The above referred cases have been filed by the complainants against the Ops which are common in all the cases with same issue and same cause of action.  Hence these cases have been clubbed together and heard from the parties for a common order.

1.                     The cases of the above complainants in nutshell are that they are farmers and like every year, they had sown paddy on their lands by borrowing money from the OP.2 through KCC Bank Ltd., Borigumma but due to insufficient rain fall during the year, 2015 in their area, maximum amount of crop have been damaged and hence the complainants sustained huge loss.  It is submitted that National Agriculture Insurance Scheme (NAIS) is being implemented by the OP.1 and the crops of the complainants were insured under the scheme as they have availed loan from the financial institutions under the terms of the scheme.  The complainants were policy holders under the scheme and accordingly a premium @ 2.50% has been deducted from their respective accounts wherein the OP No.2 is the master policy holder under the above insurance scheme.  It is also further submitted that after sustaining huge loss, the complainants approached OP No.2 for availing insured amount but the OP.2 did not take any step to settle the claim of the complainants.  It is also further submitted that the Ops 3 & 4 being the Govt. Officials did not conduct a joint verification to the crops of the complainants for preparation of report and submission of the same to the appropriate authorities for settlement of insurance claim and several approach to other Ops did not yield any result.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops they have filed this case praying this Commission to direct the Ops to pay the insurance amount as prescribed with interest and to pay 55, 000/- towards compensation and cost to each of the complainants.

2.                     The OP No.1 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about the scheme meant for the farmers implemented in the area of the complainants.  It is contended that the farmers availing crop loans for the notified crop from the commercial Banks, RRBs and Cooperative Banks are compulsorily covered under the scheme with nominal premium of 2.5% actuarial rate and in the event of loss the OP arranges compensation on the basis of approach that is notified area and disburses amount to the concerned financial institutions i.e. nodal bank advising them to credit to the accounts of the farmers as per their declaration.  It is further contended that the compensation is based on the notified insurance unit as a whole and as per declaration submitted by the nodal banks unit-wise and crop-wise alone serves as the basis as per the scheme for computation of claims but no opinion of any individual farmer is furnished to the implementing agency.  With these and other contentions, denying any fault on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainants.

3.                     The OP No.2 filed counter contending that the complainants have taken loan for Khariff in the year, 2015 and paid premium amounts through LAMPS which were remitted to the Insurance Co. through KCC Bank but it is the duty of the Govt. to declare the draught area after getting the rail fall report and after that the insurance Co. will pay the amount.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.2 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainants.

4.                     The Ops 3 and 4 also filed counter in joint denying any knowledge whether the complainants were availed loan from the financial institution.  It is contended that the complainants have to obtain rain fall data from OP No.4 and prior to cutting crops the complainants should inform the OP.4 in order to assess the loss if sustained by the complainants and if this is not done, the complainants are not entitled for benefits.  With these and other contentions denying any fault on their parts, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

5.                     The OP No.5 also filed counter admitting that the Govt. of Odisha through Gazette Notification and Resolution No.3966/III-CR-10/2015/COOP dt.21.05.2015 has implemented the NAIS during Khariff 2015 session and the complainants have availed loan from OP.5 for paddy crop.  It is contended that in the year, 2015 the area of the complainants were not declared as a draught area and the complainant had never submitted any complaint before this OP about loss sustained by them.  It is the duty of other agencies to prepare report regarding the affected farmers and assesses the damage and the OP.5 has no role so far as settlement of insurance claim in favour of the complainants.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP also prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

6.                     Parties have filed certain documents in support of their respective cases and the complainants have filed affidavits of self.  Heard from the complainants at length and perused the materials available on record.

7.                     In the above cases it is an admitted fact that the crops of the complainants were duly insured by the OP.1 for the Khariff Session, 2015 and the OP No.2 i.e. M.D., Kamata LAMPS in his counter stated that the complainants had taken Khariff loan to cultivate paddy in their lands for the year, 2015 and had paid insurance premiums through LAMPS and the amount had been remitted to the Insurance Co. through KCC Bank, Jeypore.  The Branch Manager, Utkal Gameen Bank, B. Singhpur in his written version also stated that the complainants had taken loan from his Bank for the Khariff season, 2015.  From the above facts it was ascertained that the complainants above had taken loan for paddy cultivation and had paid the insurance premiums against their loan and for the alleged crop loss they are claiming insurance benefits.  The loan amount availed by the complainant and amount insured by the OP.1 are detailed below:

8.                     The OP.1 in his counter stated that the farmers availing crop loans for the notified crop from Commercial Banks, RRBs and District Cooperative Banks are compulsorily covered under the scheme and a nominal premium of 2.5% or actuarial rate whichever is lower is charged.  In this case, the sum assured is equal to the loan amount.  It is further stated that the OP would not have or required any details of individual farmers and the declaration submitted by nodal banks insurance unit-wise and crop-wise alone serves as the basis as per scheme for computation of claims.  The OP.1 also further stated that it had already settled in total an amount of Rs.28, 69, 29,936.56 towards claims under NAIS Kharif, 2015 season for the nodal bank i.e. DCCB, Koraput on 24.11.2016 on the basis of declaration from the above said bank as per the scheme provision.  It is also seen that the paddy is one of the crops coming under the said scheme out of 10 crops covered under the NAIS for 2015.

9.                     The complainants stated in their  complaints at para-4 that due to insufficient rain fall during the year, 2015 in the region of the complainants, maximum amount of crop have been damaged and hence they sustained loss from their respective agricultural land.  The OP.1 agrees at para-3 of its para-wise comments to the insufficient rain fall during Kharif, 2015 season throughout Odisha but the extent of crop loss in the region of the referred land of complainants was not within its knowledge and it is the best known to the Ops 3 & 4.

10.                   The Ops 3 & 4 in their counter stated that the complainants have never approached and ventilated their grievance regarding crop loss to them and hence no steps could be taken up.  It is seen from the record that the complainants have approached the Tahasildar, Borigumma on 26.11.2016 with a written application, the copy of which is available on record.  They have requested the authority to settle the insurance claim due to loss in crop for the period in question.  The OP.4 in its counter has not admitted the said fact.  On the other hand the Ops 3 & 4 in their counter stated that the complainants are to obtain rain fall data from OP.4 and should have intimated the OP.4 before crop cutting in order to assess the loss.  In our view no individual farmer can do this.  It is the duty of Ops 3 & 4 to see the difficulties of the farmers when it noticed insufficient rain fall in the area.

11.                   The Tahasildar, Borigumma has filed a copy of his letter No.1884 dt.17.05.2016 addressed to the Deputy Collector, Emergency, Koraput in which the Tahasildar has furnished village-wise information which has sustained crop loss of 33% above as ascertained through crop cutting experiment.  The villages of the complainants are in the list.  The OP.4 also in its letter No.15500 dt.16.12.2017 intimated that the yielding percentage was more than 70 percent in these mouzas.  It is definitely below the guaranteed yielding of paddy of that area during Kharif, 2015.  Crop loss of 30% is also a loss to the farmers.  Non settlement of insurance claim certainly amounts deficiency in service on the part of the OP.1.  Thus the complainants are entitled for 30% of the sum assured as compensation and the OP.1 is to compensate the loss to the complainants.  Hence before calculation of compensation, the OP.1 is to consultation with concerned banks and other nodal officers so as to assess the quantum of compensation basing upon the sum assured with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this case.

12.                   Further due to non settlement of insurance claim the poor complainants must have sustained mental agony and have come up with this case incurring some expenditure for which they are entitled for some compensation and cost  of this litigation.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant we are not inclined to grant any compensation in favour of the complainants except a sum of Rs.2000/- towards cost of litigation to each of the complainants.

13.                   Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.1 is directed to settle the insurance claim at 30% of the sum assured with interest @ 9% p.a. from 23.09.2017.  The OP.1 is further directed to pay Rs.2000/- towards cost of this litigation to each of the complainants.  The above directions are to be complied by the OP.1 within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)