Karnataka

Gadag

CC/123/2019

Sharanabasappa S/o Basappa Jutlad - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Person incharge Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., and others - Opp.Party(s)

P.S.Dharmayat

26 Feb 2021

ORDER

-::O R D E R::-

 

BY: SMT.C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR, PRESIDENT.

 

1.      The complainant has filed this complaint claiming direction to the OPs to pay the crop insurance amount of Rs.94,234.40 along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a, Rs.1,00,000/- compensation towards mental agony, loss, damage with cost and such other relief.

 

-::Brief facts of the case are as under::-

2.      The case of the complainant is that, the complainant is a permanent resident of Naregal village, Ron Taluk and District Gadag, who is the loanee farmer has insured his Sunflower crop which was grown in his land with OP No.1 under FASAL BHEEMA YOJANA for 2016-17 Rabi season.  He has sowed Sunflower crop in 2016-17 in his land bearing sy. No.998/4 measuring 8-34 Acres situated at Naregal village and insured with OP No.1 for the yield and paid the total premium amount of Rs.1,413-52 in 2016-17 under PMFBY for a sum assured amount of Rs.94,234-40.  The said crop was good and healthy and the complainant hoped that they 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 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 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 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 20.04.2019 calling upon them to pay the compensation, the OP No.1 falsely replied the notice on 16.05.2019, but remaining failed to reply the notice.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 20.04.2019 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, Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, loss and damages with costs of the proceedings and such other reliefs.

3.      Registered the complaint and notice was ordered as such OPs present before the Forum and filed their written version. 

Written Version of the OP No.1

1. OP No.1 stated that the above complaint is not maintainable both in law and also on facts as there is no deficiency of service on their part.  The Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana is being implemented in the country under the orders of Government of India 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.  The time lines for coverage, submission of yield data, price data etc., shall be decided by the SLCCI strictly keeping in mind the onset of monsoon, sowing period, crop cycle as per the operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bheema Yojana, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers welfare book mentioned.  Once the yield data is received from the State/UT Government as per the prescribed cut-off dates, claims will be processed, approved and settled by IA.  If the Actual Yield per hectare of the insured crop for the defined (on the basis of requisite number of crop cutting experiments (CCEs)) in the insured season, falls short of the specified that crop in the defined area deemed to have suffered shortfall in their yield. 

            Claim shall be calculated as per the following formula:

            Claim pay-outs= (Shortfall in Yield X Sum insured of the farmer

     Threshold Yield)

 

It is further submitted that, threshold yield and actual yield is to be entered by State Government in SAMRAKSHANE portal and this OP has only access to download the same and based on the entry in thesaidportalifaclaimhasbeenregisteredin that case it would be treated as admissible or inadmissible. The CCE yield is higher than the threshold yield, hence there is no crop loss of the farmer and hence, no claim is reflected in the portal.The final claim is calculated as per the term sheet and the same is mentioned in the SAMRAKSHANE Portal which is maintained by the State Government.The claims are settled as per the norms of PMFBY/WBCISoperationalguidelinesofCentralGovernmentforwhichall insurance companies are adhere to the policy and no further claims are admissible after the settlement.The complainant has not produced any documents before this Forum that, the concerned authorities have declared the above said area is hit by drought and not produced any documents to show that, he has suffered heavy loss due to improper yielding of crops in his lands.As per the data, there is no shortfall in the area claimed by the complainant and claims that the complainant is hiding the material facts and fraudulently claiming the undue amount and prays to dismiss the complaint.

Written Version of the OP No.2 and 3

1. The OP No.2 and 3 contended that Complaint of complainant 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 complainant.
3. The contents of para 4 are and the same is to be proved by the complainant to show that, they have grown the Sunflower crop under rain fed and paid the premium for the same. 
4. The complainant is not the consumers of these OPs and there is no contract of agreement between the complainant and these OPs that of seller and the buyer.  These OPs made as parties unnecessarily and therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of these OPs and hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint. 

Written Version of the OP No.4 and 5

1. The OP No.4 and 5 contended that Complaint of complainant is not maintainable both in law and also on facts, the same is imaginary, false and the same is barred by limitation, the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. 
2. It is submitted that, the complainant has paid the crop insurance premium amount for Sunflower crop for the 2016-17 Rabi season under loanee farmer and the same has been sent to OP No.1 within time limit i.e., on 20.12.2016 through these OPs and the same is informed to the complainant.    
3. It is further submitted that, this OP No.4 and 5 are only the agents between the farmers and the Insurance company and the scope of this OP is very limited one. 
4. It is further submitted that, the duty of these OPs have to collect the applications/proposal forms and to collect the required premium as per the guidelines and forward the same to Insurance company.  There is a separate machinery to assess the percentage of failure of the respective crop and fixing of the percentage and quantum of compensation to be payable to the respective farmers.  These OPs are neither concerned to the facts of fixing the premium and assessing the loss nor fixing of the compensation to be payable to the farmers.  Therefore, the question of deficiency of service on the part of these OPs does not arise and hence, the complaint filed by the complaints deserves to be dismissed.  

4.  The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence with 03   documents, the manager of OP No.4 filed their respective affidavit evidence with 02 documents which are as follows:

COMPLAINANT FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

	Particulars of Documents	Date of Document
	R of R
	View Proposal
C-3	Legal Notice

 

          OPs FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

	Particulars of Documents	Date of Document
	Proposal Form
	Statement of Account	01.11.2016 to 01.10.2019

5.      On pursuance of the materials, placed by the complainant and OPs, the following points arises for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant have proved the deficiency in service

on the part of the OPs as averred in the complaint?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
3. What Order?

6.   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

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

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

 9.        The Complainant/s submits that they have insured their crops with OP’s in the year 2016-17 for the Sunflower crop which was grown in his land with OP No.1 under FASAL BHEEMA YOJANA for 2016-17 Rabi season.  He has sowed Sunflower crop in 2016-17 in his land bearing sy. No.998/4 measuring 8-30 Acres situated at Naregal village and insured with OP No.1 for the yield and paid the total premium amount of Rs.1,413-52 in 2016-17 under PMFBY for a sum assured amount of Rs.94,234.40.    In this year, Complainant/s experienced less rain and suffered loss, but OPs failed to deposit the insurance amount in the Complainant/s account.  Meantime, the Complainant/s approached OPs, but OPs failed to deposit the claim amount.  Hence, Complainant/s submits that they have not got the claim amount from the OPs. On the other hand, OP No.1 submits that as per the Scheme Conditions, the calculation is on the formula of threshold yield i.e., mainly based on the CCE and submits that, this complainant is not entitled for the claim as reflected in the SAMRAKSHANA Portal that the CCE yield is higher than the threshold yield and in Rabi 2016-2017 PMFBY and WBCIS is governed by the term sheet designed by the State Government which has triggers of deficit rainfall, dry days and excess rainfall etc.

10. OP No.2 and 3 submits that, complainant is not the consumers and there is no contract of agreement between the complainant and these OPs that of seller and the buyer.  These OPs have made as the parties unnecessarily and therefore, there is no deficiency of service on their part.

11. OP No.4 and 5 submits that, they have acted as the mediators 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 has insured his 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 OPs are not paid the sum assured amount in spite of loss occurred to the complainant as per the complaint.    We have to discuss clearly about the scheme to conclude the case as per the pleadings of the complaint and OPs as stated supra.  

13.       The OP No.1 i.e., insurance Company taking  defence  that in this field, there is no  shortfall   of   yield  as  per  the  SAMRAKSHANA Portal  which  has  been  formed  by   the Government, it should be monitored by OP No.1 i.e., Deputy Commissioner and the Joint Director of Agriculture.  It is very much important to say that, the OP No.1 has not actively participated in the proceedings and not filed any written version to say that whether data in the Portal of SAMRAKSHANA is correct, to substantiate the same, they should have to place the documents before the Forum, it is the bounded duty of OPs to present before the Forum to say the truth.  The OP No.1 taken defence that the policy is only based on the CCE i.e., crop cutting experiment and actual yield and threshold yield will be calculated by taking CCE only and it is explained by them that, as per the SAMRAKSHANA there is no loss on yield.  Anyhow, complainant filed a document i.e., pertaining to the CCE which has been issued by Statistical Department, Gadag, the counsel for complainant made an IA to receive the document from the Statistical Department and summon the Statistical Officer before the Forum to depose the same in C.C.No.39/2018 and Advocate for the complainant filed certified copy of the evidence of Statistical Officer, Gadag to prove their case,.  In this evidence, the witness (Statistical Officer) admitted some of the fact that, he received the report from their representative who made the CCE on the field and in question No.5 to 7, the answer given by the Statistical Officer is not acceptable and answered vaguely that they are not present in the field during the CCE.  In the CCE, this person is the witness for the same.  To this question, the Statistical Officer said that, he did not know about this matter.  Such being the fact, the CCE said to be done is not acceptable because it is not made properly as per the terms and condition of the policy. 

14.       It is clear in the policy that, the person who had made CCE should be a qualified and he should be experienced in the field.  If one made CCE by sitting in somewhere and issuedth3e same report that is the previous years CCE, then it is clear that, the OP No.1 vicariously liable for the act made by his agent.

15.       Such being the case, how the OP No.1 received the data from SAMRASKHANA portal that to be saying that there is no loss of yielding.  This document is a mirror to say that, the OPs are made some blunder mistake by filling the data.  The OP No.1 had taken action against the officer and the agent who made this mistake. 

16.       Anyhow, complainant also failed to produce the document stating that, the entire crop is vanished and it is also a bounded duty of the complainant also to produce the document is said that they sow the particular crop during 2016-17(Crop Yielding Certificate) from the concerned authority and in the RTC produced by the complainant there is no such crop is mentioned in the RTC.  While arguing the matter, the learned counsel for complainant submits that, the Revenue Department were not changed the crop after informing the same to the concerned authority and they leave the column of the crop as it is what it is in previous years.  Hence, the RTC is not at all changed.    Anyhow,   the   Forum   comes to the conclusion that, the claim of the complainant is to be settled in a nonstandard basis.  Hence, we answer Point No.1 in Affirmative and Point No.2 in partly Affirmative. 

             17.  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 75% 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.

           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 26^th day of February- 2021)

 

 

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

   MEMBER                                            PRESIDENT