V/s

JUDGEMENT

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SRI. D.Y. BASAPUR, PRESIDENT

        The complainants have filed the complaint U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for recovery crop insurance amount of Rs.3,12,500/- with interest @ 18% p.a, Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and cost of litigation.

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

          Complainants are resident of Yarebeleri village of Ron Taluk Dist:Gadag.  They had sowed Groundnut for the year 2002-03 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 counsel, OP No.4 appeared in person. Op No.2 appeared through DGP and Op No.3 remained absent. Op No.2  filed written version. Op No.1,3 & 4 have not filed their written version within a statutory period.

          4. 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 claimed for the loss of their crop of Groundnut for the Kharif season 2002-03.  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.

          5. After hearing, my predecessor passed a common judgment on 31.10.2008, complaint is dismissed.  The complainant has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.755/2016 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes  Redressal   Commission,   Bengaluru,   the   same   came  to  be allowed  and remanded for fresh disposal.

          6. After receipt of the records, notices were issued to the parties. Notices were served on the complainant No.1 to 5,8,12,13 and Op No.1 to 4. Complainant
No.6,7,9,10,11,14 & 15 are reported as dead and LRs of  complainant No.6,7,9,10,11,15  are  brought on record. LRs. of complainant No.14 is not brought on record. Complainant No.4,1,5,8,13,2,3,6(b),7(b),9(c),11(c),15(b) and 12 have filed their affidavit evidence and examined as PW-1 to PW-13 and got marked the documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-16.. DGP appeared for Op No.2and filed the written version.  Op No.3 are remained absent. Manager  appeared in person and filed authorization letter of Op No.4. KVK, Adv. filed power for Op No.1, I.A.No.X, affidavit of B.R.Praveen Kumar and documents. I.A. No.X is came to be dismissed as Op filed written version after more than 13 years. So, written version Op No.1, affidavit and documents are taken on record and not consider.   Op No.2 & 3 have not chosen to file their affidavit evidence.

7.       Heard, the arguments on both sides.

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

1. Whether the complainants prove that, there is a deficiency in service by the OPs?

2. Whether the complainants prove that, they are          

entitled for the relief?

3. What Order?

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

               Point No. 1:  In the affirmative.

               Point No. 2:  In the partly affirmative.

               Point No. 3:  As per the final Order

R E A S O N S

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

            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-13 filed affidavits and reiterated the contents of complaint. PW-1 to  PW-13 have stated that,  complainants are resident of  Yarebeleri village of Ron Taluk Dist:Gadag.  They had sowed Groundnut for the year 2002-03 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.  Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-16 RTCs are not disputed by the Ops.

          11. Op No.1, 3 & 4  have not filed written version and denied the case of the complainants. Even though, Op No.1 appeared through counsel but not chosen to file written version within a statutory period. However, Op No.1 challenged the judgment in an appeal No.755/16 before Karnataka State Consumer Disputer Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, the same is came to be allowed and remanded for fresh disposal. After remand the case, in pursuance of service of notice KVK, Adv. filed power for OP no.1 on 12.03.2021, but not chosen to written version. Subsequently, when case posted for arguments, KVK, Adv. for Op No.1 filed  I.A.No.X, on 20.01.2023, affidavit of B.R.Praveen Kumar and documents. I.A. No.X is came to be dismissed as Op filed written version after more than 13 years. So, written version Op No.1, affidavit and documents are taken on record and not consider.   So, the oral and documentary evidence of complainants is remained unchallenged and there is no reasons to disbelieve the case of the complainants. Thus, complainants proved that, Ops have committed the deficiency of service and failed to settle the claim.

12. 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)

13.     For the above, the complainants have proved that OPs have committed deficiency of service in respect Groundnut crop for the Kharif season 2002-03 and they are entitled for the relief.   So, far as quantum of compensation is concerned, complainants are claiming entire assured amount. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble State Commission passed Judgment in Appeal Nos. 1155/2021 to 1159/2021 in Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., V/s Mallikarjuna S/o Shankarappa Barke0ra and others. Wherein, the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore  held in para-7 as under:-

          “As per the criteria the farmer should inform the loss occurred in their fields within 48 hours of the incident to the Department of agriculture or else to the insurance company.  Having noted that the department not educated the farmers as per the scheme, premium said to have been paid by the farmers to the insurance company and also noted that during 2016-17, Op No.2 declared the said villages are hit by draught and it is bounden duty of Ops to visit fields for crop cutting experiments.  Further it is noted loss assessors would be appointed by the insurance company for assessment of loss due to operations of localized risks.  The loss has to be assessed jointly by the loss assessor appointed by the insurer, block level agriculture officer and the concerned farmer.  Though there is no cogent evidence produced regarding loss of crop during the year 2016-17, however, it is the stand of the complainant that crop loss has fixed at 75% of the sum assured.  We do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed.  However, we reduce the rate of interest awarded from 18% to 6%.  Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission”.

          Further, (2018) CJ 540 (N.C) in Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., V/s Kisan Parasram Rathod.  Wherein, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, held as under:-

          “Insurance-Agricultural Insurance – Deficiency in service on part of Insurance Company on account of its failure to pay to Complainants full amount of compensation, due to them under Agriculture Crop Insurance scheme, launched by Government of India – Amount of compensation modified by State Commission vide impugned order-Regard being had to balance paltry amounts determined by State Commission, it would be travesty of justice to interfere in these cases and subject poor farmers to unwarranted harassment by making them travel all the way from a far flung area in Maharashtra and defend the award-Travel and allied expenses which would be many times more than total amount of compensation payable under a Social security Scheme-Revision petitions dismissed.”

          On careful reading of the above decisions, circumstance and ratio of the above decisions are aptly applicable with the case on hand. 

14. Therefore, the complainants are entitled 75% of the assured amount. Complainants are claiming interest at the rate of 18 % p.a. it is on the higher sider.  So, as per rate of interest in the Nationalized Bank it is proper to award interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization. Complainants have suffered mental agony, even though they paid the premium for their lands they did not receive the claim due to the fault of Op No.1. Rs.10,000/- to each complainant towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- to each complainant towards cost of  litigation.  Accordingly, we answer point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 in the partly affirmative.

          15.    POINT NO. 3: In the result, we pass the following:

//O R D E R//

              The complaint filed by complainants
U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is partly allowed against Op No.1 and dismissed against Op No.2 to 4.

LRs of complainant No.1,6,7,9,10,11,14,15 and other complainants are entitled 75% of the assured amount from OP No.1 as shown below.   

Further, complainants are entitled interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization.

Further, the complainants are entitled for Rs.10,000/- each towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- each towards cost of litigation.

Op No.1 is directed to pay the said amount to the complainants within two months from the date of this order.

Office is directed to send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

            (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this 24^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 : Vinodraddi Muttaraddi Gotagi

PW-2 : Chucrappa Ramappa Konnur,

PW-3 : Manjunath Mahabaleppa Meti

PW-4 : Hanamappa Balappa Kelur

PW-5 : Shankrappa Krishnaraddi Gotagi

PW-6 : Chandrashekhar Shankarao Kulkarni

PW-7 : Hanamappa Ramappa Keri

PW-8 : Suresh  S/o Dyamappa Kambali

PW-9 : Vinayak S/o Yallappa Keri

PW-10:Shivarudrayya S/o Panchakshrayya Hiremath

PW-11: Shivarudrayya S/o Panchakshrayya Hiremath

PW-12: Basavaraj S/o Mallappa Choragasti

PW-13: Ramanath Balurao Kulkarni

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1 to 16 :RTCs

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

     -NIL-

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

     -NIL-

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

              MEMBER                  PRESIDENT              WOMAN MEMBER