Complainant/s:             1. Fakirappa S/o Shivappa Kittli, Age:57

                                       Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o  

                                                 Koujageri, Taluk: Ron,

                                                 District:  Gadag.

                                            2. Basanagouda S/o Kallanagouda Meti,

                                                 Age: 75 Years, Occ: Agriculture,

                                                 R/o Koujageri, Taluk: Ron,

                                                 District: Gadag.

                                             3.  Naganagouda S/o Basanagouda Meti,

                                                  Age: 34 Years, Occ: Agriculture,

                                                  R/o Koujageri, Taluk: Ron,

                                                  District: Gadag.

                                             4.  Giriyappagouda S/o Basanagouda             Meti,

                                                  Age: 44 Years, Occ: Agriculture,

                                                  R/o Koujageri, Taluk: Ron,

                                                  District: Gadag.

                                             5.  Mallikarjunagouda S/o Basanagouda        Meti,

                                                  Age: 35 Years, Occ: Agriculture,

                                                  R/o Koujageri, Taluk: Ron,

                                                  District: Gadag.

                                             (Rep. by Sri.P.S. Dharmayat, Advocate)   

V/s

ORDER

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

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

         2.  The above complaint filed by the complainants, states that he had sowed Wheat crop in 2016-17 in his land and insured for the Rabi Season yield and paid the premium.

         The averments of the complaint in brief are:

         3.       That the complainant has sowed Wheat crop in 2016-17 in their lands bearing sy. 47/2B measuring 4-16 Acres, sy.No.401/1A measuring 6-02 Acres, sy.No.314/1 measuring 5-00 Acres, sy.No.314/1 measuring 5-05 Acres and sy.No.484/2A measuring 5-20 Acres situated at Koujageri village of Ron Taluk and insured with AIC for the yield and paid the total premium amount of Rs.1,088.68 in 2016-17 under PMFBY for a sum assured amount of Rs.72,578-52.  The said crop was good and healthy and the complainant hoped that he would get good yield from the above said crops for the said year.  It is further submitted that, the crop failed completely due to shortfall of rain. The complainants are the non-loanee farmers.  The complainants approached the OPs and requested to release the crop insurance, but it went in vain, which shows the deficiency in service.  The above said scheme encouraged the farmers to get compensation for such damages.  The main aim of the said scheme is that to meet out the problems of the farmers under such circumstances.     The complainant perceived that none of the OPs have come to aid with this matter.  The complainant lost his crop due to lack of rain and lost their hard earned money in investing the faulty scheme of the OPs. Therefore, the complainant got issued legal notice to the OPs on 04.04.2019 calling upon them to pay the compensation, but the OPs failed to give reply the notice.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 04.04.2019 when the complainant issued notice to the OPs.   Hence there is a deficiency in service and prayed to order the OPs to pay the total loss and damages of the crop under the scheme with interest @ 18% p.m from the date of premium, Rs.1.00,000/- towards compensation for mental stress, loss and damages with costs of the proceedings and such other reliefs.

        4.   In pursuance of the notice issued by this Commission, the OP No.2 and 3 appeared through DGP and filed written version.  OP No.1 and 4 remained absent.

          The brief facts of the Written Version of OP No.2 and 3:-

1. The OP No.1 contended that Complaint of complainants is not maintainable both in law and also on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. 
2. It is further submitted that, the contents of para 2 and 3 are false and the same is to be proved by the complainants.
3. The contents of para 4 are false and the same is to be proved by the complainants. 
4. The complainants are not the consumers of these OPs and there is no contract of agreement between the complainants and these OPs that of seller and the buyer.  These OPs has made a party unnecessarily and therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of these OPs and hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint. 

          5.  The complainant No.5 filed his Chief affidavit along with 13 documents.  On the other OP No.2 and 3 failed to file their chief affidavit.

    COMPLAINANT FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

            6.   On pursuance of the materials, placed by the complainant 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 complaint?

2. Whether the complainants are entitled to any relief?
3. What Order?

       7.    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

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

           9.      The Complainant filed this Complaint against the OPs for claiming crop insurance 2016-17 on failure of weather.

 10.    The Complainant submits that they have insured their crop with OP No.1 in the year 2016-17 for the Wheat crop for Rabi season under the PMFBY which is Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme. The Complainants on good faith and for protection of their crop as per publications and advice of OPs insured their crop sowed in sy. 47/2B measuring 4-16 Acres, sy.No.401/1A measuring 6-02 Acres, sy.No.314/1 measuring 5-00 Acres, sy.No.314/1 measuring 5-05 Acres and sy.No.484/2A measuring 5-20 Acres situated at Koujageri village of Ron Taluk and insured with AIC for the yield and paid the total premium amount of Rs.1,088.68 in 2016-17 under PMFBY for a sum assured amount of Rs.72,578-52 with AIC for the yield.  In this year,   Complainants experienced less rain and suffered loss, but OP No.1 failed to deposit the insurance amount.  Meantime, the Complainants approached OPs, but OPs failed to deposit the amount to their account. Hence, Complainant submits that they have not got the sum assured from the OPs.

11.     On-going through the records on file, it is an undisputed fact that complainants have insured their crops with OP No.1 and it is also undisputed fact that they have received the premium amount from the complainants as well as the Government that means OP No.1 received entire premium amount from the complainants. We have to discuss clearly about the scheme to conclude the case.

12.     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, the 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.  

          13.     These are the criteria fixed by the Government of India, but the OP  the OP No.3 has not taken any steps to say that, they have safeguarded the farmers as such.  As per the Rules And Regulations issued by the Govt. of Karnataka.  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. 

 14.    As stated supra, OP No.1 and 3 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. 

          15.     OP No.1 and 4 not present before the Commission to say what are the steps they are taken for safeguarding the farmers, it is clear that, here also both the OPs have made deficiency in service on their part.

16.     The crop cutting experiment and yield data is mentioned in the document Ex.C-8 to 13 produced by the complainants, those documents are said to be the reports of CCE and yield for the year 2016-17. 

 17.    Of course complainants 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 Complainants since there is lot of loopholes from OPs while executing the scheme. Hence, Commission came to the conclusion that the claim is to be fixed on non-standard basis that OP No.1 has 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.          

           18.  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 and 3.

           2.   The OP No.1 is directed to pay half of the Sum Assured to Complainants 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.3 is liable to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainants towards compensation.  Further, OP No.1 is directed to pay litigation charges of Rs.1,000/- to the complainants.

   4.  Complaint against OP No.2 and 4 is dismissed.

           5.  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 9^th day of March-2021)

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

               MEMBER                                                 PRESIDENT