REASONS Points No. 1 to 3: These points are connected with one another. As such, to avoid repetition of discussion they are dealt with together. The Opt.No.1 has taken up a contention in his objection statement that the said complaints are time barred, since they are filed by the said complaints after more than two years from the date of loss to their insurable interest. Admittedly the complainants have claimed crop insurance for the year 2004-05 kharif season. Complainants in their pleadings have specifically contended that on loosing their insured crops they intimated the same to the opponents.
After information they waited till December 2006 in anticipation of payment of insurance amount as opt.no.1 i.e. AIC normally pay the insurance amount only after two years after the loss. On non hearing from the opponents the complainants for the first time started demanding insurance claim after December 2006 individually and in a group have on several occasions contacted and requested the opponents for immediate action.
The complainants have filed an application under sec. 24 (a) of C.P.Act for condonation of delay in filling the above complaints on the ground that on demand by the complainants opponents have go on promising saying that the matter is pending for consideration and the same will be finalized within short time from the insurance company.
They further submitted that they are totally ignorant of the period of limitation & they never knew that they can move the court for claiming the amount. It is the legal illiteracy which made them to approach this Forum now. The opponents have not filed any objection to the said application. Opt.no.1 i.e. AIC in his objections has contended that opt.no.1 has made part payment to the eligible claimants, but not stated on what date he has disbursed the same to the eligible claimants in respect of notified crops pertaining to the year 2004-05 kharif season through nodal banks.
However, opponents have made payment in respect of green gram crop for kharif 2004-05 season in the month of July 2006 for Dharwad taluk for eligible claimants. Thus cause of action accrued to these complainants from July 2006 but not December 2006 as contended by them Admittedly complainants have filed the above complaints on 1/1/2009. However there is delay of 151 days in filing the above complaints from the date of cause of action. Reasons assigned in the affidavits annexed with application under sec. 24 (a) are sufficient to condone the delay of 151 days in causing the above complaint. Thus application filed under 24 (a) C.P. Act for condoning the delay is allowed. In view of order on the said application we answer point no.1 in the affirmative for the above said reasons.
The opt.no.1 has taken up contention in his objection statement that there is non joinder of necessary parties to their complaints, since, the complainants have not made Central & State Government as necessary parties to case. Now it is settled law that Central Government & State Government are not necessary as per the dictum laid down in CPJ part IV page 4 of N.C. so contention regarding non joinder of necessary parties by the opt.no.1 holds no water. Opt.no.1 in his objection statement has contended that as per the Directorate of Economics & statistics, there was no short fall in yield in respect of paddy , onion, Chilly, groundnut Jowar, & Green gram crops for the 2004-05 kharif & Safflower, Bengal gram, Soya, wheat and Jawar for rabi 2004-05 season for Shiraguppi, Hobli , Hubli & Dharwad Hobli of Dharwad Taluk. But the learned counsel for the complainants has produced copy of Gazette notification issued by Government of Karnataka in R.d 657 T.S.Y. dated 24/8/2004 declaring Dharwad district as a drought affected area for the year 2004-05, in order to show that Government has declared Dharwad District as a drought hit area & Alnavar Hobli comes under Dharwad taluk. The same was notified by the state Government based on the information from the Revenue Department. How Directorate of Economics and Statistics issued certificate to the opt.no.1 that there was no shortfall in yield of a notified crop for a notified area along with relevant year are not explained by opt.no.1 i.e. AIC & as per the dictum laid down by our own Hon’ble State Commission in Appeal no. 1911/07 & 19/12/2007 dated 17/1/2008, contention of the opt.no.1 i.e. AIC that there was no shortfall in yield for notified crop for kharif 2004 season holds no water.
In C-904/08, com.1 has claimed crop insurance amount for kharif 2004-05 season in respect of onion, jowar, GG, chilli, GN crops pertaining to S.No.679/3, 1017, 990/3 and 623 and paid requisite premium and sum assured for the same is Rs.52300/-.
In order to prove his case he has produced, premium paid receipts, declaration forms and proposal forms and RTC extracts for the year 2004-05 kharif season in respect of his respective lands. All documents tally with each other especially RTC extracts for the year 2004-05 kharif season pertaining to S.No.679/3, 10107, 990/3, 679/2, 623 with proposal form and declaration form produced by com.1 in respect of kharif 2004-05 season.
Hence, he is entitled to the crop insurance amount of Rs.52300/- from opt.1 as per proposal forms produced by him for kharif 2004-05 season. He has claimed crop insurance in respect of rabi 2004-05 season pertaining to Bengal gram, safflower, jowar, wheat, soya crops in his survey numbers. He had produced RTC extracts for the year 2004-05 rabi season. RTC extracts for the year 2004-05 rabi tally with proposal form and declaration form in respect of S.No.679/3, 990/3, 623 and 679/2 and Bengalgram in S.No.689. He has claimed soya crop in S.No.990/3 to the extent of 0.40G but produced documents pertaining to sunflower crop.
Thus, he is not entitled to any amount of soya crop with regard to safflower crop in S.No.685 RTC extract does not tally with proposal form and in respect of S.No.1017 also RTC extract does not tally with proposal form. Hence, complainant-1 is not entitled to any amount in S.No.685 pertaining to safflower, soya in 990/3 and Bengal gram and safflower in S.No.1017. Thus, he is entitled to the crop insurance amount of Rs.32366 for rabi 2004-05 season but not Rs.51326/- as contended by com.1 as per proposal form from opt.1. Thus, com.1 is entitled to Rs.52300 + 32366= 84666/- for both the seasons from opt.1 as per proposal form. Com.2 has claimed GG in S.No.243 to the extent of 0.81 for 2004-05 kharif season and paid premium of Rs.37. sum assured for the same is Rs.1200/-. All documents tally with proposal form. Hence he is entitled to the crop insurance amount of Rs.1200 from opt.1. He has claimed crop insurance amount for BG and safflower crop for rabi season in S.No.243/p. All documents especially RTC extract for the year 2004-05 tally with proposal form and declaration form from opt.1. Thus, he is entitled to the crop insurance amount of Rs.1200 + 4544= 6644/- from opt.1 for both the seasons. In C-905/08 com.1 (a) to (c) have claimed crop insurance amount in respect of paddy crop for 2004-05 kharif season in S.No.206, 207, 208, 34 to the extent of 0.74 e. She has produced legal heirship certificate in order to show that her husband i.e. Basavaneppa died on 27/10/07 leaving behind her and 2 sons i.e. 1 (a) to (c). She has produced special power of attorney executed by 1(b) to (c) in favour of her. She has produced relevant documents i.e proposal forms, declaration forms and RTC extracts for the year 2004-05 kharif seasons pertaining to S.No.206, 207, 208 and 34. All documents tally with each other.
Hence com.1 (a) is entitled to Rs.5106/- from opt.1 Com.2 has claimed crop insurance amount of Rs.25000 for paddy crop in S.No.34/p3 to the extent of 5 acres and paid premium of Rs.563/-. Sum assured for the same is Rs.25000/-. He has produced certificate issued by opt.2 dtd.12/12/08 i.e. crop insurance paid particulars in respect of loanee farmers. In the said certificate it is stated that as a loanee farmer opt.2 has insured paddy crop of com.2 in S.No.34/p3 to the extent of 5A.0G for 2004-05 and premium amount is Rs.563/-. He has produced RTC extract of S.No.34/p3 wherein it shows that he has raised 3 acres of paddy in the said S.No. for kharif 2004-05 season. It is compulsory on the part of the complainant to insure the same as a loanee farmer. Opt.2 in his objection and evidence has admitted the receipt of crop insurance amount and remitted the same to the opt.1. Hence complainant is entitled to the crop insurance amount of Rs.25000 as a loanee famer from opt.1. Claim amount of com.3 (a) to (d) is dismissed in view of order passed by the Forum dtd.13/3/09. Com.4 has claimed crop insurance for paddy crop for the year 2004-05 kharif season in S.No.52/p to the extent of 0H.52G and paid premium of Rs.625.
Sum assured for the same is Rs.8996. All documents tally with each other. In the RTC extract her name is entered along with 2 others. Hence, she is entitled to the crop insurance amount of Rs.8996 from opt.1 as per proposal form. By producing necessary documents complainants have proved that, they are entitled to the crop insurance amount from opt.1 as discussed above. By withholding crop insurance amount of respective complainants there is deficiency of service on the part of opt.1. For the negligent act of opt.1 complainants are entitled to Rs.1000/- in each case as compensation for mental agony and loss. Thus, we have answered point.2 in the affirmative and point.3 partly affirmative. Point.4: From the findings on the above points we proceed to pass the following ORDER Complaints are allowed in part. In C-904/08, opt.1 is directed to pay Rs.84,661/- to the complainant-1 and Rs.6,644/- to the complainant-2 with interest @6% p.a. payable from the date of complaint till its realization. Rs.1,000/- collectively as compensation for mental agony and loss and Rs.500/- as cost of the proceedings. Claim in respect of complainant 3(a) to (d) is dismissed as not pressed. In C-905/08 opt.1 is directed to pay Rs.5,106/- to the complainant-1(a), Rs.25,000/- to the complainant-2, Rs.8,996/- to the complainant-4 with interest @6% p.a payable from the date of complaint till its realization and also to pay Rs.1,000/- collectively as compensation for mental agony and loss along with Rs.500/- as cost of the proceedings. Opt.1 is directed to carry out these directions with 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
No relief is granted against opt.2 and 3. Original order shall be kept in C-904/08 and its copy in other connected cases.