Complainant/s:           1. Prabhanna S/o Kallappa Palled,

                                                  Age: 64 Yrs, Occ: Agril.

                                                  R/o Jakkali, Tq:Ron, Dist:Gadag.

                                                  (Dead)

                                             2. Arvindappa S/o Balappa Jangannavar,

                                                  Age:Major, Occ:Agril.

                                                  R/o Jakkali Tq:Ron, Dist:Gadag.

                                              3.Malakajappa S/o Basappa Chinnur

                                                 Age:65 Yrs, Occ:Agril.

                                                 R/o Jakkali Tq:Ron, Dist:Gadag.

                                                 (Dead)

                                              4. Adiveppa S/o Havalappa Ronad

                                                   Age: 56, Occ: Agril.

                                                   R/o Jakkali Tq:Ron, Dist:Gadag.

                                              5. Ningappa S/o Balappa Kubera

                                                   Age: 48, Occ: Agril

                                                   R/o Jakkali Tq:Ron, Dist:Gadag.

                                                6. Chandrashekarappa S/o Ajjappa palled

                                                    Age:70 Yrs, Agril.

                                                    R/o Jakkali Tq:Ron, Dist:Gadag.

                                                    Since deceased by his LRs.

                                            6(a)  Rudravva W/o Chandrashekarappa Palled,

                                                    Age:48 Yrs, Occ:Household,

                                                    R/o Jakkali, Tq: Ron, Dist:Gada.

                                           6(b)  Ajjappa S/o Chandrashekarappa Palled,

                                                    Age:33, Occ:Agril.

                                                    R/o Jakkali, Tq: Ron, Dist:Gada.

                                                7) Andappa S/o Basetteppa Palled

                                                   Age:66, Occ:Agril.

                                                    R/o Jakkali, Tq:Ron, Dist:Gadag.

                                                8) Veerabasavva W/o Ayyappa Kadagad

                                                    Age:74, Occ:Agril.

                                                    R/o Jakkali, Tq:Ron, Dist:Gadag.

                                               9) Ramappa S/o Muniyappa Palled,

                                                    Age:76 Yrs, Occ:Agril.

                                                    R/o Jakkali Tq:Ron Dist:Gadag.

                                                    (Dead)                                 

                                                10) Basavaraja S/o Basetteppa Palled

                                                      Age:57 Yrs, Agril.

                                                      R/o Jakkali Tq:Ron Dist:Gadag.

                                                11) Anandnagouda S/o Basanagouda Patil

                                                      Age:63 Yrs, occ:Agril

                                                      R/o Jakkali Tq:Ron Dist:Gadag.

                                                      (Dead)

                                                12) Smt. Parvatevva W/o R.Meti,

                                                      Age:61 Yrs, Occ:Agril

                                                      R/o Jakkali Tq:Ron Dist:Gadag.

                                                13) Sankappa S/o Parappa Kori

                                                      Age:28 Yrs, Occ:Agril.

                                                      R/o Jakkali Tq:Ron Dist:Gadag.

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

V/s

JUDGEMENT

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SMT. YASHODA. BHASKAR. PATIL

            The complainants have filed the complaint U/Sec.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986, for compensation amount as shown in column No.5 of the para No.4 with interest @18% p.a. from date of notice dtd:02.04.2008, Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and cost.

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

            Complainants are resident of  Jakkali village of Ron Taluk Dist:Gadag.  They have grown Sunflower during the year 2002-03 in Kharif/Rabi season and paid the premium amount as shown in the schedule through OP No.3. Due to shortage of rain, complainants have suffered loss.  Inspite of repeated request to Ops, they did not settle the claim.  So, Ops have committed the deficiency of service.  Hence, filed this complaint.

        3.   In pursuance of service of notice, OP No.1, 3 & 4 appeared through their counsel and OP No.2 appeared through DGP.  OP No.1 to 4 filed their written versions. 

          4. The brief facts of the Written Version of OP No.1:-

             OP No.1 denied the various allegations and contended that, as per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was shortfall as shown in the schedule and have already settled the claim and credited to the account of complainants.   So, there is no deficiency of service committed by this OP.  Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

5. The brief facts of  written version filed by OP No.2 are as under:

          OP No.2 denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crop during the year 2002-03 Kharif/Rabi season.  Complainants are not a consumer to this Op as this OP has only supervising power

over the other Ops.  So, there is no deficiency of service. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          6. The brief facts of  written version filed by OP No.3 & 4 are as under:

          OP No.3 & 4 have denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crop during the Kharif/Rabi season 2002-03.  OP No.3 stated that, they are acting as collecting agent and mediator between the complainants and OP No.1, they have received the proposal forms premium amount and submitted to OP No.1.  They are not responsible and there is no deficiency of service committed by OP No.3. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          7.  After hearing, my predecessor passed a common judgment on 23.10.2008, complaint is partly allowed and awarded the compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the Judgment in Appeal No.716/09 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes    Redressal   Commission,   Bengaluru,   the   same   came  to  be dismissed.   OP No.1 preferred R.P.No.2865/2009 before Hon’ble the National Commission, same came to be allowed on 12.08.2009 and remanded for fresh disposal

          8. After receipt of the records, notice was issued to the parties. After hearing, my predecessor again passed a common judgment on 23.03.2010, complaint is partly allowed and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.2336/2010 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes    Redressal   Commission,   Bengaluru,   the   same   came to  be allowed on 13.12.2010 and remanded for fresh disposal.

9. After receipt of the records notice was issued to the parties. After hearing, my predecessor again passed common judgment on 14.01.2016, complaint is partly allowed and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.491/2016 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes    Redressal   Commission,   Bengaluru,   the   same   came to  be allowed on 03.02.2020 and remanded for fresh disposal.

          10.  After receipt of the records, notice was issued to the parties. Complainant
No1,3,9 and 11 are reported as dead no LRs are brought on record. Notice was served to complainant No.2,4,5,6,7,8,10 & 12 to 14 and they have remained absent. Complainant No.1 filed affidavit on 04.10.2008 and examined as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-17. Notices were served to OP No.1 to 3.  KVK, Adv. filed power for OP No.1 and DGP filed M/A and written version of OP No.2. SSH, Adv. filed power for OP. No.3. Ops have not chosen to file their affidavit evidence. OP No.1 filed written arguments.

        11.   Heard the arguments on both sides.

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

1. Whether the complainants prove that the deficiency of  service is committed by Ops?

2. Whether the complainants are entitled for the  
3.  

3. What Order?

   13.  Our findings on the above points are as under:

               Point No. 1:  Partly affirmative.

               Point No. 2:  Partly affirmative.

               Point No. 3:  As per the final Order

R E A S O N S

            14.     Point No.1 & 2:- The points are taken together to avoid the repetition of facts. The learned counsel for complainants argued that, as per evidence of PW-1 and documents, complainants proved the case. Learned counsel for OP No.1,3 & 4 argued that, already they have settled the claim and complainants are not entitled for any relief.

          15. On careful perusal of material placed before us, PW-1 filed affidavit and reiterated the contents of the affidavit. PW-1 has stated that, complainants are resident of  Jakkali village of Ron Taluk Dist:Gadag.  They have grown Sunflower during the year 2002-03 in Kharif/Rabi season and paid the premium amount as shown in the schedule through OP No.3. Due to shortage of rain, complainants have

suffered loss.  Inspite of repeated request to Ops, they did not settle the claim.  So, Ops have committed the deficiency of service. 

          16. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-17 are the documents and not disputed by the OPs. RTCs reveal that complainants are owner of their respective lands and have paid the premium. Ex.C-11 notice issued to the OPs through counsel. Ex.C-16 is issued by Dist. Statistical Office reveals that during the year 2002-03 for Rabi season in Naregal Hobli, crop cutting experiment was conducted for Jowar & Sunflower Ex.C-17 reveals that there was no CCE conducted for the year 2002-03 for the Safflower.

17. It is pertinent to note here that, already judgment was passed by my predecessor and is set aside by the Hon’ble State Commission in appeal No.472/2016 to 504/2016, dtd:03.02.2020 and remanded with a specific direction as under:

“ In the circumstances, matter requires to be remanded to the Dist. Forum, reassess the loss suffered by each of the complainant on account of failure of the crop depending upon the yield notification and also price index”

18. For the above observations, this Commission has examined the documents produced by complainants  and contention taken in written version and written arguments of the OP No.1.  In para No.3 of written version stated that, for Rabi season during the year 2002 of Naregal Hobli for sunflower, threshold yield is 288 per Hect, assessed yield 275 and shortfall is 13. As per Op No.1 they have already settled all eligible claims as per the scheme provisions. But no documents produced and documents to show that, they have settled the claim. OP No.1 has not produced to show that, already they have settled the claim through OP No.3 bank and credited to the account of complainants. Even Ops have not chosen to file the affidavit evidence and documents to prove their contention raised in the written version. Mere, defense taken in the written version, without adducing the affidavit evidence and documents, cannot be accepted. Merely, pleaded in the written version without supporting oral and documentary evidence, contention of Op No.1 cannot be accepted.   So, it is crystal clear that, OP No.1 has not settled the shortfall amount. Thus, Op No.1 has committed the deficiency of service and is liable to pay the compensation.  Hence, complainants are entitled for the compensation.

 19.    The  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 rainfallordrought,thecropsdid 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 hasgoneon 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 affectedby 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 of7 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)

          Further the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in A.No.422/2020 to 441/2020 and 472/2020 to 481/2020 by its order dated 12.01.2021 in the case of A.I.C of India, registered office, Krishi Bhavan, Bangalore, represented by its Manager Vs. Shankrappa Hanumappa Gunjal, Magadi, Shirahatti Taluk wherein it is held as under:

Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision reported in I (2017) CPJ 538 (NC)oftheHon’bleNationalConsumerDisputes

Redressal Commission in the case of Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd., Vs. Hem Shankar & another decided on 01.02.2017 wherein held claims under the scheme will be settled only on the basis of data received from crop-cutting experiments and not on any other basis such as declaration of drought, etc.Order passed by Forum below which are based on figures of damages to crop given by Revenue Department cannot be made basis for determining compensation payable to farmers.

In the above such situation, Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that District Commission failed to ascertain that in these matters appellant already settled the claim vide NEFT on 24.06.2019 and rightly paid the claim under the Government Scheme to the insured which is eligible claim amount as per the terms and conditions of the scheme.In other words, appellant settled the claims of all these respondents and calculated the compensation as per the data provided by the Directorate of Economics and Statistics.

20.     For the above, complainants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.10,407/-. Op No.1 has already deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- through cheque No.218723 as per order passed in Appeal No.716/09 dtd:01.04.2009 and also deposited a sum of Rs.16,250/- vide joint cheque No.108959 as per order passed in Appeal No.2336/10 dtd:04.06.2010, in all Rs.41,250/-.  Complainants are claiming interest at the rate of 18 % p.a. as it is on higher sider.  So, as per rate of interest in the Nationalized Bank, it is proper to award interest @ 8% p.a. from the date complaint till realization. Complainants have suffered mental agony, even though they paid the premium for their lands in the year 2002-03. However, they did not receive the claim due to the fault of Op No.1. So, complainants are entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- each, towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- each, towards cost of the complaint. Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 and 2 in the partly affirmative.

          21.    POINT NO. 3: In the result, we pass the following:

           //O R D E R//

The complaint is filed U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and is partly allowed against Op No.1 and dismissed the complaint against Op No.2, 3 &4.

LRs of complainant No.1,3,9 and 11 and complainant No.2, 4,5,6 (a) and 6(b), 7, 8, 10, 12 & 13 are entitled for the compensation as under:

LRs of complainant No.1,3,9 and 11 and complainant No.2, 4,5,6(a) and 6(b), 7, 8, 10, 12 & 13 are entitled Rs.10,407/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint, till realization and a sum of Rs.5,000/- each towards mental agony and a sum of Rs.2,000/- each towards cost of the complaint, from OP No.1.

Op No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,407/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date filing of the complaint, till realization and a sum of Rs.5,000/- each towards mental agony and a sum of Rs.2,000/- to each towards cost of the complaint, excluding already the deposited amount of Rs.42,250/- within two months from the date of this order.

Office is directed to send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 15^th day of October-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: Prabhanna S/o Kallappa Palled,

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

                      -NIL-

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

                      -NIL-

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

            MEMBER                  PRESIDENT             WOMAN MEMBER