Complainant/s:           1.Ningappa  S /o Ramappa Chilawadagi,

          Age: 54 Years, Occ: Agriculture,

                                            2. Ramappa S/o Ramappa Chilawadagi,

                                                 Age: 62 Years, Occ: Agriculture,

          Both are R/o Hatti, Taluk and District: Koppal.

                                             (Rep. by Sri.M.B.Naganagoudra, Advocate)   

                                                          V/s

ORDER

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SRI. B.S. KERI, MEMBER:

            This complaint is filed by the complainant/s 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 had sowed Greengram and Groundnut crops in 2018-19 in their respective lands and insured for the Khariff yield and paid the premium through the Nodal Bank.

            3.    The averments of the complaint in brief are:

       That the complainants have sowed the Greengram and Groundnut crops in 2018-19 Khariff season in their respective lands bearing sy No.258/2 measuring 04-01 Acres and sy.No.184/1 measuring 04-06 Acres situated at Mundargi, Gadag District and insured with OP No.1 for the yield and paid the premium amount of Rs.2,472-64 through the Nodal Bank in 2018-19 under PMFB for a sum assured amount of Rs.1,23,632-00, the Khariff crop failed due to shortfall of rain.  The crop of the complainants is good and healthy and was growing well.  The year 2018-19 was hit by draughts, because of lack of rainfall, the whole crops of the complainants were ruined and complainants became unhappy.  The complainant expected to receive the compensation for the total loss of the said Rabi season crop.  The policy coverage in case of any natural calamities/disasters to the crops of insured person/farmers, the policy safeguards under such calamities and on this assurance and encouragement, the complainants have 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 complainants have not received the compensation amount till today.  The farmers of the other villages have received the crop insurance amount except the complainants.  The complainants approached the OPs personally, but it went in vain.  Therefore, the complainants got issued legal notice on 18.11.2019 to the OPs calling upon them to pay the compensation, the OPs have not given any reply for the same or paid the compensation.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 18.11.2019 when the complainants got issued legal notice through Advocate, the same was not replied by the OPs.   Hence there is deficiency in service and prayed to order the OPs to pay Rs.1,23,632-00 with interest @ 18% p.a , Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, financial loss and hardship with court expenses.

        4.   In pursuance of the notice issued by this Commission, the OPs appeared through counsel.  OP No.1 to 3 filed their respective written versions.   

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

            5.         OP No.1 stated that the above complaint is not maintainable both in law and also on facts. The National Agriculture Insurance Scheme NAIS is being implemented in the country under the orders of Government of India vide ref: No.13015/03/2016/credit II dated 16.07.1999.  The rights and liabilities of the parties governed by the stipulations and conditions of the scheme and the parties have taken part in scheme order understanding the provisions of it and agreed for the same and acted on it.   The complainant has wrongly inter5preted the scheme stating that, OP

agreed to compensate the loss in the event of failure of crops.  The NAIS restricted whether based crop insurance scheme is designed and flatted by Government of India under its social security measures.  The scheme itself provides for nature of coverage indemnify social discipline, rate premium area approach for settlement of claim if any.  It is further submitted that, as per the scheme, if the actual yield per hectare of the insured crop for the defined area in the insured session, falls short of specified threshold yield all the insured farmer growing that crop in the defined area are deemed to have suffered shortfall in their yield, the scheme provides coverage against such contingency only.  As per the scheme, the claims are to be settled only on the basis of yield data furnished by Director of Economics and Statistics and not on any other basis such as Declaration of draught, Declaration of floods, Gazette Notification etc., by any Department/Authority.      The scheme does not provide for any individual coverage so that for any loss which is unrelated to the general loss is not covered by insured crop in defined area.  It is to be furnished by Directorate of Economics and Statistics indemnity is based on the “Actual yield” per hectare of insured crop for the defined area in insured season, falls short of specified “Threshold Yield”, all insured farmers growing that crop in the defined area are deemed to have suffered shortfall in yield of similar magnitude.     

            Claim shall be calculated as per the following formula:

            (Threshold Yield – Actual Yield for the defined area)

            It is further submitted that, the complainants stated that, they have paid premium for groundnut and moongdal in Khariff season 2018-19 through their Bank i.e., OP No.3.  As per th notification of crops during Khariff season, groundnut and moongdal crops have been notified at Hobli level.  It is further submitted that, they have not aware of the fact that, whether the complainants have paid the premium, the said crop and in what season and what is the notified area etc.  The acceptance of the premium by the Bank should be as per the seasonality discipline.  If there is any violation as per the Scheme, Bank only shall make good all such losses.  It is further submitted that, during khariff 2018-19, the OPs have settled all the eligible claims as per the scheme to all the insured farmers and the OP is not liable to settle any claims for groundnut and moongdal as per the report submitted by the Director of Economics and Statistics.  Unless there is a shortfall in yield, the farmers will not be entitled to any claim under NAIS.  It is further submitted that, as per the provisions of scheme, claim has been credited to Nodal Bank and hence, the complainants have no water and service of this OP is not at all deficient.  This OP is not liable to pay any compensation, cost and interest to the complainants and hence prays to dismiss the complaint.

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

            6.         The OP No.2 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.      It is further submitted

that, the contents of para 2 and 3 are false and the same is to be proved by the complainant.  It is further submitted that, the PMFBY is implemented for the benefits of the farmers.  This OP has not received any crop insurance premium amount from the farmers/complainants.  The complainant is not the consumers of this OP and there is no contract of agreement between the complainants and this OP that of seller and the buyer.  This OP is made as party unnecessarily and if the Commission comes to the conclusion that, the complainant/s are entitled for the compensation towards loss of crop, the other OPs are liable to pay the same.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of this OP and hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint. 

The brief facts of the Written Version of OP No.3:-

            7.         OP No.3 submits that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, the same is barred by time and is not come up with the purview of the Limitation Act.  It is submitted that, the complainants have not paid any premium amount to them for the year 2018-19 under the crop insurance.  It is true that, the complainants are account holders with them.  This OP is only act as a collecting agent and mediator between the farmers and concerned NIIC and scope of this OP is very limited.  The duty of OP-3 to receive the application/proposal forms and to collect the required premium as per the guidelines of NIIC and to forward the same to AIC but the present complainants have not paid the crop insurance premium to them and they have paid the premium amount in CSC.  This OP is neither concerned to the facts of fixing of premium and assessing the loss nor fixing of the compensation to be payable to the farmers.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on their part and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

            8.  The complainant No.1 filed Chief affidavit along with 33 documents.  On the other hand, Manager of OP 1 and Branch Manager of OP No.3 filed their affidavit evidence with one document.

                COMPLAINANTS FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

                               OP FILED DOCUMENT/S 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 complaints?
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-link and identical. Hence we proceed both the points together.

12.       The Complainant/s filed this Complaint against the OPs for claiming crop insurance 20118-19 on failure of weather. The Complainant/s submits that they have insured their Greengram and Groundnut crops in 2018-19 Khariff season in their respective lands bearing sy No.258/2 measuring 04-01 Acres and sy.No.184/1 measuring 04-06 Acres situated at Mundargi, Gadag District and insured with OP No.1 for the yield and paid the premium amount of Rs.2,472-64 through the Nodal Bank in 2018-19 under PMFB for a sum assured amount of Rs.1,23,632-00.  The Complainant/s on good faith and for protection of their crop as per publications and advice of OPs insured their Greengram and Groundnut crops. In this year, Complainant/s experienced less rain and suffered loss, but OPs have not paid the insurance amount to the complainants.  Hence, Complainant/s submits that they have not got the sum assured from the OPs. On the other hand, OP No.1 submits that as per the Scheme Condition, the payout is calculated and deposit the amount in the respective account of the Complainant/s and submits that they have received the report from Karnataka State Natural Disaster Monitoring Centre and photocopy of  the  same  had  been produced before the Commission and submits that

they have deposited the payout amount to the Complainant/s account and they are not responsible any loss or the Company had not made any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the Government, they have paid the insurance amount. 

13.       OP No.3 submits that, they have acted as a mediator between the OP No.1 and complainant and after receiving the premium amount, entire total premium amount had been transferred to OP No.1. 

14.       On-going through the records on file, it is an undisputed fact that complainant/s have insured their crops with OP No.1 and it is also undisputed fact that they have received the premium amount from the complainant/s as well as the Government that means OP No.1 received entire premium amount from the complainant/s. The disputed fact is that OP No.1 calculated the loss as per the scheme framed by the Government. We have to discuss clearly about the scheme to conclude the case.

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.  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.  Anyhow, in the year 2018-19, the OP No.2 declared that, the above said villages are hit by draught.  Such being the fact, there is no need of information to OP No.1 and 2 and it is the bounded duty of the OPs to visit fields for crop cutting experiment.  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. 

            These are the criteria fixed by the Government of India, but the OP No.1 or the OP No.2 have 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 the claim amount has to be settled within September and October.  

As stated supra, OP No.1 and 2 have 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 that to be transferred the meager amount after filing the complaint. 

OP No.1 submits that, they have settled it as per they received data from the District Statistical Office as per the crop cutting experiment.

15.       Of course complainant/s have also not produced any documents to show that they have suffered complete loss during 2016-17. Here we cannot totally disbelieve the prayer of the Complainant/s since there is lot of loopholes from OP No.1 while executing the scheme. Hence, Commission came to the conclusion that the claim is to be fixed on the crop loss proof produced by the Department of Agriculture, on that basis, OP No.1 has to pay 75% of the Sum Assured for their deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence, we answer Point No.1 in Affirmative & Point No.2 is in Partly Affirmative.           

 16.  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.1.              

            2.   The OP No.1 is directed to pay 75% of the Sum Assured to Complainant/s within one month, failing which OP No.1 is liable to pay 18% interest from the date of filing this complaint till realization.

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

4.  Complaint against OP No.2 and 3 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 9^th day of December, 2021)

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

                  MEMBER                                              PRESIDENT