V/s

JUDGEMENT

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SRI. RAJU.N.METRI, MEMBER

          The complainants have filed the complaint U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for recovery crop insurance amount of Rs.1,45,233/- with interest @ 18% p.a, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation to each complainant.

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

          Complainants are resident of Lakkankatti village of Ron Taluk Dist:Gadag.  They had sowed Groundnut for the year 2003-04 in Kharif 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 appeared through their counsel. OP No.2 appeared through DGP and Op No.3 remained absent. Op No.1 & 2 filed 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 Groundnut during the year
2003-04 for Kharif 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 claiming for the loss of their crops for the Kharif season 2003-04.  Complainants are not a consumer of OP No.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. After hearing, my predecessor passed a common judgment on 30.09.2008, complaint is partly allowed and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.1635/2009 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes    Redressal   Commission,   Bangalore,   the   same   came  to  be allowed on 27.08.2009 and remanded for fresh disposal.

          7. After hearing, my predecessor passed a common judgment on 29.01.2010, complaint is partly allowed and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.1363/2010 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes    Redressal   Commission,   Bangalore,   the   same   came  to  be allowed on 30.08.2010 and remanded for fresh disposal.

          8. After receipt of the records, notices were issued to the parties. Notices were served on the complainant No.5,7,8,9,10,12,18 and Op No.1 to 3. Complainant
No. 3,17,19  are reported as left. Complainant No.1,2,3,4,6,11,13,14,15,16,17,18 and 20 are reported as dead.  LRs of complainant No. 1,2, 4,6,11,14,15,16,17and 20 are brought on record and LRs of complainant No.3, 13 and 18 are not brought on record. Complainant No.3,5,7,9,6(d),10,12,14(g),17(a),8,11(b),13,15(b),20(a),1(d),4(c),16(g) have filed their affidavit evidence and were examined as PW-1 to PW-17 and got marked documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-22.  DGP. filed written version for Op No.2. KVK, Adv. filed affidavit of Sri.Praveen Kumar B.R. and examined as RW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex.Op-1 to Ex.Op-5.  Op No.2 & 3 have not chosen to file affidavit evidence.

9.       Heard, the arguments on both sides.

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

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

2. Whether the complainants and LRs prove that, they are    

entitled for the relief?

3. What Order?

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

               Point No. 1:  Negative.

               Point No. 2:  Negative

               Point No. 3:  As per the final Order

R E A S O N S

              12.   Point No.1 & 2:- The points are taken together to avoid the repetition of facts.

            13.   On careful perusal of the materials placed before us, case remanded for fresh disposal with a direction take the affidavit evidence of all complainants. PW-1 to PW-17 have filed affidavit and reiterated the contents of the complaint. PW-1 to  
PW-17  have stated that, complainants are resident of Lakkankatti village of Ron Taluk Dist:Gadag.  They had sowed Groundnut for the year 2003-04 in Kharif 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. 

          14.     RW-1 has filed affidavit and reiterated the contents of the written version filed by Op No.1  RW-1 has stated that, complainants have claiming for the loss of their crops Groundnut during the year 2003-04 for Kharif 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.

15. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-22  RTCs reveal that complainant are owner of the their respective lands and Ops have not disputing the said documents. The main contention of Op No.1 is that there was a no shortfall, as per yield data report issued by statistical department.  In the written version filed by Op No.1 of Naregal Hobli for the crops of Groundnut shown the Threshold yield is 143  Assessed yield is 356 and shortfall is NIL, for the year 2003-04 of  Kharif season. Ex.Op-1 to Ex.Op-5 reveals that, Ops have adopted the crop cutting experiments and followed the guidelines issued by the government  and  there is no shortfall. 

16.     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)

17. Even no cause of action arose to file this complaint, as there is no deficiency of service committed by Ops. Complainants claiming compensation for the loss of crops for the year 2003-04 and complaint filed after 4 years in the year 2008. Without proving the case with oral and documentary evidence, complainants are not entitled the relief. Mere, allegation made in the complaint without producing documentary evidence to show that there is a shortfall, they cannot be entitled for the reliefs. Hence, complainants have failed to prove that OPs have committed deficiency of service and they are entitled for the relief.   Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 and 2 in the Negative.    

            18.    POINT No.. 3: In the result, we pass the following:

//O R D E R//

              The complaint filed U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is dismissed. No order as to costs.

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 by us in the Open Commission on this 6^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 : Mallappa S/o Basappa Koppad

PW-2 : Shiddappa Parushuram Maranabasari

PW-3 : Neelappa S/o Channappa Jigaloor

PW-4 : Manjunath S/o Bheemappa Shirol

PW-5: Shambulingappa S/o Neelappa Jigaloor

PW-6: Basavaraj S/o Dyamappa Koppad

PW-7: Devindrappa S/o Dugappa Koppad

PW-8: Mallayya S/o Sharanayya Hiemath,

PW-9: Basavaraj S/o Yallappa @ Sannayallappa Koppad.

PW-10: Channabasappa S/o Kalakappa Koppad

PW-11: Renukantappa S/o Kalakappa  Benakanavari

PW-12: Adiveppa S/o Hirebasappa Bhagavati

PW-13: Sharanappa S/o Channappa Madar @ Doddamani

PW-14: Sharanappa S/o Channappa Madar @ Doddamani

PW-15: Kalakayya S/o Andanayya Hiremath

PW-16: Kenchavva S/o Channappa Pujar @ Madar

PW-17: Mallikarjun W/o Ramappa Javoor

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1to 22: RTCs

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

RW-1: Praveen Kumar B.R.

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

Ex.Op-1: Copy of Scheme and Guidelines.

Ex.Op-2 : Copy of Circular for Kharif-2003, instruction to Nodal Banks.

Ex.Op-3 : Copy of Rashtriya Krishi Bima Yojana – Assessed yield in

               KGs/Hect. for 2003-04,(Groundnut, Kharif)

Ex.Op-4: Copy of Rashtriya Krishi Bima Yojana – Assessed yield in

               KGs/Hect. for 2003-04,(Sunflower, Kharif)

Ex.Op-5: Copy of details past 5 years Assessed yield Data-

               District/Taluk/Hoblewise.

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

         MEMBER               PRESIDENT             WOMAN MEMBER