(Passed On 02/05/2016)
Per Smt. Jayshree Yengal, Hon’ble Member
1. These three appeals challenged the common order dated 31/08/2007, passed by the District Consumer Forum, Gondia, partly allowing the consumer complaints bearing Nos. 60/07, 61/07 and 62/07. By the impugned order the Forum has directed the OP (opposite party No. 1/appellant herein to pay compensation to the complainants as calculated under the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme with 12 percent per annum interest till realization and the OP No. 1 to further pay Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- to each of the complainant towards compensation for mental and physical harassment and cost of proceeding respectively.
2. We proceed to decide the aforesaid three appeals by this common judgment as common impugned order is passed in three consumer complaints and common questions of fact and law is involved in the aforesaid three appeals.
3. Respondent No. 1 in all the three appeals is referred as complainant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is referred as OP Nos. 2 and 3. Appellant is referred as OP No. 1 for the sake of convenience.
4. Facts in brief as set out by the complainant in their consumer complaints is as under. The complainants are Agriculturist by occupation and they have agricultural field situated at Mauja Bhivkhidki, Revenue Circle, Navegaon / Bandh, Taluka Arjuni/Mor, District Gondia, admeasuring 2.80 HR. The complainants are cultivating the land since generations. The complainants in Kharip season of the year 2004-05 cultivated paddy crop in their respective fields. The complainants insured the crop under the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme. It is the contention of the complainant that as per the terms and condition of the insurance scheme if the yield of the crop was fifty percent or less, then the complainant is entitled to 59.87 percent of the loan availed by the farmer. It is further contended by the complainant that due to drought in the kharip season of the year 2004-2005, the paddy yield was only 27 percent. Therefore the complainants sought for compensation under the aforesaid National Insurance scheme. The other farmers having their Agriculturist field in the same area whose crop yield was less than fifty percent and who had availed loan from the co-operative bank had received the assured amount from the OP No. 1. The complainant repeatedly forwarded their claim through OP No. 2 to OP No. 1. However OP No. 1 avoided to pay the claim. The complainants had paid the premium towards the insurance coverage. Alleging deficiency in service, the complainants filed consumer complaint individually and sought for the amount of insurance under the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme with 18 percent per annum interest to be imposed from 1/1/2005 till the date of realization. The complainants further sought Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and cost of proceeding respectively.
5. The OP No. 1 Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. resisted the complaint by filing its written version. OP No. 2, State Bank of India, Sangadi Branch, Taluka Sakoli, District Bhandara and OP No. 3 Collector Gondia were proceeded exparte as they failed to appear before the Forum though served with notice.
6. The OP No. 1 by its written version, denied all the adverse allegations of the complainant and specifically submitted that Paddy crop has recorded short fall in yield for Kharip season of the year 2004 for Navegaon andh revenue circle in Arjuni Mor Taluka of Gondia District. Claims amounting to Rs. 60,65,403.60/- have been settled of those farmers who have insured their paddy crop in kharip season of the year 2004 for Navegaon Bandh revenue circle in Arjuni Mor Taluka of Gondia District. The complainants had not sown paddy crop. However in case the farmer is deprived of any benefit under the scheme due to errors/omissions/commissions of nodal bank/branch, the concerned institution shall make good all such losses. The OP No. 1 denied to have rendered deficiency in service and sought for dismissal of the complaint as not tenable
7. The Forum after hearing both the sides and considering the documents on record, partly allowed the complaint as aforesaid. The Forum has specifically held that the OP No. 1/appellant herein has failed to bring any evidence on record about the fact as to what crop was sown by the complainant and the mistake was committed by the nodal agency depriving the complainants of the insurance claim under the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme.
8. Being aggrieved by the order, the OP No.1 Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd. has challenged the same mainly on the ground that admittedly the appellant have settled claims to the tune of Rs. 60,65,403.60/- to all farmers of same revenue circle, correctly insured by various nodal banks. The only reason that can be assigned for the complainant not receiving the insurance claim is error on the part of Nodal Bank.
9. We heard advocate Mr. H.N. Verma for the appellant. None for the respondents is present though served with notice. We also perused the written notes of arguments filed by the appellant, copies of the complaint, written version and documents filed on record by both the parties.
10. The fact that respondent No. 1 in all the three appeals who are original complainants have own agricultural field admeasuring 2.80 hectre at revenue circle, Navegaon Bandh, Taluka Arjunimor, District Gondia is not disputed. It is also not disputed that short fall in yield for paddy crop for Kharif year 2004 was recorded for Navegaon/Bandh Revenue Circle in Arjunimor Taluka of Gondia District. The appellant in its written version filed before the Forum has specifically submitted the yield data for paddy crop as Average Yield kg/hectre (AY) 328.20, Threshold Yield kg/hectre (TY) 818, Shortfall = TY –AY is 489.80. Thus, admittedly there is shortfall in yield. We also perused the copy of the scheme filed by the appellant which reflects as:-
“ Indemnity under National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS) shall be calculated as per the following formula.
shortfall in yield
Claim = x sum insured
Threshold yield
( Shortfall = Threshold yield – Actual yield for the
defined area)
The Forum by the impugned order allowed the insurance claim of the complainants by calculating according to the aforesaid formula laid down in the aforesaid NAIS scheme. The appellant has not brought any evidence on record in support of its contention that the respondents in the three appeals had not sown paddy crop. It has simply denied that the complainant had sown paddy crop. Mere denial cannot be accepted for the reason that the appellants in their written version have made a contrary submission that in case the farmer is deprived of any benefit under the scheme due to errors/omissions/Commissions of nodal bank/branch, the concerned institution shall make good all such losses. The only inference that can be drawn from the aforesaid submissions of the appellant that they are made with the only purpose of denying any liability. It is not the case of the appellant that it has not received the premium from the complainants. It is also not the case of the appellant that the complainants are not enlisted in the list of the farmers /claimants. For the foregoing reason, we find no illegality or jurisdictional error committed by the Forum while passing the impugned order. Therefore warrants no interference in the appeal. The appeals deserve to be dismissed being devoid of merits. In the result we pass the following order.
ORDER
- Appeals bearing Nos. A/07/852, A/12/303 and A/12/304 are dismissed.
- The impugned order dated 31/08/2007 Passed in consumer complaint Nos. 60/07, 61/07 and 62/07 by the District Forum, Gondia is confirmed
- No order as to costs.
- Copy of order be given to both the parties, free of cost.
