Complainant/s:             1. Fakirayya S/o Basayya  

                                         Umachagimath

                                           Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture,  

                                                     R/o Gujamagadi, Taluk: Ron,

                                                 District:  Gadag.

                                                2. Madiwalayya S/o Basayya   

                                                    Umachagimath, Since dead, his LRs

                                                2(a)  Shivavva W/o Shivayya 

                                                        Kadasiddeswaramath,

                                                      Age: 60 Years,

                                                       Occ: Household work, R/o  

                                                      Yavagalla,

                                                       Presently r/at Gujamagadi, Taluk:    

                                                       Ron, District:  Gadag.

                                             2(b) Premavva W/o Ninganagouda

                                                   Goudara, Age: 55 Years, Occ:  

                                                   Household work, R/o 

                                                   Chikkahandigola, Taluk & Dist:

                                                   Gadag.

                                               2(c) Girijavva W/o Veerayya   

                                                      Sarangamath,

                                                      Age: 53 years, Occ: Household  

                                                     work, R/o Gujamagadi, Taluk: Ron.

                                            2(d)   Basavannevva W/o Mruthunjaya

                                                     Kadadevaramath, Age: 50 Years,  

                                                    Occ: Household work, R/o  

                                                    Yavagalla, Taluk: Ron, Dist: Gadag.

                                             3.     Smt. Shekhavva W/o Sangayya

                                                     Jangali, since dead, her LRs,

                                            3 (a)  Sangayya S/o Hampayya Jangali,

                                                         Age:65 Years, Occ: Agriculture,  

                                                         R/o Soratura, presently r/at            

                                                         Gujamagadi, Taluk: Ron, District:  

                                                         Gadag.

                                                  3(b) Veerayya S/o Sangayya Jangali,

                                                            Age:34 Years, Occ: Agriculture,  

                                                            R/o Soratura, presently r/at         

                                                            Gujamagadi, Taluk: Ron, District:  

                                                            Gadag.

                                                  3(c)  Smt. Geetha W/o Ningayya    

                                                         Jangali, Age:25 Years,

                                                         Occ:Household work,  

                                                            R/o Soratura, presently r/at         

                                                            Gujamagadi, Taluk: Ron, District:  

                                                            Gadag.

                                                  4.  Smt. Sharanavva W/o

                                                        Linganagouda 

                                                        Ayyanagoudra, Age: Major,

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

                                                  5.  Smt. Shashikala W/o   

                                                       Shantagouda 

                                                       Ayyanagoudra, Age: Major,

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

                                                     6. Sri. Mahantagouda S/o

                                                        Linganagouda 

                                                         Ayyanagouda, Age: Major,

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

                             (Rep. by Sri.S.B. Gattiraddihala, Advocate)   

V/s

ORDER

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

        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. 188/4 measuring 3-05 Acres, sy.No.1/10 measuring 1-11 Acres, sy.No.118/3 measuring 3-35 Acres, sy.No.1/11measuring 1-11 Acres, sy.No.118/1A measuring 2-35 Acres, sy.No.48/3+4 measuring 2-24 Acres, sy.No.144 measuring 4-15 Acres, sy. No.49/1C, 48/1C, 52/3 and 53/1 measuring 7-18 Acres situated at Gujamagadi and Kuradagi villages of Ron Taluk and insured with Insurance Company for the yield and paid the total premium amount of Rs.1,848/- in 2014-15 under Agriculture Insurance Scheme for a sum assured amount of Rs.62,098/- with OP/insurance company 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.62,098/- 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, 4 and 5 appeared through counsels,  OP No.1, 2, 4 filed their respective written version.  OP No.5 failed to file written version and OP No.3 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.  It is further submitted that, complainants have not approached this Forum with clean hands and they have suppressed the material facts so as to get the claim amount.  The complainants have not given the name of Gram Panchayat and where they lives.  This OP does not deny the fact that, the complainants were covered under the insurance coverage notified by the State Government under the scheme modified National Agricultural Insurance Scheme i.e., MNAIS.  The MNAIS Scheme based on the fundamental principle that in case the farmer suffers loss of yield i.e., Actual Yield during the particular season in comparison to the declared yield i.e., Threshold yield calculated basis the formulae defined by the Central Government under NCIP, by the State Government, it shall be construed that the loanee farmer has suffered a loss and accordingly based on the difference between the Threshold yield and Actual yield, the claim shall be paid.  The purpose of determining the crops to be covered, the premium to be charged and the threshold yield data or the actual yield data.  The Gram Panchayat and the Block is the unit area for consideration.  As per the inputs from our RABG Team, for the Season Khariff 2014 for Green Gram crop under Taluk Ron, the claim formed for the Green Gram was to the tune of Rs.3,99,232 for 33 farmers covered under the Declaration No.RABG140231 received from State Bank of India and accordingly, the same was transferred to the SBI on 12^th June 2015 through NEFT No.4440U15163800551 and hence, they are not liable to pay further payments.  This OP has already fulfilled the legal liability as per the terms, conditions and rules of State Government.  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 the complaint are completely false 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, 154481 for Rs.26,901/-, Rs.50,496/- and Rs.24,888/- respectively.  It is further submitted that, this OP has not paid any khariff crop insurance compensation belonging to complainants to OP No.4 Bank and therefore, in respect of the complainants claim insurance compensation is not remitted by the OP No.4 Bank to the complainants accounts.  There is no power of attorney on behalf of other complainants in favour of complainant No.6 for filing this complaint on behalf of complainant No.1 to 5, therefore complaint of complainant No.1 to 5 may be dismissed.  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.6 filed his Chief affidavit along with 20 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 36 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 Kharif season which they grown in their lands bearing sy.No. 188/4 measuring 3-05 Acres, sy.No.1/10 measuring 1-11 Acres, sy.No.118/3 measuring 3-35 Acres, sy.No.1/11measuring 1-11 Acres, sy.No.118/1A measuring 2-35 Acres, sy.No.48/3+4 measuring 2-24 Acres, sy.No.144 measuring 4-15 Acres, sy. No.49/1C, 48/1C, 52/3 and 53/1 measuring 7-18 Acres situated at Gujamagadi and Kuradagi villages of Ron Taluk and insured with Insurance Company for the yield and paid the total premium amount of Rs.1,848/- in 2014-15 under Agriculture Insurance Scheme for a sum assured amount of Rs.62,098/- with OP/insurance company through OP No.4 before 31.08.2014 as per the guidelines by producing all the documents.  In this year, Complainants experienced less rain and suffered loss, but OP/Insurance company 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.1 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.1 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 31^st day of JULY-2021)

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

              MEMBER                                   PRESIDENT