Complainant/s:            Basappa S/o Mahadevappa Chinchali, Age: 60 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Antur, Taluk & District: Gadag.

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

V/s

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SMT. YASHODA BHASKAR PATIL, MEMBER

                The complainant has filed the complaint u/Sec.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 for the loss of crop with interest @ 18%, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and cost.

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

       The complainant had sowed Greengram and Groundnut crops in 2016-17 in his lands bearing Sy.No.167/4 measuring 09-00 Acres and Sy.No.167/4 measuring 09-00 Acres situated at Antur village of Gadag Taluk and insured the same with OP No.1 for the yield and paid the total premium amount of Rs.1,891-15  in 2016-17 Khariff season under PMFBY for a sum assured amount of Rs.94,557-60.  It is further submitted that, the crop failed completely, due to shortfall of rain and the said area was declared as drought hit area. The complainant approached the OPs and requested to release the crop insurance but, OPs refused to pay the insurance amount.  The above said scheme encouraged the farmers to get compensation for such damages.  The main aim of the said scheme is to meet out the problems of the farmers under such circumstances.     The complainant perceived that none of the OPs have come to the aid with this matter.    The complainant lost his crop, due to shortage of rain and lost his hard earned money in investing the faulty scheme of the OPs. Therefore, the complainant got issued legal notice to the OPs on 16.08.2019 calling upon them to pay the compensation.  But, the OPs  have not given reply to the said notice.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 16.08.2019 when the complainant issued legal notice.   Hence filed the complaint.

        3.   In pursuance of service of notice, OP No.1 and 4 appeared through their respective Advocates and OP No.2 and 3 through DGP. OP No.1 to 3 filed their written version.  OP No.4 has not filed written version or affidavit. 

          The brief facts of the Written Version filed by OP No.1 are as under:

          4.   OP No.1 denied the various contents of the complaint and admitted that, the complainant has paid premium of Rs.938.90 to cover Sy.No.1674A measuring 9-00 Acres for a sum assured amount of Rs.46,945.20 through savings A/c No.423148 to cover Greengram crop.  The State Government in Samrakshana Portal mentioned the shortfall in Antur village in Gadag Taluk/District was -14.903775.  Similarly, the complainant has paid premium of Rs.952825 to cover Sy.No.167/4 measuring 9-00 Acres for a sum assured amount of Rs.47,612-40 through savings A/c No.423148 to cover Groundnut crop.  The State Government in Samrakshana Portal mentioned the shortfall in Antur village in Gadag Taluk/District was -33.698191.  As per the data given by the Government, there was no crop loss in the said village.  As per the application No.423148 of the complainant, the CCE is higher than the threshold yield and hence, there is no crop loss to the farmer and No CLAIM is reflected in the portal.     It is further submitted that, Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana is being implemented in the country under the orders of Government with an objective  to provide insurance coverage and financial support to the farmers in the event of failure of any of the notified crop as a result of natural calamities, pests and diseases, to stabilize the income of farmers to ensure their continuance in farming, to encourage farmers to adopt innovative and modern agricultural practice and also to ensure flow of credit to the agriculture sector.  As per the PMFBY guidelines, all eligible claims, crop wise, notified area wise are processed and settled by this OP in respect of allotted Districts as per the yield data received from the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of Karnataka.  Complainant is demanding claim settlement in respect of Greengram and Groundnut crops pertaining to Gadag Hobli, Gadag taluk under Khariff-2016-17 season.  As per the decision taken in SLCCI meeting during Khariff-2016-17, CCEs for Greengram and Groundnut crops are higher than the threshold yield and there is no crop loss of the farmer and No CLAIM is reflected in the portal.  Hence, this OP is not liable to pay any compensation and prays to dismiss the complaint.

          The brief facts of the Written Version filed by OP No.2 and 3 are as under:

        OP No.2 and 3 denied the contents of the complaint and contended that, complainant is not a consumer and no way concerned to the case as the role of these OPs is to advise and create awareness to the farmers regarding crop insurance.  Hence, prays to dismiss the complaint.

          5.  To prove the case, complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and was examined as PW-1 and got marked documents as Ex.C-1 to C-9.  OP No.2 filed evidence on affidavit, who was examined as RW-1 and got marked documents as Ex.OP-1 to 4.

             6.   Heard the arguments on both the side. 

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

1. Whether the complainant has proved the       deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any  
3.  

3. What Order?

         8.   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

          REASONS

           9.      Point No.1 & 2:- The points are taken together to avoid the repetition of facts. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that, as per the affidavit of complainant and documents, complainant is entitled for the relief as sought for.  The learned DGP for OP No.2 and 3 and counsel for OP No.1 argued that, complaint is not maintainable as there is no shortfall.

          10.     On perusal of the materials placed before us, it is an undisputed fact that, the complainant sowed Greengram and Groundnut crops during the year 2016-17 in his lands bearing Sy.No.167/4 measuring 09-00 Acres and Sy.No.167/4 measuring 09-00 Acres situated at Antur village of Gadag Taluk and insured the same with OP No.1 for the yield and paid the total premium amount of Rs.1,891-15  in 2016-17 Khariff season under PMFBY for a sum assured amount of Rs.94,557-60.  It is further submitted that, the crop failed completely due to shortfall of rain. The complainant is the loanee farmer.  The complainant approached the OPs and requested to release the crop insurance, but, it went in vain, which shows the deficiency in service.  The complainant perceived that none of the OPs have come to aid with this matter.    The complainant lost his crop due to shortage of rain and lost his hard earned money in investing in the faulty scheme of the OPs. PW-1 stated that, he has experienced less rain and suffered loss.  But, OP No.1 has not deposited amount.  OP No.2 and 3 submitted that, the complainant is not a consumer to them and no way concerned to the case as the role of these OPs is to advise and create awareness to the farmers regarding crop insurance.   OP No.1 contended that, as per the data given by the Government, there was no crop loss in the said village.  As per the application No.423148 of complainant, the CCE is higher than the threshold yield and hence, there is no crop loss to the farmer and No CLAIM is reflected in the portal.   To prove his case the Complainant has not produced any documents to show that, he has suffered complete loss during 2016-17. 

          11.     On perusal of Ex.OP-4 clearly goes to show that, as per the Government Order for the year 2016-17, Taluka wise yield data for Khariff-2016 season for the crop under Pradhana Mantri Fasal Bheema Yojana, calculation of shortfall and claim percentage of Greengram and Groundnut, OPs properly calculated the shortfall and the CCE is higher than the threshold yield for Greengram and Groundnt and hence, there is no crop loss of the farmer. There is no irregularity or fault found with OPs and they have acted as per the guidelines.  The documents produced by the complainant Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 i.e., Proposer data, CCE reports, notice and other documents are not disputed.  Complainant has not produced any scrap of paper to show that, the OPs have intentionally rejected his claim.  Merely Government declared the drought due to shortfall of rain is not a sole ground to award entire sum insured amount.  If the Government declared the drought for the year or season, separate compensation will be paid to each farmers. 

          12.     It is pertinent to note here that, 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 rainfall or drought, the crops did not give the desired yield, 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 has gone on 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 affected by 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 of 7 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)

          13.     For the above, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of service of OPs and they are not entitled for the relief as sought for.  Accordingly, we answer both the points are in negative.

          14.     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, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Court on this 1^st day of June-2022)

,            

(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:Basappa M. Chinchali.

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1: Proposer data

Ex.C-2: Legal Notice

Ex.C-3: Letter from DSA, dated 20.11.2019

Ex.C-4 to 9: CCE reports

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

RW-1:Gutteppa

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

Ex.OP-1 & 2: Shortfall percentage reports

Ex.OP-3: Letter from JDA, Gadag dated 29.03.2022.

Ex.OP-4: 2016 Khariff major-crops details (shortfall)

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

        MEMBER                PRESIDENT              WOMAN MEMBER