The Regional Manager, Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., Bangalore V/S K. Gururaj Rao S/o. Hanumantha Rao, Yedivihal, Manvi - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/10/18

K. Gururaj Rao S/o. Hanumantha Rao, Yedivihal, Manvi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Regional Manager, Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., Bangalore - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. I.M. Patil

14 Sep 2010

ORDER

Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/18

K. Gururaj Rao S/o. Hanumantha Rao, Yedivihal, Manvi						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Regional Manager, Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., Bangalore The Deputy Commissioner, Raichur The Manager, Syndicate Bank, Manvi The Tahasildar, Manvi						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMMON JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- C.C. No. 17/10 is the complaint filed by the complainant Sri. K. Srinivas Rao against the Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., and Syndicate Bank Manvi U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to award an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards assured sum under the crop insurance and for Rs. 1,00,000/- for making in delay in payment of the assured sum with cost and other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances in of this case. C.C. No. 18/10 is the complaint filed by the complainant Sri. Gururaj Rao against the opposites Nos. 1 & 2 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to award an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- with damage of Rs. 1,00,000/- with cost. 2. The brief facts of the complainants case in C.C. No.17/10 are that, he being the owner in possession of agricultural land bearing Sy.No. 56/A, measuring 12 acres 32 guntas in Yedivihal village, Tq. Manvi. It is under lift irrigation system. In the year 2009, he grown paddy crop in entire land by availing a loan amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the month of June 2009 from opposite No-2. At the time of taking loan insurance premium amount was deducted on 05-09-08 and 10-10-09. Due to immerssion of his paddy land in flood, crop was destroyed to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000/- and more. If there was no flood, then he would have harvested about 600 to 700 bags of paddy worth of Rs. 6,00,000/- to 7,00,000/-. The Government assessed the loss of different areas and noted that, there was a loss of 100% in his village, thereafter he filed an application for to pay the insurance amount from opposite No-1, but opposite No-1 not responded, he also requested opposite No-2 to settle the claim, none of them shown interest in settling his insurance claim, accordingly this complaint is filed by him, for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint. 3. The brief facts of the complainant case in C.C. No. 18/10 are that, he being the owner in possession of the agricultural land bearing Sy;No. 56/B, measuring 15 acres, he grown paddy crop by taking loan amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- from opposite No-2 Bank. Insurance premium were deducted out of the said loan, thereafter the entire paddy crop of his land destroyed due to flood. Government assessed the loss to the extent of 100% in his village. Thereafter he requested the opposite Nos- 1 & 2 to settle his claim as he sustained loss of Rs. 7,00,000/- to 8,00,000/-. But none of the opposites have not settled his claim, they shown their negligence and thereby both opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services, accordingly he filed this complaint for the reliefs as prayed in it. 4. The Opposite No-1 Agriculture Insurance Company Ltd., appeared in both the cases filed their similar written versions by denying the claim of complainant. It is contended in both the cases that, the complainant wrongly interrupted the scheme by stating that, insurance company agreed to compensate the loss in the event of failure of crops in all cases. The National Agriculture Insurance Company is floated by the Government of India. It is only a implementing agency the loss has to be assessed on area approach i.e, defined area for each notified crop for wide spread calamities, if in cases of localized calamities such as hailstorm, landslide, cyclone and flood. Opposite No-1 has to follow the scheme. Shortfall of the insured farmers in the defined area are deemed to have suffered shortfall in their yield. The scheme provides such contingency only. The case of complainant in both the cases are quite different and those are not maintainable and thereby it prayed for to dismiss both the complaints among other grounds. 5. Opposite No-2 Syndicate Bank in both the cases filed its written version by denying all the allegations of the complainant, it remitted premium amount to the Nodal Officer, thereafter it is no way concerned in granting crop insurance as contended by the complainants of each case, there was no deficiency in service on its part. Accordingly it prayed for to dismiss two complaints among other grounds. 6. We are of the view that, these two cases involved common questions of law and facts, as such two cases have been heard together and disposed off by this common judgment. 7. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination in C.C. No. 17/10 are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, he grown paddy crop in his land bearing Sy.No. 56/A, to the extent of 12 acres 32 guntas situated in Yedivihal village, Tq. Manvi in the month of June-2009 by availing crop loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from opposite No-2 Syndicate Bank Manvi, with a deduction of premium amount of Rs. 3,750/- on 05-09-08 and another premium of Rs. 3,750/- on 10-10-09 as a crop insurance premium amount of opposite No-1 insurance company. But in the month of 2009 his entire crop was destroyed due to flood in the entire area and approximately he sustained loss of Rs. 5,00,000/- and more, thereafter he approached opposite No- 1 & 2 and requested orally and in writing to pay the insurance amount, but both of them shown their negligence in settling his insurance claim and thereby both opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services. ? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint. 3. What order? 8. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination in C.C. No. 18/10 are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, he grown paddy crop in his land bearing Sy.No. 56/B, to the extent of 15 acres situated in Yedivihal village, Tq. Manvi by availing crop loan from opposite No-2 Bank to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- by taking premium amount of Rs. 3,750/- on 02-08-08 and another amount of Rs. 3,750/- on 10-10-09, but in the month of September 2009 his entire paddy crop was destroyed due to flood in the area and approximately he sustained loss of Rs. 6,00,000/- and more and thereafter he approached opposite Nos. 1 & 2 and requested orally and in writing to pay the Insurance amount but both of them shown their negligence in settling his insurance claim and thereby both opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services. ? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint. 4. What order? 9. Our findings on the above points are as under:- In C.C. No. 17/10 :- (1) In Negative. (2) In Negative. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : 10. Our findings on the above points are as under:- In C.C. No. 18/10:- (3) In Negative. (4) In Negative. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- In C.C. No. 17/10 & 18/10. 11. The facts involved in these two cases are on similar facts and laws, as such these points have been taken together for discussions. In C.C. No. 17/10:- 12. To prove the facts involved in these two points. In C.C. No. 17/10 Affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10, 7(a) to (c) and Ex.8(a) and (8(b) are marked. Interrogatories filed and opposite Nos. 1 & 2 filed their answers to it. 13. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Assistant Manager of opposite No-1 Agricultural insurance Company Ltd., was filed he was noted as RW-1. Documents Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2 are marked. Written arguments filed. 14. Affidavit-evidence of Senior Manager of opposite NO-2 bank was filed, he was noted as RW-2. In C.C. No. 18/10:- 15. To prove the facts involved in these two points. In C.C. No. 18/10 Affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10, 7(a) to 7 (c) and Ex.8(a) and Ex.8(b) are marked. Interrogatories filed and opposite Nos. 1 & 2 filed their answers to it. 16. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Assistant Manager of opposite No-1 Agricultural insurance Company Ltd., was filed he was noted as RW-1. Documents Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2 are marked. Written arguments filed. 17. Affidavit-evidence of Senior Manager of opposite NO-2 bank was filed, he was noted as RW-2. 18. In view of the pleadings of the parties and their respective evidences in C.C. No. 17/10 & C.C. No. 18/10 some of the undisputed facts in between the parties are that:- 1) It is undisputed fact that, complainant in C.C. No. 17/10 is the owner in possession of land bearing Sy.No. 56/A, measuring to the extent of 12 Acres 32 guntas and complainant in C.C. No. 18/10 is the owner in possession of land bearing Sy.No. 56/B situated at Yedivihal village, Tq. Manvi, have availed crop loan from opposite NO-2 bank by deducting the premium to opposite No-1 Insurance Company and grown paddy crop in their respective lands. 2) It is further undisputed fact that, opposite No-1 NAIC of India Ltd., is being an implementing authority of the orders of Government of India through Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural & Cooperation, New Delhi with effect from 01-10-99 with departments of State Governments concerned at the ratio of 1:1 and receives premiums from its nodal banks only. 3) The State Government has to declare a defined area in notified crop for wide spreads calamity and on individual based assessment due to localized calamities. 4) Further it is undisputed fact that, complainant in both the cases have grown paddy crop in their entire land in the month of July Rabi season in the year 2009. 19. Keeping in view of these undisputed facts in both the cases. Now let us appreciate the claim of each complainant, in the light of their respective pleadings and affidavit-evidences. Now let us examine the documents of the parties in these two cases Ex.P-1 is the ROR Extract for the year 2008-09 which shows ownership in possession of the land of complainant in each cases. Ex.R-2 is the statement issued by Tahasildar Manvi regarding rehabitation of villages due to flood from 29-09-09 to 03-10-09. Ex.R-3 is the copy of notice issued by complainant to opposite No-1 dt. 28-10-09. Ex.P-4 is the another notice issued by complainant to opposite No-2. Ex.P-5 is the postal endorsement regarding the delivery of letters Ex.P-3 & Ex.P-4. Ex.P-7 is the two positive photos of the field. Ex.P-8 is the statement of account issued by opposite No-2 and two other documents Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-10. 20. On the other hand, documents of the opposites are Ex.R-1 is the booklet of National Agriculture Insurance Scheme and guidelines and Ex.R-2 is the copy of judgment passed by the Honble National Commission in similar cases arising out of the Karnataka State. Ex.R-3 is the agreement. 21. In the background of these evidences produced by the parties let us appreciate the claim of complainant in C.C. No. 17/10 and 18/10. In this regard we have necessarily to follow the principles laid down by the Honble National Commission in bench of Revision Petition arising out of the Karnataka in respect of similar facts of these two cases. Those revision petition Nos. 2393-2394/2008, 2505/2005, 1481/2008, 2177 to 2181/2008, 638/2008, 2190/2008, 2191/2008 2675 to 268/2008, 2683-2687/2008. 441/2007---------------------1376-1378/2009, all these revision petitions filed by the Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., who is opposite No-1 in present complaint 17/10 & 18/10 all these cases arising out of the Karnataka States for allowing the complaints of the various farmers due to loss of insured crop. The facts dealt by their lordships of the Honble State Commission in those revision petitions are similar to the case of the present cases on hand, as such the observations made by their lordships in the said revision petitions are made applicable to these two cases to decide the claim of each complainant. 22. As per the observations of the Honble National Commission as noted in the common judgment it was observed that, the Government not at all passed any kind of orders for ascertaining the declaration of threshold yield levels, in that circumstances, the Honble National Commission discussed the case of individual revision petitions and observed that, such claims are strictly to be settled, as per the provisions and guidelines described in the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme and not on the basis of terms of area declared effected by draught or other calamities. Secondly as per the scheme, compensation for differential between threshold level as arrived at by the committees envisaged under the scheme. In Para-13 of the said judgment their lordships observed as indemnity shall be calculated as per the following formula. ( Shortfall in yield/threshold yield) sum insured farmer and shortfall yield has to be arrived by applying the formula as noted ( shortfall in yield = threshold yield - actual yield for the defined area). 23. Keeping in view of the principles of the Honble National Commission in the above said revision petition we have to appreciate the case of parties in C.C. No. 17/10 & 18/10. 24. As per the pleadings of the complainant in each case and as per submission made by the learned advocate for complainant, it is very much clear that, in the month of September-2009 there was flood in the area of the complainant, therefore paddy crop in the complainants hand totally destroyed and they sustained loss. In C.C. No. 17/10, in Para-5 he not stated the loss in definite figure according to him, he approximately sustained loss of Rs. 5,00,000/- and above, further contrary to it, he pleaded as, if there was no flood then complainant would have harvested about 600 to 700 bags worth of Rs. 6,00,000/- to 7,00,000/. According to him the entire crop destroyed due to flood in the area that means to say that, he sustained that much of loss as stated above. By going through the such pleadings and affidavit-evidence of the complainant in C.C. No 17/10, we cannot ascertain the exact shortfall yield or it cannot be termed as exact loss said to have sustained by him, there was no pleading to that effect of the sum insured, there was no pleading to the effect of area defined, no evidences out coming to decide threshold yield. Mere saying that government conducted survey and assessed the loss of crop to the extent of 100% is not acceptable vide report of Tahasildar at Ex.P-2 because Ex.P-2 is only report of Tahasildar to shift villages as a precautionary measure to safety area. 25. The learned advocate for complainant more stressed upon that opposite Nos. 1 & 2 not denied the individual loss and total loss not denied. We are of the view that, the said submissions of the learned advocate for complainant not help for complainant for the reasons that, pleadings in the complaint are in vague, we cannot ascertain from those pleadings the necessary requirements to calculate the loss by applying the formula as noted in the common judgment by the Honble National Commission in bench of revision petitions. 26. The similar facts are out coming in CC.No. 18/10, it appears to us that, pleading of both parties are different to the facts with regard to defined area. It is an individual case of each complainant, he has to prove his case by producing co-gent evidences. None of these two complainants have not made their sincere efforts to place relevant materials on record to assess all the above said factors to calculate the insurance amount, under the said circumstances we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of opposite No-1 Agriculture Insurance Company and opposite No-2 Bank has rightly paid premiums to opposite NO-1 through Nodal officer of opposite No-1. In the said circumstances, we are of the view that, there is no negligence on the part of opposite Nos. 1 & 2 to say that they negligent in their services. Complainants themselves shown their negligence in proving their respective cases, as such the ruling referred by the learned advocate for complainant reported in III (2008) CPJ 165 General Insurance Corporation of India V/s. Nair Singh and (2) I (2007) CPJ 128 (NC) Agricultural Insurance Company V/s. Farmers Service Co-operative Society are dealt in different angle, and those are not applicable to the facts of present case. Accordingly we answered Point No-1 in C.C. No. 17/10 and C.C. No. 18/10 is in Negative. 27. In view of our finding on Point No-1 in both the cases complainant is in C.C. No. 17/10 & 18/10 are not entitled for any one of the reliefs as claimed in their respective complaints, accordingly both of them answered in negative. POINT NO.3:- In C.C. No. 17/10 & 18/10:- 28. In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2 in C.C. No. 17/10 and 18/10, we proceed to pass the following order. ORDER The complaints filed by the complainant in C.C. Nos. 17/10 & 18/10 are dismissed. Keeping the copy of judgment in C.C. No. 18/10. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 14-09-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

COMMON JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- C.C. No. 17/10 is the complaint filed by the complainant Sri. K. Srinivas Rao against the Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., and Syndicate Bank Manvi U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to award an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards assured sum under the crop insurance and for Rs. 1,00,000/- for making in delay in payment of the assured sum with cost and other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances in of this case. C.C. No. 18/10 is the complaint filed by the complainant Sri. Gururaj Rao against the opposites Nos. 1 & 2 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to award an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- with damage of Rs. 1,00,000/- with cost. 2. The brief facts of the complainants case in C.C. No.17/10 are that, he being the owner in possession of agricultural land bearing Sy.No. 56/A, measuring 12 acres 32 guntas in Yedivihal village, Tq. Manvi. It is under lift irrigation system. In the year 2009, he grown paddy crop in entire land by availing a loan amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the month of June 2009 from opposite No-2. At the time of taking loan insurance premium amount was deducted on 05-09-08 and 10-10-09. Due to immerssion of his paddy land in flood, crop was destroyed to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000/- and more. If there was no flood, then he would have harvested about 600 to 700 bags of paddy worth of Rs. 6,00,000/- to 7,00,000/-. The Government assessed the loss of different areas and noted that, there was a loss of 100% in his village, thereafter he filed an application for to pay the insurance amount from opposite No-1, but opposite No-1 not responded, he also requested opposite No-2 to settle the claim, none of them shown interest in settling his insurance claim, accordingly this complaint is filed by him, for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint. 3. The brief facts of the complainant case in C.C. No. 18/10 are that, he being the owner in possession of the agricultural land bearing Sy;No. 56/B, measuring 15 acres, he grown paddy crop by taking loan amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- from opposite No-2 Bank. Insurance premium were deducted out of the said loan, thereafter the entire paddy crop of his land destroyed due to flood. Government assessed the loss to the extent of 100% in his village. Thereafter he requested the opposite Nos- 1 & 2 to settle his claim as he sustained loss of Rs. 7,00,000/- to 8,00,000/-. But none of the opposites have not settled his claim, they shown their negligence and thereby both opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services, accordingly he filed this complaint for the reliefs as prayed in it. 4. The Opposite No-1 Agriculture Insurance Company Ltd., appeared in both the cases filed their similar written versions by denying the claim of complainant. It is contended in both the cases that, the complainant wrongly interrupted the scheme by stating that, insurance company agreed to compensate the loss in the event of failure of crops in all cases. The National Agriculture Insurance Company is floated by the Government of India. It is only a implementing agency the loss has to be assessed on area approach i.e, defined area for each notified crop for wide spread calamities, if in cases of localized calamities such as hailstorm, landslide, cyclone and flood. Opposite No-1 has to follow the scheme. Shortfall of the insured farmers in the defined area are deemed to have suffered shortfall in their yield. The scheme provides such contingency only. The case of complainant in both the cases are quite different and those are not maintainable and thereby it prayed for to dismiss both the complaints among other grounds. 5. Opposite No-2 Syndicate Bank in both the cases filed its written version by denying all the allegations of the complainant, it remitted premium amount to the Nodal Officer, thereafter it is no way concerned in granting crop insurance as contended by the complainants of each case, there was no deficiency in service on its part. Accordingly it prayed for to dismiss two complaints among other grounds. 6. We are of the view that, these two cases involved common questions of law and facts, as such two cases have been heard together and disposed off by this common judgment. 7. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination in C.C. No. 17/10 are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, he grown paddy crop in his land bearing Sy.No. 56/A, to the extent of 12 acres 32 guntas situated in Yedivihal village, Tq. Manvi in the month of June-2009 by availing crop loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from opposite No-2 Syndicate Bank Manvi, with a deduction of premium amount of Rs. 3,750/- on 05-09-08 and another premium of Rs. 3,750/- on 10-10-09 as a crop insurance premium amount of opposite No-1 insurance company. But in the month of 2009 his entire crop was destroyed due to flood in the entire area and approximately he sustained loss of Rs. 5,00,000/- and more, thereafter he approached opposite No- 1 & 2 and requested orally and in writing to pay the insurance amount, but both of them shown their negligence in settling his insurance claim and thereby both opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services. ? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint. 3. What order? 8. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination in C.C. No. 18/10 are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, he grown paddy crop in his land bearing Sy.No. 56/B, to the extent of 15 acres situated in Yedivihal village, Tq. Manvi by availing crop loan from opposite No-2 Bank to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- by taking premium amount of Rs. 3,750/- on 02-08-08 and another amount of Rs. 3,750/- on 10-10-09, but in the month of September 2009 his entire paddy crop was destroyed due to flood in the area and approximately he sustained loss of Rs. 6,00,000/- and more and thereafter he approached opposite Nos. 1 & 2 and requested orally and in writing to pay the Insurance amount but both of them shown their negligence in settling his insurance claim and thereby both opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services. ? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint. 4. What order? 9. Our findings on the above points are as under:- In C.C. No. 17/10 :- (1) In Negative. (2) In Negative. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : 10. Our findings on the above points are as under:- In C.C. No. 18/10:- (3) In Negative. (4) In Negative. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- In C.C. No. 17/10 & 18/10. 11. The facts involved in these two cases are on similar facts and laws, as such these points have been taken together for discussions. In C.C. No. 17/10:- 12. To prove the facts involved in these two points. In C.C. No. 17/10 Affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10, 7(a) to (c) and Ex.8(a) and (8(b) are marked. Interrogatories filed and opposite Nos. 1 & 2 filed their answers to it. 13. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Assistant Manager of opposite No-1 Agricultural insurance Company Ltd., was filed he was noted as RW-1. Documents Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2 are marked. Written arguments filed. 14. Affidavit-evidence of Senior Manager of opposite NO-2 bank was filed, he was noted as RW-2. In C.C. No. 18/10:- 15. To prove the facts involved in these two points. In C.C. No. 18/10 Affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10, 7(a) to 7 (c) and Ex.8(a) and Ex.8(b) are marked. Interrogatories filed and opposite Nos. 1 & 2 filed their answers to it. 16. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Assistant Manager of opposite No-1 Agricultural insurance Company Ltd., was filed he was noted as RW-1. Documents Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2 are marked. Written arguments filed. 17. Affidavit-evidence of Senior Manager of opposite NO-2 bank was filed, he was noted as RW-2. 18. In view of the pleadings of the parties and their respective evidences in C.C. No. 17/10 & C.C. No. 18/10 some of the undisputed facts in between the parties are that:- 1) It is undisputed fact that, complainant in C.C. No. 17/10 is the owner in possession of land bearing Sy.No. 56/A, measuring to the extent of 12 Acres 32 guntas and complainant in C.C. No. 18/10 is the owner in possession of land bearing Sy.No. 56/B situated at Yedivihal village, Tq. Manvi, have availed crop loan from opposite NO-2 bank by deducting the premium to opposite No-1 Insurance Company and grown paddy crop in their respective lands. 2) It is further undisputed fact that, opposite No-1 NAIC of India Ltd., is being an implementing authority of the orders of Government of India through Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural & Cooperation, New Delhi with effect from 01-10-99 with departments of State Governments concerned at the ratio of 1:1 and receives premiums from its nodal banks only. 3) The State Government has to declare a defined area in notified crop for wide spreads calamity and on individual based assessment due to localized calamities. 4) Further it is undisputed fact that, complainant in both the cases have grown paddy crop in their entire land in the month of July Rabi season in the year 2009. 19. Keeping in view of these undisputed facts in both the cases. Now let us appreciate the claim of each complainant, in the light of their respective pleadings and affidavit-evidences. Now let us examine the documents of the parties in these two cases Ex.P-1 is the ROR Extract for the year 2008-09 which shows ownership in possession of the land of complainant in each cases. Ex.R-2 is the statement issued by Tahasildar Manvi regarding rehabitation of villages due to flood from 29-09-09 to 03-10-09. Ex.R-3 is the copy of notice issued by complainant to opposite No-1 dt. 28-10-09. Ex.P-4 is the another notice issued by complainant to opposite No-2. Ex.P-5 is the postal endorsement regarding the delivery of letters Ex.P-3 & Ex.P-4. Ex.P-7 is the two positive photos of the field. Ex.P-8 is the statement of account issued by opposite No-2 and two other documents Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-10. 20. On the other hand, documents of the opposites are Ex.R-1 is the booklet of National Agriculture Insurance Scheme and guidelines and Ex.R-2 is the copy of judgment passed by the Honble National Commission in similar cases arising out of the Karnataka State. Ex.R-3 is the agreement. 21. In the background of these evidences produced by the parties let us appreciate the claim of complainant in C.C. No. 17/10 and 18/10. In this regard we have necessarily to follow the principles laid down by the Honble National Commission in bench of Revision Petition arising out of the Karnataka in respect of similar facts of these two cases. Those revision petition Nos. 2393-2394/2008, 2505/2005, 1481/2008, 2177 to 2181/2008, 638/2008, 2190/2008, 2191/2008 2675 to 268/2008, 2683-2687/2008. 441/2007---------------------1376-1378/2009, all these revision petitions filed by the Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., who is opposite No-1 in present complaint 17/10 & 18/10 all these cases arising out of the Karnataka States for allowing the complaints of the various farmers due to loss of insured crop. The facts dealt by their lordships of the Honble State Commission in those revision petitions are similar to the case of the present cases on hand, as such the observations made by their lordships in the said revision petitions are made applicable to these two cases to decide the claim of each complainant. 22. As per the observations of the Honble National Commission as noted in the common judgment it was observed that, the Government not at all passed any kind of orders for ascertaining the declaration of threshold yield levels, in that circumstances, the Honble National Commission discussed the case of individual revision petitions and observed that, such claims are strictly to be settled, as per the provisions and guidelines described in the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme and not on the basis of terms of area declared effected by draught or other calamities. Secondly as per the scheme, compensation for differential between threshold level as arrived at by the committees envisaged under the scheme. In Para-13 of the said judgment their lordships observed as indemnity shall be calculated as per the following formula. ( Shortfall in yield/threshold yield) sum insured farmer and shortfall yield has to be arrived by applying the formula as noted ( shortfall in yield = threshold yield - actual yield for the defined area). 23. Keeping in view of the principles of the Honble National Commission in the above said revision petition we have to appreciate the case of parties in C.C. No. 17/10 & 18/10. 24. As per the pleadings of the complainant in each case and as per submission made by the learned advocate for complainant, it is very much clear that, in the month of September-2009 there was flood in the area of the complainant, therefore paddy crop in the complainants hand totally destroyed and they sustained loss. In C.C. No. 17/10, in Para-5 he not stated the loss in definite figure according to him, he approximately sustained loss of Rs. 5,00,000/- and above, further contrary to it, he pleaded as, if there was no flood then complainant would have harvested about 600 to 700 bags worth of Rs. 6,00,000/- to 7,00,000/. According to him the entire crop destroyed due to flood in the area that means to say that, he sustained that much of loss as stated above. By going through the such pleadings and affidavit-evidence of the complainant in C.C. No 17/10, we cannot ascertain the exact shortfall yield or it cannot be termed as exact loss said to have sustained by him, there was no pleading to that effect of the sum insured, there was no pleading to the effect of area defined, no evidences out coming to decide threshold yield. Mere saying that government conducted survey and assessed the loss of crop to the extent of 100% is not acceptable vide report of Tahasildar at Ex.P-2 because Ex.P-2 is only report of Tahasildar to shift villages as a precautionary measure to safety area. 25. The learned advocate for complainant more stressed upon that opposite Nos. 1 & 2 not denied the individual loss and total loss not denied. We are of the view that, the said submissions of the learned advocate for complainant not help for complainant for the reasons that, pleadings in the complaint are in vague, we cannot ascertain from those pleadings the necessary requirements to calculate the loss by applying the formula as noted in the common judgment by the Honble National Commission in bench of revision petitions. 26. The similar facts are out coming in CC.No. 18/10, it appears to us that, pleading of both parties are different to the facts with regard to defined area. It is an individual case of each complainant, he has to prove his case by producing co-gent evidences. None of these two complainants have not made their sincere efforts to place relevant materials on record to assess all the above said factors to calculate the insurance amount, under the said circumstances we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of opposite No-1 Agriculture Insurance Company and opposite No-2 Bank has rightly paid premiums to opposite NO-1 through Nodal officer of opposite No-1. In the said circumstances, we are of the view that, there is no negligence on the part of opposite Nos. 1 & 2 to say that they negligent in their services. Complainants themselves shown their negligence in proving their respective cases, as such the ruling referred by the learned advocate for complainant reported in III (2008) CPJ 165 General Insurance Corporation of India V/s. Nair Singh and (2) I (2007) CPJ 128 (NC) Agricultural Insurance Company V/s. Farmers Service Co-operative Society are dealt in different angle, and those are not applicable to the facts of present case. Accordingly we answered Point No-1 in C.C. No. 17/10 and C.C. No. 18/10 is in Negative. 27. In view of our finding on Point No-1 in both the cases complainant is in C.C. No. 17/10 & 18/10 are not entitled for any one of the reliefs as claimed in their respective complaints, accordingly both of them answered in negative. POINT NO.3:- In C.C. No. 17/10 & 18/10:- 28. In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2 in C.C. No. 17/10 and 18/10, we proceed to pass the following order. ORDER The complaints filed by the complainant in C.C. Nos. 17/10 & 18/10 are dismissed. Keeping the copy of judgment in C.C. No. 18/10. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 14-09-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.