Dated:07.08.2024

C O M M O NO R D E R

in Appeal Nos. 1819 to 1829 of 2023,

2259 to 2269 of 2023 & 669 to 679 of 2024,

BY Mr. K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: Pri. Dist. & Session Judge (R)- JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1. The above appeals are filed by complainants, OP2 and OP3 respectively in the respective complaint. A.Nos.669 to 679 of 2024 are filed by respective complainant, A.Nos.1819 to 1829 of 2023 are filed by OP3, while A.Nos.2259 to 2269 of 2023 are filed by OP2.  In So far as A.Nos.1819 to 1829 of 2023, 2259 to 2269 of 2023 are  concerned are filed questioning the validity of the impugned orders dated 12.07.2023 passed in the respective 11 Cases on the ground that District Commission had committed grave error in holding them liable to pay the claim amount along with compensation and litigation cost as arrived, while the complainants have also assailed on  the impugned orders on the ground that District Commission has failed to record sound reasons while arriving to award damages caused on account of short rain fall and in a casual manner awarded a meagre  mount with no basis at all is contrary to the materials placed on record and sought for enhancement of compensation in the respective complaint cases.

2. In view of rival contentions of the learned counsels for the parties to these appeals now the points that arise for consideration of this Commission would be whether impugned orders passed in 11 Cases in CC.Nos.90 to 100 of 2020 respectively dated 12.07.2023 does call for an interference of the Commission for the grounds set out in the appeal memos of the complainants, OP2 and OP3?

3. Learned counsel for insurer submits that District Commission has failed to take note that the claims pertaining to these cases are for Bengal Gram (IRRI) and failed to consider the payment made by insurer vide NEFT, yet passed awards directing the insurer to pay claim amount as mentioned in the respective operative portion of the impugned orders, is contrary to the facts.  Further submits that it is the duty of the banker to enter the insured crop and as the banker had entered Bengal Gram as irrigated during PMFBY Rabi 2016 season. It is the case of the insurer there were 90 applications received from Bank for Asuti Gram Panchayat pertaining to Bengal Gram rainfed crops and they were all correctly filled up.  However in these cases, banker has entered Bengal Gram crop as irrigated in SAMRAKSHANA Insurance Software Portal, which is used mandatorily by all the bankers for registering all the insured, yet District Commission committed grave error in holding insurer to pay the claim amount to the respective complainants and wrongly held liability of OP3 insurer is joint and several. He further submits that question of settling the insurance claim by insurer does not arise at all, since the banker has registered the respective complainants under SAMRAKSHANA Portal, Bengal Gram crops grown in their respective lands are irrigated lands and not the rain-fed lands and to find support placed a reliance reported in II (2024) CPJ 257 (KAR) in the case between Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited v. Mallinath and others wherein held – “OP4 banker is directed to credit eligible claim in beneficiary farmers/complainants account with interest @ 06% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization.”  It  is to be noted herein that in this order in para-13 observed – “Perused the order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that, Ex.R1/letter written by the Insurance Company to the OP4 bank wherein it is mentioned that ‘kindly find enclosed the claim statement for an amount of Rs.87,38,58,451.11 sent to your account No.506201000001 through RTGS Kharif-2015 season claims” and in such circumstances, held - “it is for the banker as nodal officer to credit to the respective accounts of the beneficiary farmers within 14 days and display the farmers wise details with claim amount on notice board”, We have gone through the decisions and of the view have no bearing on the point in dispute in these appeals, since dispute raised herein are entirely different.  It is to be taken notice of the fact that insurer placed nothing on record to show certain amount has been sent to the account of banker or the nodal bank to credit such amount to the accounts of these complainants, yet stated they have settled the amount which cannot be acceptable, since they are contradicting each other from their own defence.  It is therefore, contention of learned counsel for insurer that claims of the complainants herein these appeals have already been settled cannot be accepted.  Learned counsel for insurer further placed a reliance reported in I (2023) CPJ 72 (Haryana) in the case between Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank Morthali v. Rajinder Singh and others wherein held – “OP3 bank were wrong in mentioning name of village of complainant.  It was primary duty of OP3 to upload data of farmers concerned on government portal regarding PMFBY. It stands proved that complainant suffered loss to his land situated at village but he was deprived from getting due compensation from Insurance Company due to wrong declaration submitted by OP3 to OP1 and 2 which amounted to act of grave deficiency in service on the part of OP3 banker, is liable to pay claim, as per record complainant had sown paddy crop in 07 acres of land.  Complainant was entitled to receive total amount of Rs.92,527/- from OP3 for loss suffered by him in 07 acres of land.”  Thus  this decision is again did not come to the help of insurer since the facts of the case in the above decision and the facts herein before the Commission are quite different, for quit simple reasons as learned counsel for banker in his appeals  submitted, insurer has not denied the receipts of the insurance premium amount collected by the bank through respective complainants in the respective duly filled application in the  portal and in such circumstances banker and the insurer  are bound  by the direction issued by Government of India and State Government.  Further rightly submits, District Commission has failed to consider that the proposal data details submitted by the bank in SAMRAKSHANA Portal cannot be changed by the bank or loanee farmers, while filling up the details through the said portal and rightly submits  that the details to be entered as per the set up made in the portal by the Government in the application form and to find support  brought to the notice of the Commission about the letter dated 27.07.2018 of the Deputy Commissioner, Gadag, who is none other OP1 and letter of Joint Director of Agriculture, Gadag dated 14.08.2018 & 16.08.2018 and also the letter of Tahsildar, Gadag dated 11.10.2018 respectively marked as Ex.OP-6, 7 and 9.  In our view, the Deputy Commissioner, Gadag and Joint Director of Agriculture, Gadag, have rightly wrote letters to the insured that the complainants have paid premium for rain-fed Bengal Gram crops for Rabi 2016-17 season. On going through the enquiry file we found and as the District Commission also found, in these appeals, no separate column is provided to make mention either ‘irrigated’ or ‘rain-fed’ in the form. And in such circumstances the bank cannot be held, wrong in furnishing the details in the prescribed format.  In other words, bank cannot be held had not exercised due diligence while filling up the details in the format.  Learned counsel for banker has also brought to the notice of this Commission that from the copy of the claim forms extracted from the computers, which is evidencing that there is no specific column to make mention, whether the land is “irrigated or rain-fed”.  Hence as per the claim forms and as the details was filled in SAMRAKSHANA Portal the bank has to be held correctly filled the forms of the Loanee Farmers as provided by the Government and the insurer has received the premium amount, now cannot contend that these complainants, have grown Bengal Gram crop through their irrigated lands, when they have shown their lands are rain-fed even from the enquiry report or letter of Deputy Commissioner of the District who is OPno.4.  In other words, the lands of complainants are rain-fed and irrigated.

4. In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that District Commission has committed grave error in holding OP2 the banker was negligent and rendered deficiency in service in furnishing details in the form obtained from respective complainants for the Rabi season during 2016-17 for having sown the Bengal Gram Crops.  At the cost of repletion, in  view of the letters of the Deputy Commissioner, Gadag and Joint Director of Agriculture, Gadag, question of considering the case of the complainants herein these appeals on the basis of report of statistics issued by Directorate of Economics and Statistics as the said crop have grown in irrigated land, has no short fall, has no relevance, since enquiry reveals from the voluminous evidence that they have grown Bengal Gram crop in their respective lands are rain-fed.   

5. As already stated above, when insurer has received premium amount collected by banker from respective complainant cannot raise an objection on these trivial matters, when already settled the claims of other 90 complainants of the village situate within the vicinity for having grown Bengal Gram crop. In our view, the District Commission has to be held committed grave error in holding the banker’s liability is joint and several. The contention of learned counsel for banker that when crop Jowar in the column meant in the form, automatically, in crop line it comes “R” it does mean Rain-fed land and when Bengal Gram is mentioned automatically, it comes “I” does mean irrigated land, which cannot be changed by the banker, was not at all considered by the District Commission before passing impugned order holding the liability of banker as joint and several. 

6. In the above such view of the matter, we are of the view, in filling of details obtained from respective insured herein these cases, the role of banker is very limited and in these case  banker could not be said committed any errors against whom no liability could be saddled, since the banker had discharged the duties entrusted by the Government of India and Government of Karnataka to extend the benefit of welfare measures to the farmers and after receipt of the premium amount burden is on the insurer to discharge the obligations owe towards the insured which in our view is not discharged.  In other words, it is the duty of the insurer to settle the claims, having been accepted the details coupled with premium amount submitted from banker through SAMRAKSHANA Portal treating it respective complainants have grown Bengal Gram crops in the respective lands as rain-fed areas for the year 2016-17.  It is also to be noted herein that nothing is placed on record by insurer to establish that respective complainant have grown their Bengal Gram crop for the year 2016-17 and they are identified as irrigated lands.  It is therefore, we are inclined to conclude insurer/OP3 is liable to settle the claims in respect of respective complainant.  However, from the impugned order as rightly submitted by learned counsels for the respective complainant, the District Commission has committed errors, while awarding compensation for the crop loss caused did nothing except mentioned  the formula,  in para-14 and placed some  figures  in the operative portions of the impugned order is not at all appreciated. It is unfortunate to observe here that these appeals are 02^nd round appeals, yet District Commission  has  failed to take reasonable pain to settle the dispute raised by poor farmers, who are been extended with welfare benefits from Government of India and Karnataka.  In such view of the matter, with no option and with pain, we have to remand back these matters  to evaluate the loss sustained by the complainants in the   A.Nos.669 to 679 of 2024, in considering the  shortfall of rain in the area, keeping in mind the principles enunciated in the decision of Hon'ble NCDRC in RP/3551/2009 dated 08.10.2009 in the case of Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., v. Sharanappa S Arakeri, wherein held –

“There cannot be any doubt that the area is declared affected by drought based on ‘annavari system’ which is based on instructions given by the revenue department of each State keeping in view the local conditions………. 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 formthe 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.”

7. Learned counsel for respective complainant submits that this Commission in A/2533/2022 in the case between Kanchana and others v. The Deputy Commissioner, District Gadag and others in para-10 held – “Thus the complainants are entitled 75% of the sum assured in the policy for the crop loss since complainants have insured the crop and paid the premium amount to the OP3.  In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by District Commission requires to be modified with the following terms:-  Appeal is allowed.  Consequently, modified the impugned order passed in CC/4/2021 on the file of DCDRC, Gadag with a direction to OP3 to pay 75% of the sum assured under the policy with interest @ 06% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization to each of the complainants.”  We have gone through the decision, found that the dispute is arising out of loss of Maize, Green gram and Onion Crops for the year 2016-17 in their respective lands and they were also insured the crops with OP3 by paying premium for the year 2016-17 Kharif season under PMFBY, wherein found crops failed completely due to shortfall of rain, which cannot be followed in blanket herein to direct OP3 to pay loss of crops at 75% p.a. of the sum assured in the policy to the respective complainants for simple reason by doing so, which may or may not be justified either to respective complainants or to the insured. In other words, District Commission has to examine materials to that effect on the basis of loss of crop to each of the complainant, keeping in mind the principles enunciated in the decision cited supra and to appreciate the materials on record to evaluate, as such for this limited purpose in our view it would be appropriate to give directions to the District Commission to decide the loss of crop to the respective complainant by following the formula and the principles enunciated and the discussion made in this judgment. In so far as the appeals filed by banker is concerned are to be allowed and the appeals filed by insurer are liable to be dismissed. 

8. In the above such conclusion, we proceed to dispose of the   A.Nos.669 to 679 of 2024, 1819 to 1829 of 2023 and 2259 to 2269 of 2023 in the following terms:-

     CC.Nos.90 to 100 of 2020 are Allowed in Part.  These complaints are dismissed against OP Nos.1 and 2.

     OP3 insurer is held liable to pay the loss caused to the respective complainant with regard to the Bengal Gram Crop for the year 2016-17 Rabi season in the respective lands due to rain shortfall and are liable to settle their claims. 

     The District Commission is directed to evaluate the loss caused to the respective complainants following the formula  followed by decision  in RP/3551/2009 dated 08.10.2009 in the case between Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited v. Sharanappa S Arakeri decided by the Hon'ble NCDRC, New Delhi and award the amount for loss of crops and directed to award some amount of compensation towards mental agony and towards cost of litigation, affording opportunity to the respective complainant and OP No.3.   

     It is hereby clarified that these matters are remanded back to the District Commission, for limited purpose, in order to assess the crop loss during 2016-17 Rabi season for Bengal Gram crop grown in the respective lands of the complaint which are declared and proved as rain-fed lands. 

     It is hereby clarified that as the poor farmers are wandering from one Commission to another claiming compensation and these cases are of 02^nd round litigation as such directed District Commission to examine all the materials meticulously to arrive at just conclusion to meet ends of justice. 

9. The Amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to District Commission for needful.

10. Keep the original Order in Appeal No.1819/2023 and the copies thereon in the rest of the connected appeals to complete the records.  

11. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal.

    Lady Member                                                  Judicial Member              

*GGH*