Complainants/s:          1. Shashidhara S/o Basavaraja Patila,

Age: 34 Years, Occ: Agriculture,

                                            R/o Benahala, Taluk:Ron,

                                            District: Gadag.

                                              2.  Venkateswara S/o Shashidhara Patila,                                                            Age: 11 Years, Occ: Student, since minor                                                             represented by Complainant No.1, the natural

                                             guardian.

                                             3. Chandrakantagouda S/o Basavaraja Patila,

                                             Age: 41 Years, Occ: Agriculture,                                                                            R/o Benahala, Taluk: Ron, Dist: Gadag.

                                            4. Viswanatha S/o Basavaraja Patila,

                                            Age:32 Years, Occ: Agriculture,                                                                            R/o Benahala, Taluk: Ron, Dist: Gadag.

                                             (Rep. by Sri.C.V. Hiremath, Advocate)   

V/s

ORDER

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SRI. B.S. KERI, MEMBER:

        This complaint is filed by the complainants against the OPs claiming certain reliefs by invoking Sec 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

           2.  The above complaint filed by the complainants, states that they had sowed Greengram, Redchilli, Groundnut and Onion crops in 2016-17 in their lands and insured for the Khariff Season yield and paid the premium.

           3.    The averments of the complaint in brief are:

       That the complainants have sowed Greengram, Redchilli, Groundnut and Onion crops in 2016-17 Khariff season in their lands bearing sy. No.121/2/1 measuring 4-29 Acres, sy. No.197/*/1 measuring 06-11 Acres, sy.No.146/1B, measuring 05-00 Acres, 146/1A measuring  05-00 Acres, sy.No.110/1A measuring 13-18 Acres, sy.No.125/1 measuring 05-27 Acres, sy.No.165/* measuring 03-00 Acres, sy.No.170/2B measuring 01-00 Acres, sy. No.103/1A+2A+1B/2 measuring 02-07 Acres, sy.No.103/1B/2Aa+2B/1 measuring 02-07 Acres, sy.No.103/1A/+2A+1B/2 measuring 02-06 Acres, sy.No.106/1A measuring 04-06 Acres, sy.No.122/1 measuring 00-04 Acres, sy.No.110/3A measuring 04-01 Acres, sy.No.155/1B measuring 08-04 Acres, sy.No.154/1 measuring 06-06 Acres, sy.No.168/3 measuring 04-11 Acres, sy.No.141/11 measuring 05-15 Acres and sy.No.141/2A measuring 01-20 Acres situated at Benahal village, Hole-Alur Hobli, Rona Taluk and insured the crops with Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., through OP No.2 as per the order of OP No.1 for the yield and paid the premium amount of Rs.24,637.32 in 2016-17 under PMFBY for a sum assured amount of Rs.12,31,759.00.  The said crops were good and healthy and the complainants hoped that he would get good yield from the above said crops for the said year.  It is further submitted that, the crops were failed completely due to shortfall of rain.  The Government has released the crop insurance amount to the farmers of Panchayat limits of complainants excluding the complainants in this complaint.  The complainants approached the OP No.1 and requested to release the crop insurance, but it went in vain, which shows the deficiency in service.  The complainants enquired about the notice issued to the farmers of the surrounding area to conduct CCE with the OP No.1, but, OP No.1 gave evasive reply and told the complainants to take legal action against OP No.3.  The complainants are having an A/c with the OP No.2 and obtained the insurance by accepting all the conditions of OPs.  But the OPs have not conducted any experiments during 2016-17 Khariff Season.  The complainants purchased the policy to the said year and eagerly waited to receive the crop insurance compensation for the total loss of the crops under the said scheme by all the OPs, but the complainants have not received the insured amount till today.  Therefore, the complainants got issued legal notice to the OPs on 11.06.2018 calling upon them to pay the insured amount, but the OPs have given evasive reply for the same.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 20.08.2018 when the OP No.3 has given evasive reply to the notice.   Hence there is a deficiency in service and prayed to order the OPs to pay the total loss and damages of the crop for Rs.12,31,759-00  with interest @ 18% p.m, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and hardship and court expenses.

          4.   In pursuance of the notice issued by this Commission, the OPs appeared through their counsels.  OP No.1 to 3 filed their written version but, OP No.4 failed to file written version.

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

1. The OP No.2 contended that Complaint of complainant is not maintainable both in law and also on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. 
2. It is further submitted that, the contents of para 2 and 3 are false and the same is to be proved by the complainant.
3. The contents of para 4 are partly admitted and rest of the contents are false.      
4. The complainant is not the consumer of this OP and there is no contract of agreement between the complainant and this OP that of seller and the buyer.  This OP made as parties unnecessarily and therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of this OP and hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint.

The brief facts of the Written Version of OP No.2:-

            6.          OP No.2 submits that, the complaints are not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is frivolous and concocted.     It is submitted that, OP No.2 is a banking institution, and there is no agreement entered into with regard to the crop insurance.  OP No.2 received the crop insurance premium  from  the  complainants  for  the   2016-17  khariff  season and sent the same to OP No.3 within the time limit as an agent and it has no right to disburse the crop insurance amount.  Its duty is only to collect the premium amount and send the premium amount to OP No.3 insurance company, the right to disburse the insurance amount is with the No.3.  It is further submitted that, the same complainants have already filed a complaint No.35/2018 before this Commission on the same cause of action and this Commission dismissed the said complaint for non-prosecution.  Hence, this complaint is not maintainable and therefore, there is no deficiency of service on their part in sending the crop insurance premium amount to OP No.2 and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

        7.             The brief facts of the Written Version of OP No.3:-

         OP No.3 stated that the above complaint is not maintainable both in law and also on facts as there is no deficiency of service on their part. The complainants have paid the premium to their crop as stated in his complaint under Acknowledgement Nos.KCC15019-407883 for Greengram, KCC15019-408265 for Greengram,  KCC15019-408265 for Greengram, KCC15019-408996 for Groundnut, KCC15019-408996 for Groundnut crops.  It is further submitted that, the CCE yield is higher than the threshold yield, hence there is no crop loss of the farmer and hence, no claim is reflected in the portal.    The Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana is being implemented in the country under the orders of Government of India with an objective to provide insurance coverage and financial support to the farmers in the event of failure of any of the notified crop as a result of natural calamities.  The time lines for coverage, submission of yield data, price data etc., shall be decided by the SLCCI strictly keeping in mind the onset of monsoon, sowing period, crop cycle as per the operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bheema Yojana, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers welfare book mentioned.  Once the yield data is received from the State/UT Government as per the prescribed cut-off dates, claims will be processed, approved and settled by IA.  If the Actual Yield per hectare of the insured crop for the defined (on the basis of requisite number of crop cutting experiments (CCEs)) in the insured season, falls short of the specified that crop in the defined area deemed to have suffered shortfall in their yield. 

            Claim shall be calculated as per the following formula:

            Claim pay-outs= (Shortfall in Yield X Sum insured of the farmer

     Threshold Yield)

It is further submitted that, threshold yield and actual yield is to be entered by State Government in SAMRAKSHANE portal and this OP has only access to download the same and based on the entry in the   said    portal  if  a   claim  has    been     registered  in that case it would be treated as admissible or inadmissible. The CCE yield is higher than the threshold yield, hence there is no crop loss of the farmer and hence, no claim is reflected in the portal.   The final claim is calculated as per the term sheet and the same is mentioned in the SAMRAKSHANE Portal which is maintained by the State Government.  The claims are settled as per the norms of PMFBY/WBCIS   operational   guidelines   of   Central   Government   for   which   all insurance companies are adhere to the policy and no further claims are admissible after the settlement.  The complainants has not produced any documents before this Forum that, the concerned authorities have declared the above said area is hit by draught and not produced any documents to show that, he has suffered heavy loss due to improper yielding of crops in his lands.  As per the data, there is no shortfall in the area claimed by the complainants and claims that the complainants are hiding the material facts and fraudulently claiming the undue amount and prays to dismiss the complaint.

            8.  The complainants No.1 filed Chief affidavit along with 66 documents.  On the other hand OPs failed to file their chief affidavits and documents.

    COMPLAINANTS FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

9.      On pursuance of the materials, placed by the complainants and OPs, the following points arises for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainants have proved the deficiency in service

on the part of the OPs as averred in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainants are entitled to any relief?
3. What Order?

10.             Our findings to the above points are:-

      Point No. 1:  Affirmative

      Point No. 2:  Partially Affirmative

      Point No. 3:  As per the final Order

R E A S O N S

             11.  POINT NO.1 AND 2:  Both the points are inter-linked and identical. Hence we proceed both the points together.

 12.      The Complainant filed this Complaint against the OPs for claiming crop insurance 2016-17 on failure of weather.

 13.      The Complainant/s submits that they have insured their crops with OP’s in the year 2016-17 for the Greengram, Redchilli, Groundnut and Onion crops for Khariff season in the PMFBY which is Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme. The Complainant/s on good faith and for protection of their crop as per publications and advice of OPs insured their crop dry land bearing sy. No.121/2/1 measuring 4-29 Acres, sy. No.197/*/1 measuring 06-11 Acres, sy.No.146/1B, measuring 05-00 Acres, 146/1A measuring  05-00 Acres, sy.No.110/1A measuring 13-18 Acres, sy.No.125/1 measuring 05-27 Acres, sy.No.165/* measuring 03-00 Acres, sy.No.170/2B measuring 01-00 Acres, sy. No.103/1A+2A+1B/2 measuring 02-07 Acres, sy.No.103/1B/2Aa+2B/1 measuring 02-07 Acres, sy.No.103/1A/+2A+1B/2 measuring 02-06 Acres, sy.No.106/1A measuring 04-06 Acres, sy.No.122/1 measuring 00-04 Acres, sy.No.110/3A measuring 04-01 Acres, sy.No.155/1B measuring 08-04 Acres, sy.No.154/1 measuring 06-06 Acres, sy.No.168/3 measuring 04-11 Acres, sy.No.141/11 measuring 05-15 Acres and sy.No.141/2A measuring 01-20 Acres situated at Benahal village, Hole-Alur Hobli, Rona Taluk and insured the crops with Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., through OP No.2 as per the order of OP No.1 for the yield and paid the premium amount of Rs.24,637.32 in 2016-17 under PMFBY for a sum assured amount of Rs.12,31,759.00. In this year, Complainant/s experienced less rain and suffered loss, but OPs failed to deposit the insurance amount in the Complainant/s account.  Meantime, the Complainant/s approached OP No.1, but OP No.1 failed to deposit the claim amount.  Hence, Complainant/s submits that they have not got the claim amount from the OPs. On the other hand, OP No.1 submits that as per the Scheme Conditions, the calculation is on the formula of threshold yield i.e., mainly based on the CCE and submits that, this complainant is not entitled for the claim as reflected in the SAMRAKSHANA Portal that the CCE yield is higher than the threshold yield and in Khariff 2016-2017 PMFBY and WBCIS is governed by the term sheet designed by the State Government which has triggers of deficit rainfall, dry days and excess rainfall etc.

14. OP No.2 submits that, they have acted as a mediator between the OP No.3 and complainant and after receiving the premium amount, entire total premium amount had been transferred to OP No.3. 

15.       On-going through the records on file, it is an undisputed fact that complainant/s has insured his crops with OP No.3 and it is also undisputed fact that they have received the premium amount from the complainant/s as well as the Government that means OP No.3 received entire premium amount from the complainant/s. The disputed fact is that OPs are not paid the sum assured amount in spite of loss occurred to the complainant as per the complaint.    We have to discuss clearly about the scheme to conclude the case as per the pleadings of the complaint and OPs as stated supra.  

16.       The OP No.3 i.e., insurance Company taking  defence  that in this field, there is no  shortfall   of   yield  as  per  the  SAMRAKSHANA Portal  which  has  been  formed  by   the Government, it should be monitored by OP No.1 i.e., Deputy Commissioner and the Joint Director of Agriculture. The OP No.4, the Department of Agriculture has produced documents to show that, CCE has been done.   The OP No.3 taken defence that the policy is only based on the CCE i.e., crop cutting experiment and actual yield and threshold yield will be calculated by taking CCE only and it is explained by them that, as per the SAMRAKSHANA there is no loss on yield.  Anyhow, complainant filed a document i.e., pertaining to the CCE which has been issued by Statistical Department, Gadag, the counsel for complainant made an IA to receive the document from the Statistical Department and summon the Statistical Officer before the Forum to depose the same in C.C.No.36/2018 and Advocate for the complainant filed certified copy of the evidence of Statistical Officer, Gadag to prove their case,.  In this evidence, the witness (Statistical Officer) admitted some of the fact that, he received the report from their representative who made the CCE on the field and in question No.5 to 7, the answer given by the Statistical Officer is not acceptable and answered vaguely that they are not present in the field during the CCE.  Advocate for the complainant place a question that, the witness i.e, Dyamappa Malawad was died before 25 years.  In the CCE, this person is the witness for the same.  To this question, the Statistical Officer said that, he did not know about this matter.  Such being the fact, the CCE said to be done is not acceptable because it is not made properly as per the terms and condition of the policy. 

17.       Such being the case, how the OP No.3 received the data from SAMRASKHANA portal that to be saying that there is no loss of yielding.  This document is a mirror to say that, the OPs are made some blunder mistake by filling the data.  The OP No.1 had taken action against the officer and the agent who made this mistake. 

18.       Anyhow, complainant also failed to produce the document stating that, the entire crop is vanished and it is also a bounded duty of the complainant also to produce the document is said that they sow the particular crop during 2016-17(Crop Yielding Certificate) from the concerned authority and in the RTC produced by the complainant there is no such crop is mentioned in the RTC.  While arguing the matter, the learned counsel for complainant submits that, the Revenue Department were not changed the crop after informing the same to the concerned authority and they leave the column of the crop as it is what it is in previous years.  Hence, the RTC is not at all changed.    Anyhow,   the   Forum   comes to the conclusion that, the claim of the complainant is to be settled in a nonstandard basis.  Hence, we answer Point No.1 in Affirmative and Point No.2 in partly Affirmative. 

             19.  POINT NO. 3: In view of our findings on the above points, the complaints filed by the complainants are partially allowed. In the result, we pass the following: 

//O R D E R//

          1.  The above Complaint is partially allowed against OP No.3.

           2.   The OP No.3 is directed to pay 75% of the Sum Assured to Complainant/s within one month, failing which OP No.3 is liable to pay 18% interest from the date of filing this complaint till realization.

3.  OP No.3 is liable to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant/s towards compensation.  Further, OP No.3 is directed to pay litigation charges of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant/s.

4.  Complaint against OP No.1, 2 and 4 is dismissed.

           5.  Send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

           (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 27^th day of August-2021)

                  (Shri B.S.Keri)                               (Smt.C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar)

                  MEMBER                                              PRESIDENT