Complainant/s:             1. Shivaprakasha S/o Channabasappa

                                           Angadi, Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture,         R/o Gujamagadi, Taluk: Ron,

                                                 District:  Gadag.

                                                2. Basavaraja S/o Channabasappa         

                                                    Angadi, Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture,         R/o Gujamagadi, Taluk: Ron,

                                                 District:  Gadag.

                                             3.  Ashoka S/o Channabasappa Angadi,

                                                     Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture,  R/o             Gujamagadi, Taluk: Ron,

                                                  District:  Gadag.

                                             4.  Devendragouda S/o Eshwaragouda  

                                                     Madegoudra, Age: Major,

                                                     Occ: Agriculture, R/o Gujamagadi,                       Taluk: Ron, District:  Gadag.

                                             5.  Smt. Lakshmawwa W/o                               Veerabhadragouda Madegoudra,

                                                     Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture, R/o               Gujamagadi, Taluk: Ron,

                                                  District:  Gadag.

                                                6.  Eshwaragouda S/o Sanganagouda 

                                                     Madegoudra, Age: Major,

                                                   Occ: Agriculture, R/o Gujamagadi,  

                                                   Taluk: Ron, District:  Gadag.

                                         (Rep. by Sri.S.B. Gattiraddihala, 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 complainants, states that they sowed Greengram crop in 2014-15 in their lands and insured for the Khariff Season yield and paid the premium.

         The averments of the complaint in brief are:

         3.       That the complainants have sowed Greengram crop in 2014-15 in their lands bearing sy.No. 188/3 measuring 6-32 Acres, sy.No.80/3 measuring 3-07 Acres, sy.No.180/2 measuring 4-05 Acres, sy.No.183/3 measuring 4-18 Acres, sy.No.186/1A measuring 2-31 Acres, sy.No.183/3 measuring 4-06 Acres, sy.No.194/1 measuring 2-31 Acres, sy. No.173/1B measuring 9-00 Acres, sy.No.194/2 measuring 2-30 Acres, sy.No.127/1 measuring 2-13 Acres, sy.No.212/1 measuring 7-31 Acres, sy.No.13/1 measuring 00-23 Acres, sy.No.18 measuring 1-32 Acres and sy.No.175/2 measuring 3-00 Acres situated at Gujamagadi village of Ron Taluk and insured with Insurance Company for the yield and paid the total premium amount of Rs.3,719/- in 2014-15 under Agriculture Insurance Scheme for a sum assured amount of Rs.1,27,623/- with OP No.1 through OP No.4 before 31.08.2014 as per the guidelines by producing all the documents.  The complainants are the consumers of OP No.4 as they have accounts with OP No.4.   The said crop was good and healthy and the complainants hoped that they would get good yield from the above said crops for the said year.  It is further submitted that, the crop failed completely due to shortfall of rain. The complainants approached the OPs and requested to release the crop insurance, but it went in vain, which shows the deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  The above said scheme encouraged the farmers to get compensation for such damages.  The main aim of the said scheme is that to meet out the problems of the farmers under such circumstances.   The complainants perceived that none of the OPs have come to aid with this matter.  The complainants lost their crop due to lack of rain and lost their hard earned money in investing the faulty scheme of the OPs.  Therefore, the complainants got issued legal notice to the OPs on 29.08.2017 calling upon them to pay the compensation, for that, OP No.1 given evasive reply, but the remaining OPs failed to give their reply to the notice.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 31.08.2015 and 23.09.2015 when the complainants have sent the premium amounts through electric fund and on 29.08.2017 when the complainant got issued legal notice to the OPs.   Hence there is a deficiency in service and prayed to order the OPs to pay Rs.1,27,623/- with interest @ 18% p.m, Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental stress, loss and damages with costs of the proceedings and such other reliefs.

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

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

          5.       OP No.1 contended that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts as there is no part of deficiency of service on the part of this OP.  It is submitted that, the agriculture insurance company was not allotted Gadag District during the MNAIS Khariff 2014-15 season.  It is pertinent to note that, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company was allotted Gadag District during the said season.  Under these circumstances, OP No.1 nowhere committed any deficiency of service and not liable to pay any compensation.  The allegations made in the complaint are completely false and fabricated to get wrongful gain from this OP.  This OP is the implementing agency for implementing various crop insurance schemes formulated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India and Government of Karnataka and it has to act according to the schemes and guidelines of the scheme and that the losses are to be calculated as per the provisions of the Schemes and guidelines and hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of this OP and prayed to dismiss the complaint.        

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

          6.       OP No.2 contended that, the complaint filed by the complainants is false and baseless, frivolous and vexatious and far away from the truth and same is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  Complainant has no locus-standie to file complaint against this OP.  It is false to state that, under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bhim Yojan for the year 2014, the complainants have insured their crops grown in their lands with OP No.2 as mentioned in the complaint and it is further false to state that, the complainants have given the application and deposited the amount towards the premium as stated in the complaint.  It is well within the knowledge of the complainants that, in the year 2014 there was no rain in time because of it complainants could not be cultivated and incurred the loss, the Government declared that, there is drought in the particular area.  Further it is false to state that, the complainants have approached the OPs for compensation and settle the claim and hence, the complaint is put to strict of the same.  It is further submitted that, the Government has laid down the operational guidelines for the implementation of the scheme.  Entire data right from the proposal stage up to the claim settlement stage everything is done through the website.  It is a tripartite agreement between the Government, Bank and the Insurance Company.  The Bank is supposed to obtain the proposal/application from the farmer and upload the same on the website.  It is further submitted that, the complainants have taken a contention that, they have paid the premium to the OP No.4 through OP No.3.  As per their version, they have not provided their application number and also policy has been issued to them.  It is further submitted that, OP No.4 admitted in their objection that, the complainants have paid the premium amount through DD and the premium amount will be send to OP No.2.  It is not a compulsion to OP No.2 to pay the insured amount and when the insured amount is not deposited by the OP No.2 in the name of complainants, it is implied that, in the year 2014-15, it is declared as Nil claim to Greengram.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of this OP and prayed to dismiss the complaint.           

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

          7.       OP No.4 contended that, the complaint filed by the complainants is false and baseless, frivolous and vexatious and far away from the truth and same is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The contents of para 1 to 10 are completely and the same are to be proved by the complainants.  It is to be proved by the complainants that, they have paid the premium amount to this OP for the Khariff season 2014-15.  It is stated that, this OP has sent the premium amount paid by the account holders to OP No.2 through DD No.154479, 154480, 15441 for Rs.26,901/-, Rs.50,496/- and Rs.24,888/- respectively on 20.08.2014.  It is further submitted that, this OP has not deposited the crop insurance amount in respect of complainants accounts because they have not received any amount from OP No.2.  It is further submitted that, OP No.2 has to pay the insurance amount to the complainants and this OP has not committed any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

          8.  The complainant No.1 filed his Chief affidavit along with 34 documents.  On the other hand, the Manager (Litigation) of OP No.2 and the Manager of OP No.4 filed their respective chief affidavit with 33 documents.

    COMPLAINANTs FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

         OPs 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 Complainants filed this Complaint against the OPs for claiming crop insurance 2014-15 Khariff Season on failure of weather.

13.     The complainants submit that, they have insured their Greengram crop in 2014-15 Khariff season which they grown in their lands bearing sy.No.188/3 measuring 6-32 Acres, sy.No.80/3 measuring 3-07 Acres, sy.No.180/2 measuring 4-05 Acres, sy.No.183/3 measuring 4-18 Acres, sy.No.186/1A measuring 2-31 Acres, sy.No.183/3 measuring 4-06 Acres, sy.No.194/1 measuring     2-31 Acres, sy. No.173/1B measuring 9-00 Acres, sy.No.194/2 measuring 2-30 Acres, sy.No.127/1 measuring 2-13 Acres, sy.No.212/1 measuring 7-31 Acres, sy.No.13/1 measuring 00-23 Acres, sy.No.18 measuring 1-32 Acres and sy.No.175/2 measuring 3-00 Acres situated at Gujamagadi village of Ron Taluk and insured with AIC for the yield and paid the total premium amount of Rs.3,719/- in 2014-15 under Agriculture Insurance Scheme for a sum assured amount of Rs.1,27,623/- with OP No.1 through OP No.4 with AIC for the yield.  In this year,   Complainants experienced less rain and suffered loss, but OP No.1 failed to deposit the insurance amount.  Meantime, the Complainants approached OPs, but OPs failed to deposit the amount to their account. Hence, Complainant submits that they have not got the sum assured from the OPs.

14.     On-going through the records on file, it is an undisputed fact that complainants have insured their crops with OP No.2 through OP No.4 by paying insurance premium amount and it is also undisputed fact that they have received the premium amount from the complainants as well as the Government that means OP No.2 received entire premium amount from the complainants.  We have to discuss clearly about the scheme to conclude the case.

15.     As per the terms and conditions of the Scheme, the criteria is fixed for eligibility of the insurance is that, the farmer should inform about the loss occurred in their fields within 48 hours of the incident to the Agricultural Department or else to the Insurance Company.  As per the terms and conditions placed before us, the operational guidelines speaks in Sl.No.15 at page No.64 of the guidelines about the appointment of the assessor by the insurance Company and the time framed for loss assessment and submission of the report and condition has been explained.  Anyhow, as per the guidelines, some of the time frame has been mentioned in that guideline.  It is very necessary to know about all the guidelines to the farmers to inform the same to the concerned authority.  OPs failed to produce such documents to say that, they have educated the farmers as per the scheme.  It is just and necessary to educate the farmer about the scheme because, the premium has been paid by the farmers to the insurance Company.  Such being the fact, OPs have not taken any steps to educate the farmers.  As per their terms and conditions, they should appoint a qualified person for loss assessment in page No.64, the appointment of loss assessor by the insurance Company is as follows:

Appointment of Loss Assessors by the Insurance Company:

The loss assessors would be appointed by the Insurance Company for assessment of losses due to the operations of Localized Risks (Yield Insurance).  The loss assessors appointed by the insurance companies should be in accordance with the IRDAI provisions.  The loss assessors appointed should possess following experience and qualification;

i) Any Graduate (preferably Agriculture i.e., Diploma/B.Sc.(Ag.,) with minimum 2 years’ experience of crop insurance.

ii) Retired Government officials of Agriculture/Horticulture/Extension Department having Diploma, B.Sc.(Ag.) degree.

iii) Retired Bank officials with experience of crop loaning or Kisan Credit Card

(KCC0. For compliance under the above provisions the insurance companies would empanel the suitable loss assessors for using their services as and when required.

The loss would be jointly assessed by a team comprising of loss assessor appointed by the insurer, block level agriculture officer and the concerned farmer.  

          16.     These are the criteria fixed by the Government of India, but the OP No.5 has not taken any steps to say that, they have safeguarded the farmers as such.  As per the Rules and Regulations issued by the Govt. of Karnataka.  In page No.8, it clearly says that, the claim amount has to be settled within September and October 2017, it says as follows:   

2016-17gÀ »AUÁgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉùUÉ ºÀAUÁ«Ä£À°è «ªÀiÁ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨É¼É «ªÀiÁ £ÀµÀÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¯ÉPÀÌ ºÁQ, «ªÉÄ ªÀiÁr¹zÀ gÉÊvÀjUÉ J¯Áè ¨É¼ÉUÀ½UÉ CAwªÀĪÁV »AUÁgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉùUÉ ºÀAUÁªÀÄÄUÀ¼À ¨É¼É «ªÀiÁ £ÀµÀÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÀgÀäªÁV ¸É¥ÀÖA§gï ºÁUÀÆ CPÉÆÖçgï 2017gÀ CAvÀåzÉƼÀUÉ EvÀåxÀð¥Àr¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. 

 17.    As stated supra, OP No.2 has not settled the claim within the time, the said claim however they calculated it should be settled within the time, but they failed to settle the same. 

          18      The crop cutting experiment and yield data is mentioned in the documents produced by the complainants, those documents are said to be the reports of CCE and yield for the year 2016-17. 

 19.    Of course complainants have also not produced any documents to show that they have complete loss during 2016-17. Here we cannot totally disbelieve the prayer of the Complainants since there is lot of loopholes from OPs while executing the scheme. Hence, Commission came to the conclusion that the claim is to be fixed on non-standard basis that OP No.2 has to pay half of the Sum Assured for their unfair trade practice.  Hence, we answer Point No.1 in Affirmative & Point No.2 is in Partly Affirmative.          

           20.  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.2.

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

3. OP No.2 is liable to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainants towards compensation.  Further, OP No.2 is directed to pay litigation charges of Rs.1,000/- to the complainants.

   4.  Complaint against OP No.1, 3 to 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 12^th day of AUGUST-2021)

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

               MEMBER                                                 PRESIDENT