Karnataka

Gadag

CC/109/2019

Sharanabasappa. B. Jutlad - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Person-In-Charge, AIC of India and Others - Opp.Party(s)

P.S.Dharmayat

26 Feb 2021

ORDER

-::O R D E R::-

 

BY: SMT.C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR, PRESIDENT.

 

1.      The complainant has filed this complaint claiming direction to the OPs to pay the crop insurance amount of Rs.1,09,758.60 along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a, Rs.1,00,000/- compensation towards mental agony, loss, damage with cost and such other relief.

 

-::Brief facts of the case are as under::-

2.      The case of the complainant is that, the complainant is  a permanent resident of Naregal village, Ron Taluk and District Gadag, who is the loanee farmer has insured his Jowar crop which was grown in his land with OP No.1 under FASAL BHEEMA YOJANA for 2016-17 Rabi season.  He has sowed Jowar crop in 2016-17 in his land bearing sy. No.998/3 measuring 8-30 Acres situated at Naregal village and insured with OP No.1 for the yield and paid the total premium amount of Rs.1,646-38 in 2016-17 under PMFBY for a sum assured amount of Rs.1,09,758.60.  The said crop was good and healthy and the complainant 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 complainant is the loanee farmer.  The complainant approached the OPs and requested to release the crop insurance, but it went in vain, which shows the deficiency in service.  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 complainant perceived that none of the OPs have come to aid with this matter.       The complainant his crop due to lack of rain and lost their hard earned money in investing the faulty scheme of the OPs. Therefore, the complainant got issued legal notice to the OPs on 20.04.2019 calling upon them to pay the compensation, the OP No.1 falsely replied the notice, but remaining failed to reply the notice.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 20.04.2019 when the complainant issued notice to the OPs.   Hence there is a deficiency in service and prayed to order the OPs to pay the total loss and damages of the crop under the scheme with interest @ 18% p.m, Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, loss and damages with costs of the proceedings and such other reliefs.

3.      Registered the complaint and notice was ordered as such OPs present before the Forum and filed their written version. 

Written Version of the OP No.1

1. OP No.1 stated that the above complaint is not maintainable both in law and also on facts as there is no deficiency of service on their part.  The Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana is being implemented in the country under the orders of Government of India with an objective to provide insurance coverage and financial support to the farmers in the event of failure of any of the notified crop as a result of natural calamities.  The time lines for coverage, submission of yield data, price data etc., shall be decided by the SLCCI strictly keeping in mind the onset of monsoon, sowing period, crop cycle as per the operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bheema Yojana, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers welfare book mentioned.  Once the yield data is received from the State/UT Government as per the prescribed cut-off dates, claims will be processed, approved and settled by IA.  If the Actual Yield per hectare of the insured crop for the defined (on the basis of requisite number of crop cutting experiments (CCEs)) in the insured season, falls short of the specified that crop in the defined area deemed to have suffered shortfall in their yield. 

            Claim shall be calculated as per the following formula:

            Claim pay-outs= (Shortfall in Yield X Sum insured of the farmer

     Threshold Yield)

 

It is further submitted that, threshold yield and actual yield is to be entered by State Government in SAMRAKSHANE portal and this OP has only access to download the same and based on the entry in thesaidportalifaclaimhasbeenregisteredin that case it would be treated as admissible or inadmissible. The CCE yield is higher than the threshold yield, hence there is no crop loss of the farmer and hence, no claim is reflected in the portal.The final claim is calculated as per the term sheet and the same is mentioned in the SAMRAKSHANE Portal which is maintained by the State Government.The claims are settled as per the norms of PMFBY/WBCISoperationalguidelinesofCentralGovernmentforwhichall insurance companies are adhere to the policy and no further claims are admissible after the settlement.The complainant has not produced any documents before this Forum that, the concerned authorities have declared the above said area is hit by drought and not produced any documents to show that, he has suffered heavy loss due to improper yielding of crops in his lands.As per the data, there is no shortfall in the area claimed by the complainant and claims that the complainant is hiding the material facts and fraudulently claiming the undue amount and prays to dismiss the complaint.

Written Version of the OP No.2 and 3

1. The OP No.2 and 3 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. 
2. It is further submitted that, the contents of para 2 and 3 are false and the same is to be proved by the complainant.
3. The contents of para 4 are and the same is to be proved by the complainant to show that, they have grown the Jowar crop under rain fed and paid the premium for the same. 
4. The complainant is not the consumers of these OPs and there is no contract of agreement between the complainant and these OPs that of seller and the buyer.  These OPs made as parties unnecessarily and therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of these OPs and hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint. 

Written Version of the OP No.4 and 5

1. The OP No.4 and 5 contended that Complaint of complainant is not maintainable both in law and also on facts, the same is imaginary, false and the same is barred by limitation, the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. 
2. It is submitted that, the complainant has paid the crop insurance premium amount for Jowar crop for the 2016-17 Rabi season under loanee farmer and the same has been sent to OP No.1 within time limit i.e., on 21.12.2017 through these OPs and the same is informed to the complainant.    
3. It is further submitted that, this OP No.4 and 5 are only the agents between the farmers and the Insurance company and the scope of this OP is very limited one. 
4. It is further submitted that, the duty of these OPs have to collect the applications/proposal forms and to collect the required premium as per the guidelines and forward the same to Insurance company.  There is a separate machinery to assess the percentage of failure of the respective crop and fixing of the percentage and quantum of compensation to be payable to the respective farmers.  These OPs are neither concerned to the facts of fixing the premium and assessing the loss nor fixing of the compensation to be payable to the farmers.  Therefore, the question of deficiency of service on the part of these OPs does not arise and hence, the complaint filed by the complaints deserves to be dismissed.  

4.  The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence with 09   documents, the manager of OP No.4 filed their respective affidavit evidence with 09 documents which are as follows:

 

COMPLAINANT FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

	Particulars of Documents	Date of Document
	R of R
	View Proposal
C-3	Legal Notice
C-4 to 7	Postal Acknowledgements
C-8	Letter regarding CCE
C-9	Rainfall report

 

          OPs FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

	Particulars of Documents	Date of Document
	Operational Guidelines
	Government order in Kru.E/110/Kra Kai U/2016, Bangalore
	Actual Yield data
	Actual Yield data
	Actual Yield data
	Actual Yield data
	Actual Yield data(Rabi)
	Letter from Department of Agriculture, Co-operation and Farmers Welfare
	Claim settled details

5.      On pursuance of the materials, placed by the complainant and OPs, the following points arises for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant have proved the deficiency in service

on the part of the OPs as averred in the complaint?

 

2. Whether the complainant are entitled to any relief?
3. What Order?

6.   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

             7.  POINT NO.1 AND 2:  Both the points are inter-linked and identical. Hence we proceed both the points together.

 8.        The Complainant filed this Complaint against the OPs for claiming crop insurance 2016-17 on failure of weather.

 9.        The Complainant/s submits that they have insured their crops with OP’s in the year 2016-17 for the Jowar crop which was grown in his land with OP No.1 under FASAL BHEEMA YOJANA for 2016-17 Rabi season.  He has sowed Jowar crop in 2016-17 in his land bearing sy. No.998/3 measuring 8-30 Acres situated at Naregal village and insured with OP No.1 for the yield and paid the total premium amount of Rs.1,646-38 in 2016-17 under PMFBY for a sum assured amount of Rs.1,09,758.60.    In this year, Complainant/s experienced less rain and suffered loss, but OPs failed to deposit the insurance amount in the Complainant/s account.  Meantime, the Complainant/s approached OPs, but OPs failed to deposit the claim amount.  Hence, Complainant/s submits that they have not got the claim amount from the OPs. On the other hand, OP No.1 submits that as per the Scheme Conditions, the calculation is on the formula of threshold yield i.e., mainly based on the CCE and submits that, this complainant is not entitled for the claim as reflected in the SAMRAKSHANA Portal that the CCE yield is higher than the threshold yield and in  Rsbi 2016-2017 PMFBY and WBCIS is governed by the term sheet designed by the State Government which has triggers of deficit rainfall, dry days and excess rainfall etc.

10. OP No.2 and 3 submits that, complainant is not the consumers and there is no contract of agreement between the complainant and these OPs that of seller and the buyer.  These OPs have made a parties unnecessarily and therefore, there is no deficiency of service on their part.

11. OP No.4 and 5 submits that, they have acted as the mediators between the OP No.1 and complainant and after receiving the premium amount, entire total premium amount had been transferred to OP No.1. 

12.       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.  As per the terms and conditions placed before us by OP No.1 as Ex.OP-1 and 2 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.  Anyhow, in the year 2016-17, the OP No.2 himself declared that, the above said village is 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.  OP No.2 was not present before the Forum to say what are the steps they are taken for safeguarding the farmers and on what basis the OP No.1 transferred the amount to the complainant/s of Rs. 43,344-50 on 24.06.2019.  It is clear that, here also both the OPs made deficiency on their part.  As per the Rules And Regulations issued by the Govt. of Karnataka produced by the OP No.1, it has been marked as Ex.OP-2.  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 PÀæªÀĪÁV ¸É¥ÀÖA§gï ºÁUÀÆ CPÉÆÖçgï 2017gÀ CAvÀåzÉƼÀUÉ EvÀåxÀð¥Àr¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. 

 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 and also filed the documents pertaining to the yield data of 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, as per that data they calculated the claim. The said report is said to be issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi on 09.01.2019.  The said crop cutting experiment and yield data is mentioned in the document, but OP failed to produce the original document issued by the above said Department.  The document which has been produced by OP No.1 is not attested by the OP.    The pay-out calculated by the OP No.3 is less than the premium they received from the Complainant/s During the argument, the learned counsel for the complainant submits that, these areas are hit by the draught and the same has been confirmed by the OP No.2 itself.  The laymen says that without proper foundation building cannot be constructed like this only if the farmers does not get proper rainfall it is difficult to get good yielding.

13.       Of course complainant/s has also not produced any documents to show that he has 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, Forum came to the conclusion that the claim is to be fixed on non-standard basis that, OP No.1 has to pay half of the Sum Assured for their unfair trade practice.  Since OP No.3 is also liable to pay for mental agony and harassment and further litigation charges.  Hence, we answer Point No.1 in Affirmative & Point No.2 is in Partly Affirmative.

14.  POINT NO. 3: In view of our findings on the above points, the complaint filed by the complainant is 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 to 3.

            2.   The OP No.1 is directed to pay half 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.2 and 3 are 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.4 and 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 26^th day of February- 2021)

 

 

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

   MEMBER                                            PRESIDENT