V/s

JUDGEMENT

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SRI. D.Y. BASAPUR, PRESIDENT

        The complainants have filed the complaint U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for recovery crop insurance amount as shown in the column No.4 of the para No.4 of this complaint with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of notice i.e. 16.04.2008 till full realization, Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and cost of litigation.

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

          Complainants are resident of  Jakkali village of Ron Taluk Dist:Gadag.  They had sowed Jowar, Sunflower and Safflower for the year 2002-03 in 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 counsels. Op No.2 appeared through DGP and Op No.1, 2 & 3 filed their written version. 

          4.       The brief facts of written version filed by OP No.1 are as under:

          OP No.1 denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants have claiming for the loss of their crops of Jowar, Sunflower and Safflower, during the year 2002-03 for Rabi season.   As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall. Hence, claim is not settled.  So, there is no deficiency of service. 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 crops during the Rabi season 2002-03. Complainants are not a consumer of OP-2, 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 has denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crops during the Rabi season 2002-03.  OP No.3 & 4 stated that, they are acting as a collecting agent and mediator between the complainants and OP No.1, they have received the proposal forms, premium amount from complainants and submitted to OP No.1.  They are not responsible and there is no deficiency of service committed by OP No.3 & 4. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          7. After hearing, my predecessor passed a common judgment on 25.09.2008, complaint is partly allowed and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.1626/2009 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes    Redressal   Commission,   Bengaluru,   the   same   came  to  be allowed  on 25.11.2009 and remanded for fresh disposal.

          8. After hearing, my predecessor 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.1649/2009 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes    Redressal   Commission,   Bengaluru,   the   same   came  to  be allowed  on 30.09.2010 and remanded for fresh disposal.

          9. After hearing, my predecessor passed a common judgment on 14.01.2016, complaint is partly allowed and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.490/2016 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, notices were issued to the parties. Notices were served on the complainant No.1,3,4,6,8,9,10,12 and Op No.1 to 4. Complainant No.5 & 11 are reported as dead and no LRs brought on record. Complainant No.11 filed affidavit and examined as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-20.  KVK, Adv. filed power and affidavit of Sri. Praveen Kumar. B.R. for Op No.1 and examined as RW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex.Op-1 to Ex.Op-5. DGP. filed M/A and written version for Op No.2. SSH, Adv. filed power for Op No.3 & 4.  Op No.2 to 4 have not chosen to file affidavit evidence.

11.     Counsel for complainants and Op No.1 filed written argument. Heard, the argument on both sides.

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

1. Whether the complainants prove that, there is a deficiency of  service committed by the OPs?

2. Whether the complainants prove that, they are          

entitled for the relief?

3. What Order?

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

               Point No. 1:  In the affirmative.

               Point No. 2:  In the 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.

            15.   On careful perusal of the materials placed before us. PW-1 filed affidavit and reiterated the contents of the complaint. PW-1 has stated that,  complainants are resident of  Jakkali village of Ron Taluk Dist:Gadag.  They had Sowed Jowar, Sunflower and Safflower for the year 2002-03 in 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. Per contra, RW-1 has filed affidavit and reiterated the contents of written version filed by Op No.1. RW-1 has stated that, complainants have claiming for the loss of their crops of Jowar, Sunflower and Safflower for the Rabi season 2002-03.  As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall to the said crops in Rabi season. There is no deficiency of service committed by this OP. 

 17. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-20 RTCs and other documents of complainants are not disputed by the Ops. Main contention of Op No.1 is that as per yield data report issued by Statistical Department for the crops of Jowar, Sunflower and Safflower the eligible farmer get the insurance amount and if he has not eligible as per the data submitted by the Statistical Department they have not entitle any insurance amount. In support of the above contention, Ops have produced the yield data for the year 2002-03 for the crops of Jowar, Sunflower and Safflower are irrigated land data. But, the complainants have filed for the insurance for rainfed crops. Hence, Op No.1 has failed to prove that, they have paid the insurance amount to the complainants.  

          18. Even, either in written version or affidavit of RW-1 has not mentioned the details regarding Threshold yield and Assessed yield for the crops of Jowar, Sunflower and Safflower and also they have not shown the data.  In Ex.Op-4 details of Assessed yield for the year 1993-1994 to 2002-03 for Rabi season of Naregal Hobli, for the crops of Jowar, Sunflower and Safflower is mentioned the details of irrigated lands. But, the lands of the complainants are rainfed crops.  So, Op No.1 has not produced the corroborated documents to prove the contention taken in the written version that the claims are only paid on the basis of yield data Assessed through CCE by State Government and not by any other means. But, there is no data for the year 2002-03 for the crops of rainfed crops like Jowar, Sunflower and Safflower of Naregal Hobli, is shown by the Op No.1. Hence, Op No.1 has not followed the guidelines issued by the Government. Thus, there is a deficiency of service committed by the Op No.1.

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 desiredyield, 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)

20.     For the above, the complainants have proved that OPs have committed deficiency of service in respect Jowar, Sunflower and Safflower crops and they are entitled for the relief.   So, far as quantum of compensation is concerned, complainants are claiming entire assured amount. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble State Commission passed Judgment in Appeal Nos. 1155/2021 to 1159/2021 in Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., V/s Mallikarjuna S/o Shankarappa Barke0ra and others. Wherein, the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore  held in para-7 as under:-

          “As per the criteria the farmer should inform the loss occurred in their fields within 48 hours of the incident to the Department of agriculture or else to the insurance company.  Having noted that the department not educated the farmers as per the scheme, premium said to have been paid by the farmers to the insurance company and also noted that during 2016-17, Op No.2 declared the said villages are hit by draught and it is bounden duty of Ops to visit fields for crop cutting experiments.  Further it is noted loss assessors would be appointed by the insurance company for assessment of loss due to operations of localized risks.  The loss has to be assessed jointly by the loss assessor appointed by the insurer, block level agriculture officer and the concerned farmer.  Though there is no cogent evidence produced regarding loss of crop during the year 2016-17, however, it is the stand of the complainant that crop loss has fixed at 75% of the sum assured.  We do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed.  However, we reduce the rate of interest awarded from 18% to 6%.  Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission”.

          21. Further, (2018) CJ 540 (N.C) in Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., V/s Kisan Parasram Rathod.  Wherein, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, held as under:-

          “Insurance-Agricultural Insurance – Deficiency in service on part of Insurance Company on account of its failure to pay to Complainants full amount of compensation, due to them under Agriculture Crop Insurance scheme, launched by Government of India – Amount of compensation modified by State Commission vide impugned order-Regard being had to balance paltry amounts determined by State Commission, it would be travesty of justice to interfere in these cases and subject poor farmers to unwarranted harassment by making them travel all the way from a far flung area in Maharashtra and defend the award-Travel and allied expenses which would be many times more than total amount of compensation payable under a Social security Scheme-Revision petitions dismissed.”

          On careful reading of the above decisions, circumstance and ratio of the above decisions are aptly applicable with the case on hand. 

22. Therefore, the complainants are entitled 75% of the assured amount. Complainants are claiming interest at the rate of 18 % p.a. it is on the higher sider.  So, as per rate of interest in the Nationalized Bank it is proper to award interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization. Complainants have suffered mental agony, even though they paid the premium for their lands they did not receive the claim due to the fault of Op No.1. Rs.10,000/- to each complainant towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- to each complainant towards cost of  litigation.  Accordingly, we answer point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 in the partly affirmative.

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

//O R D E R//

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

LRs of Complainant No.5 & 11 and complainant No.1 to 4, 6 to 10 and 12 are entitled 75% of the assured amount from OP No.1 as shown below.   

Further, complainants are entitled interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization.

Further, the complainants are entitled for Rs.10,000/- each towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- each towards cost of litigation.

Op No.1 is directed to pay the said amount to the complainants 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 us in the Open Commission on this 5^th day of January- 2023)

           (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 : Channabasava Jnyanadeva Doddameti

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1 : Copy of Gazette dtd:23.06.2003

Ex.C-2 to 11: RTCs

Ex.C-12: Copy of legal notice.

Ex.C-13 to 16 : Postal acknowledgment.

Ex.C-17 : Copy of letter issued by Director of Economic and Statistics to AIC,  

               Bangalore.

Ex.C-18: Copy of General corporation of India, Bangalore crops details.

Ex.C-19: Letter from Dist. Statistical Department Gadag, dtd:30-08.2012.

Ex.C-20: Copy of letter from Dist. Statistical Department Gadag, dtd:29-09.2012.

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

RW-1 : Praveen Kumar B.R.

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

Ex.Op-1: Notification issued by Forest Dept.

Ex.Op-2: Copy of scheme and guidelines

Ex.Op-3 :Copy of Bankwise Statement of Claims for Rabi and Summer 2002-03.

Ex.Op-4 :Copy of statement showing yearwise assessed yield(in KGS/Hect) for the

                hoblis proposed for notification under RKBY for   2004-05(Rabi, Jowar

                Irrigated)

Ex.Op-5 : Copy of statement showing yearwise assessed yield(in KGS/Hect) for the

                hoblis proposed for notification under RKBY for 2004-05(Rabi, Sunflower

                Unirrigated)

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

              MEMBER                  PRESIDENT             WOMAN MEMBER