loopholes from OP No.1 while executing the scheme. Hence, Forum came to the conclusion that the claim is to be fixed on non-standard basis, that OP No.1 have to pay half of the Sum Assured for their unfair trade practice.  Since OP No.3 is also liable to pay for mental agony and harassment and further litigation charges.  Hence, we answer Point No.1 in Affirmative & Point No.2 is in Partly Affirmative.          

             14.  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//

1.  The above Complaint is partially allowed against OP No.1 to 3.

          2.   The OP No.1 is directed to pay half of the Sum Assured to Complainant/s within one month, failing which OP No.1 is liable to pay 18% interest from the date of filing this complaint till realization.

3.  OP No.2 and 3 are liable to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant/s towards compensation.  Further, OP No.1 is directed to pay litigation charges of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant/s.

4.  Complaint against OP No.4 and 5 is dismissed.

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

           (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 17^th day of March, 2020)

 

 

                  (Shri B.S.Keri)                               (Smt.C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar)

                  MEMBER                                              PRESIDENT