COMPLAINT NO.326/2007

V/s

JUDGMENT

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.  Earlier this complaint was disposed of by this Commission vide its order dated 14.12.2015, the same was appealed by the OPs before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in A.No.274/2016 and the State Commission by its order dated 03.02.2020 set aside the order passed by this Commission and remanded back the same to dispose of the case afresh in accordance with law.  

         3.  The above complaint filed by the complainants, states that they had sowed Sunflower, Ground nut, maize crop in 2003-04 in their respective lands and insured for the Karif/Rabi yield and paid the premium through the Nodal Bank

          4.    The averments of the complaints in brief are :

       That the complainants had sowed the Sunflower, Ground nut, maize etc. karif/Rabi crop in 2003-04 in their respective lands and insured with the AIC for the yield and paid the premium through the Nodal Bank in 2003-04 the Karif/Rabi crop failed due to short fall of rain. The OP No.1 have failed to settle the Insurance amount to the Complainant, hence there is deficiency in service and prayed to order the OP’s to pay the maximum insured amount along with court expenses.

        5.   After remand, the notice was issued by this Commission, OP No.2 appeared through counsel but, not filed any objection.  OP No.1 and 3 remained absent.   

          6. Earlier OP No.1 appeared through counsel stated that the above complaints are not maintainable both in law and also on facts it is submitted that NAIS, RKB is implemented in the country under the order of Government of India vide ref. 13011/15/99 credit II dated 16.07.1999 of the Ministry of Agricultural Department of Agriculture and Co-operation, New Delhi w.e.f 01.10.1999. All the insured farmers growing the crops in the defined area are deemed to have suffered short fall in their yield the scheme seeks to provide coverage against such contingency indemnity shall be calculated as per the following formula (Shortfall in/Threshold yield) x sum insured of the farmer = Indemnity claims where are shortfall in yield = Threshold yield - Actual yield for the defined area. As per NAIS claims in general, will be disbursed through nodal banks as per shortfall in the notified area for the respective notified crop during karif/Rabi 2003-04 the OP have settled all eligible claims as per the scheme to all insured farmers under area approach. The director of Economics and Statistics had furnished crop wise hobli wise yield data for all crops during the season. 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.

          7.       After hearing the arguments from both the Counsel and on pursuance of the materials, placed by the complainants and OPs, following points arises for our consideration:-

1. Weather the complainant had proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as averred in the complaint and entitled for any relief?

2. What Order?

     8.       Our findings are as under:

              Point No. 1: Partly Affirmative

              Point No. 2  As per the final Order

R E A S O N S

          9.  POINT NO.1:  All the complainants have produced the premium receipts which had been issued by the nodal bank, RTC copy along with respective affidavits.

          10.     As stated above the OP No.1 had appealed before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the appeal was allowed and ordered to hear the complaint again. The OP filed objection that the claims will be settled on the data furnished by the Economics and Statistical Department and filed the data stating that there is no short fall in yield of sunflower, wheat and Bengalgram crops during the karif/Rabi season in 2003-04.   But, they have not filed CCE report i.e., Form-2 to show that, there is no shortfall in the area.  Hence, the Karif/Rabi yield data furnished by the OP cannot be considered. While the complainants approached the OP to settle the claims in the pursuance of Insurance coverage, it was not considered.

          11.  As per the reminder of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to dispose the complaint as ordered in the Appeal is that, the District Commission has to rely upon the CCE report of the Director of Economics and Statistical Department to assess what is the actual loss if any suffered based on the affidavit evidence and material evidence to fix the compensation.  The Commission called for the Report from the District Statistical Department, the Statistical Department produce the report dated 03.10.2012 which reads thus:

          “£ÀªÀÄÆ£É-2 ªÀÄÆ® zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄÆ£É-2 UÀ¼ÀÄ ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄzÀ®Æè ®¨sÀå«®èªÉAzÀÄ G¯ÉèÃTvÀ (2) gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ ¨É¼É «ªÀiÁ AiÉÆÃd£É, DyðPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁATåPÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.  £ÀªÀÄÆ£É-2 F PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°èAiÀÄÆ ®¨sÀå«®è«gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ªÀiÁ£ÀågÀ CªÀUÁºÀ£ÉUÉ ¸À°è¹zÉ ”

          12.     After filing this report, OP No.1 had not collected the CCE report from the Agriculture Department or from the Statistical Department and other supportive documents from the insurance company in support of their written version to disprove the case of the complainants.  Hence, the Commission comes to the conclusion that, the complainants are liable to get compensation from the OP No.1/Insurance company at 75% of the insured amount and accordingly, we answer Point No.1 in partly affirmative.

           13.  POINT NO. 2: In view of our findings on the above point, the complaint filed by the complainants is partially allowed.  In the result, we pass the following:

/O R D E R//

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

         2.   The OP No.1 is directed to pay 75% of the Insured Amount along with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till realization.

3.  All the Complainants are entitled to receive Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards physical and mental agony. 

4.  The Complainants are entitled to receive Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of litigation.

5.  The above Order shall comply within a period of one month from the date of this order, fails to pay the said amount within one month, the complainants are entitled to get interest at 14% p.a. from the date of this order.

6.  Complaint against OP No.2 and 3 is dismissed.

          7.  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 November, 2021)

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

                MEMBER                                              PRESIDENT