V/s

JUDGEMENT

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SRI. RAJU.N.METRI,MEMBER

        The complainants have filed the complaint U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for recovery of crop insurance amount of Rs.3,63,825/- 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 Sown Onion for the year 2003-04 in Kharif season and paid the premium amount as shown in the schedule through OP No.2. 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 their counsel. OP No.3 appeared in person. Op No.4 appeared through DGP and Op No.2 remained absent. Op No.1, 3 and 4 filed written version. 

          4.       The brief facts of written version filed by OP No.1 are as under:

          OP No.1 denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crop Onion during the year 2003-04 for Kharif season.   As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall. Hence, claim is not settled.  So, there is no deficiency of service. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

5. The brief facts of  written version filed by OP No.3 are as under:

          OP No.3 have denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crop during the Rabi season 2003-04.  OP No.3 stated that, they are acting as collecting agent and mediator between the complainants and OP No.1, they have received the proposal forms, premium amount and submitted to OP No.1.  They are not responsible and there is no deficiency of service committed by OP No.3. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          6. The brief facts of  written version filed by OP No.4 are as under:

          OP No.4 denied the various allegations and contended that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crop during the Kharif season 2003-04 Complainants are not a consumer of OP-4, this Op has only supervising power over the other Ops.  So, there is no deficiency of service. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          7. After hearing, my predecessor passed a common judgment on 30.09.2008, complaint is partly allowed and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.1633/2009 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes    Redressal   Commission,   Bengaluru,   the   same   came  to  be allowed  on 27.08.2009 and remanded for fresh disposal.

          8. After hearing, my predecessor passed a common  judgment on 29.01.2010, complaint is partly allowed and awarded compensation.  OP No.1 has challenged the judgment in Appeal No.1359/2010 before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes    Redressal   Commission,   Bengaluru,   the   same   came  to  be allowed  on 30.08.2010 and remanded for fresh disposal.

           9. After receipt of the records, notices were issued to the parties. Notices were served on the complainant No. 1 to 4, 6 to 13, 15 and Op No.1 to 4. Complainant No.1,3,6,8 &11 are reported as dead.  Complainant No.3,6, 8 & 11 and their LRs are  brought on record. No LRs of complainant No.1 is not brought on record.  Complainant No.4, 2, 5, 7, 9,10, 13, 12 3(b), 6(a), 8(b), 11(b)and 14 have filed their affidavits and examined as PW-1 to PW-13 and documents were marked the  as
Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-36.  KVK, Adv. filed affidavit of Sri.Praveen Kumar. B.R. for OP No.1 and examined as RW-1 and documents were got marked as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-7. DGP appeared for Op No.4 and filed the written version. Op. No.2 to 4 have not chosen to file their affidavit evidence.

10.     Heard, the arguments on both sides.

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

1. Whether the complainants prove that, there is a deficiency of  service committed by the Ops?

2. Whether the complainants prove that, they are          

entitled for the relief?

3. What Order?

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

               Point No. 1:  Negative.

               Point No. 2:  Negative

               Point No. 3:  As per the final Order

R E A S O N S

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

            14.   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 the complaint. PW-1 to  PW-13 have stated that,  complainants are resident of  Yarebeleri village of Ron Taluk Dist:Gadag.  They had Sown Onion for the year 2003-04 in Kharif season and paid the premium amount as shown in the schedule through OP No.2. 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. 

          15.     RW-1 has filed affidavit and reiterated the contents of the written version filed by OP No.1.  RW-1 has stated that, complainants have claimed for the loss of their crop Onion during the year 2003-04 for Kharif season.   As per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics, there was no shortfall. Hence, claim is not settled.  So, there is no deficiency of service.

16. Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-36 RTCs and other are documents are not disputed by the Ops. In written version  OP No.1 specifically stated that, there was no shortfall as per the yield data furnished by the Director of Economics and Statistics for crops.  So, there is no deficiency of service committed by the OP No.1. As per Assessed yield in respect of Kharif season 2003-04 issued by statistical department for Onion of Naregal Hobli, Threshold yield is 2178 KG/per Hect, Assessed yield is 4548 and shortfall is NIL Therefore, Assessed yield is more than threshold yield. Hence, the shortfall is NIL. Ex.Op-1 to Ex.Op-7 clearly goes to show that, there is no shortfall as per contention taken in written version.

17.     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)

18. Even no cause of action arose to file this complaint as there is no deficiency of service committed by Ops. Complainants claiming compensation for the loss of crops for the year 2003-04 and complaint filed after 4 years in the year 2008. Even complaint is barred by limitation. Without proving the case with affidavit evidence and documents, complainants are not entitled the relief. Mere allegation made in the complaint without producing documentary evidence to show that there is a shortfall, they cannot be entitled the reliefs.

          19.     For the above, complainants have failed to prove that OPs have committed deficiency of service and they are entitled for the relief.   Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 and 2 in the Negative.         

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

//O R D E R//

              The complaint filed U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is dismissed.No order as to costs.

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

            (Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this 4^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 : Karveerappa R. Shivashimpar

PW-2 : Gaviyappa Venkappa Kambali

PW-3 : Udachappa Ramappa Neeralagi

PW-4 : Basappa Kanakappa Kambali

PW-5 : Dyamanna Krishnappa Kambali

PW-6 : Vittappa Krishnareddi Gotagi

PW-7 : Yallappa Satappa Kongawad

PW-8 : Venkappa Hanamappa Kambali

PW-9 : Basavaraj S/o Channappa Kiratageri

PW-10: Viresh S/o Ningappa Keri

PW-11: Sharnappa S/o Parasappa Halavar

PW-12: Vittappa S/o Krishnaraddi Gotagi

PW-13 : Ratanava W/o Mallappa Kareddi

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1  :Bank receipt.

Ex.C-2 : RTC

Ex.C-3 & 4:Bank receipts.

Ex.C-5 to  7:RTC’s

Ex.C-8:Bank receipt

Ex.C-9 & 10: RTC’s

Ex.C-11:Bank receipt.

Ex.C-12:Copy of form No.8A

Ex.C-13 & 14:RTCs

Ex.C-15:Bank receipt

Ex.C-16 to 18 :RTCs

Ex.C-19:Bank receipt

Ex.C-20 to 23:RTC’s

Ex.C-24 & 25:Bank receipts.

Ex.C-26:RTC

Ex.C-27:Bank receipt.

Ex.C-28:RTC

Ex.C-29:Bank receipt.

Ex.C-30 & 31:Copies of form No.8A

Ex.C-32:RTC

Ex.C-33:Bank receipt.

Ex.C-34:RTC

Ex.C-35 & 36:Bank receipt.

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

RW-1: Praveen Kumar B.R.

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

Ex.Op-1:Copy of Scheme & Guidelines.

Ex.Op-2:Circular for Kharif-2003, Instruction to Nodal Banks.

Ex.Op-3: Copy of the Govt. order Directorate of Economics and Statistics

Ex.Op-4:Copy of letter issued by Director Directorate of Economics and Statistics,      

              Bangalore to the Officer In charge General Insurance Corporation of India

              Bangalore dtd:03.02.2003.

Ex.Op-5: Copy of letter issued by Director Directorate of Economics and Statistics,      

              Bangalore to the Officer In charge General Insurance Corporation of India

              Bangalore dtd:25.03.2003.

Ex.Op-6: Copy of Rashtriya Krishi Bima Yojana, Assessed yield, 2003-04.

Ex.Cop-7: Details of Past 5 Years Assessed yield data-District/Taluka/Hoble wise.  

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

              MEMBER                  PRESIDENT            WOMAN MEMBER