Complainants/s:          Boodeppa S/o Shivappa Angadi,

Age: 64 Years, Occ: Agriculture,

                                            R/o Boodeshwara Hosalli, Taluk and                                                                                         District: Gadag.

                                            (Rep. by Sri. R.S. Hattikale, Advocate)   

V/s

ORDER

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SMT.SAMIUNNISA.C.H. PRESIDENT:

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

           2.  The above complaint filed by the complainant, states that they had sowed Greengram and  Groundnut 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 complainant has sowed Greengram and Groundnut  crops in 2016-17 Khariff season in his land bearing sy. No.122/1+2  measuring 18-10 Acres situated at Budeshwara Hosalli village, Gadag Taluk and insured the said crops with Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., through OP No.3 as per the order of OP No.1 for the yield and paid the premium amount of Rs.1,831.77  in 2016-17 under PMFBY.  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 complainant excluding the complainant in this complaint for greengram.  The complainant approached the OPs and requested to release the crop insurance, but it went in vain, which shows the deficiency in service.  The complainant enquired about the notice issued to the farmers of the surrounding area to conduct CCE with the OP No.1 and 3 but, they gave evasive reply and told the complainant that, OP No.4 and 5 have to pay the insurance amount.   It is further submitted that, the land of complainant is fertile and they used to grow two crops in a year.  He used to get 15 quintals of groundnut per acre and 4 quintals of greengram per acre.  Complainant sowed groundnut crop in 10 acres of land and will get 150 quintals of yield and in 8 acres he sowed greengram crop and will get 32 quintals of yield.  During 2016-17 the rate per quintal for groundnut was Rs.5,000/-, the total income was Rs.7,50,000/- and the greengram was Rs.7,000/- per quintal, the total income was Rs.2,24,000/-, in all the income will be Rs.9,74,000/-.  Due to shortfall of rain, the complainant suffered loss completely.    The complainant is having an A/c with the OP No.3 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 complainant has 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 complainant has not received the insured amount till today.  Therefore, the complainant got issued legal notice to the OPs on 10.07.2018 calling upon them to pay the insured amount, the OP No.1 has given evasive reply on 30.07.2018.   The cause of action for this complaint arose on 30.07.2018 when the OP No.1 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.9,74,000-00 with interest @ 18% p.m, Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and hardship and court expenses.

        4.   In pursuance of the notice issued by this Commission, the OP No.1, 2, 4 and 5 appeared through their counsels.  OP No.1, 4 and 5 filed their written version but, OP No.2 failed to file written version.  OP No.3 remained absent. 

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

1. The OP No.1 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 that, this OP has not received any premium amount from the complainant under PMFBY and this OP has not made any assurance with regard to payment of insurance amount to the complainant.    
4. The complainant is not the consumer of this OP and there is no contract of agreement between the complainant and these OPs 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. 

          5.      The brief facts of the Written Version of OP No.4 and 5:-

           OP No.4 and 5 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 complainant has paid the premium amount of Rs.1,831-77 to his crop as stated in his complaint but,  he has not shown the Acknowledgement Number and proposal form details.  Without proposal form and unique number details which is to be entered in the portal by KCC Bank, Hulkoti.  Without details of unique number they are unable to search his details and status of premium, loss of crop and Bank details.  Even the complainant filed an application to KCC Bank regarding the proposal form and unique number, but the Bank failed to perform its role in accordance with the scheme norms and not served any details of proposal form and application details.  The State Government in Samrakshana Portal Gadag, Hulkoti village, mentioned the actual yield is greater than threshold yield, so there is Zero claim in this mentioned area.  As per the data given by the Government, there is no crop lose in the said village.    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.  As per the present complaint filed by the complainant, the complainant has failed to provide the unique application/proposal number to these OPs and hence, these OPs are failed to give further any comment regarding the claim.     The complainant 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.

            6.  The complainant filed his Chief affidavit along with 12 documents.  On the other hand, the Manager of OP No.4 and 5 filed chief affidavit of their Executive (Crop-insurance) with 01 document.  OP No.1 failed to file chief affidavit.

    COMPLAINANTS FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

OP 4 & 5 FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

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

1. Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service

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

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
3. What Order?

8.  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

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

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

 11.    The Complainant submits that he have insured  his crops with OP No.4 and 5 through OP No.2 and 3 in the year 2016-17 for the Greengram and Groundnut crops for Khariff season in the PMFBY which is Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme. The Complainant on good faith and for protection of his crop as per publications and advice of OPs insured his crop which was grown in sy. No.122/1+2 measuring 18-10 Acres  situated at Boodeshwara Hosalli village of Gadag Taluk and insured the crops with Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., through OP No.2 and 3 as per the order of OP No.1 for the yield and paid the premium amount of Rs.1,831-77  in 2016-17 under PMFBY.  In this year, Complainant/s experienced less rain and suffered loss, but OPs failed to deposit the insurance amount in the Complainant account.  Meantime, the Complainant approached OP No.1, but OP No.1 failed to deposit the claim amount.   Hence, Complainant submits that they have not got the claim amount from the OPs.  On the other hand, OP No.4 and 5 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., and even the complainant has not provided the unique application/proposal number to them and hence, they have no right to pay the insurance amount to the complainant.          .

12.  OP No.2 and 3 have failed to disprove the case of the complainant by filing written version or by filing any document to show that, the complainant is not entitled to get the insurance amount under PMFBY.  The duty of OP No.2 and 3 is to send the premium amount to OP No.4 and 5 within the time fixed by the Government, but they failed to do so.

13.     On-going through the records on file, as per Ex.C-2, OP No.2 submits that, he had received the premium amount of Rs.1,831-77 from the complainant but, he failed to furnish the document pertaining to the insurance i.e., proposal form and receipt to the concerned before the Commission.  Even OP No.1 is also taken a contention that, OP No.2 failed to produce the document if OP No.2 produced the document before the Commission or else to the OP No.5, it might be helpful to the complainant for settlement of the insurance amount.  Hence, there is no need of more discussion about this and the Commission comes to the conclusion that, it is very clear that, OP No.2 has made deficiency in service and OP No.2 is liable to pay the compensation for deficiency in service.  On the other hand, Ex.C-2 speaks that, complainant has availed a loan from OP No.3.  Hence, OP No.2 is directed to pay the amount towards deficiency in service to OP No.3.  Hence, we answer Point No.1 in Affirmative and Point No.2 in partly Affirmative. 

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

//O R D E R//

           1.  The above Complaint is partially allowed against OP No.2.

           2.   The OP No.2 is liable to pay Rs.25,000/- towards deficiency in service to OP No.3, if there is a balance towards the loan.  Otherwise, it has to be paid to the complainant. 

          3. Further OP No.2 is liable to pay Rs.1,000/- towards litigation charges and Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and harassment.

          4.  Complaint against OP No.1, 3, 4 and 5 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 10^th day of MARCH-2021)

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

                       MEMBER                                                  PRESIDENT