Complainant/s:           1. Fakirappa S/o Channabasappa                                                       Mulgund, Age: 36 years, Occ: Agriculture,

                                                R/o Magadi, Shirahatti Taluk, Dist: Gadag.

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

                                                          V/s

ORDER

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SRI. B.S. KERTI, 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 complainant, states that they had sowed Jowar crop in 2016-17 in his land and insured for the Rabi yield and paid the premium through the Nodal Banks.

            3.    The averments of the complaint in brief are:

       That the complainants have sowed the Jowar crop in 2016-17 Rabi season in his land bearing sy No.85/6 measuring 2-26 Acres situated at Magadi village, Laxmeshwar Hobli, Shirahatti Taluk and insured with AIC for the yield and paid the premium amount of Rs.578-88  through the Nodal Banks in 2016-17 under PMFB for a sum assured amount of Rs.38,592-00, the Rabi crop failed due to shortfall of rain. The complainant is the non-loanee farmer.  The crop of the complainant is good and healthy and was growing well.  The year 2016-17 was hit by draughts, because of lack of rainfall, the whole crop of the complainant was ruined and complainant 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 complainant has 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 complainant has not received the compensation amount till today.  The complainant approached the OPs personally, but it went in vain.  Therefore, the complainant got issued legal notice on 05.02.2019 to the OPs calling upon them to pay the compensation, but the OPs failed to compensate or to give reply for the same.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 30.04.2019 when the complainant got issued legal notice.   Hence there is deficiency in service and prayed to order the OPs to pay total loss and damages of the crop insurance amount with interest and Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and hardship with court expenses.

            4.   In pursuance of the notice issued by this Forum, the OPs appeared through counsel. OP No.2 to 5 filed their written version but, OP No.1 failed to file written version. 

            5.         The brief facts of the Written Version of 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 complainants.
3. These OPs have not received any premium amount from the complainants and has not given any assurance amount to the farmers and the same is to be proved by the complainants.      
4. The complainant is not the consumer of these OPs and there is no contract of agreement between the complainant and these OPs that of seller and the buyer.  It is further submitted that, insurance amount will not sanction to all the farmers, the selected areas will receive the insurance amount as per the CCE reports.  The compensation is depends upon the CCE report on the basis of randomly selected crops.  As per the guidelines, the complainant is not eligible to claim the insurance amount and if the Commission comes to the conclusion that, the complainant is entitled for any compensation, the other OPs are held liable to pay the same.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of these OPs and hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint.

OP No.4 and 5 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 true that, the complainants have insured the crop during 2016-17 Rabi for PMFBY Scheme by paying premium through this OP.  By virtue of directions issued by the Agricultural General Insurance Company, Bangalore, these OPs forwarded premium amount through RTGS to AIC in and the same is already informed to the complainant.  These OPs are only a collecting agent and mediator between the farmers and AIC and the scope of responsibility of these OPs is very limited one.  It is the duty of OP-4 to receive the application/proposal forms and to collect the required premium as per the guidelines of AIC and to forward the same to AIC and whatever the claim amount received from the AIC will be credited to the respective farmers, savings Bank Account.  It is further submitted that, there is separate machinery to assess the percentage of failure of 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 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.

            7.         The complainant and OPs failed to filed their Chief affidavit and no documents have been marked. 

          8.      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?

       9.        Our findings to the above points are:-

                  Point No. 1:  Negative

                  Point No. 2:  Negative

                  Point No. 3:  As per the final Order.

R E A S O N S

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

11.       The Complainant/s filed this Complaint against the Ops for claiming crop insurance 2016-17 on failure of weather. The Complainant/s submits that they have insured their crops with OP’s in the year 2016-17 for the crop of Jowar for Rabi season in the PMFBY which is a Crop Insurance Scheme. The Complainant on good faith and for protection of his crop as per publications and advice of OPs insured his Jowar crop under Magadi village, Lakshmeswar Hobli and Taluk and paid the premium of Rs.578-88 through the Nodal Banks in 2016-17 under PMFB for a sum assured amount of Rs.38,592-00.  In this year, Complainant experienced less rain and suffered loss, but OP No.1 not deposited insurance amount in the Complainant account.  Hence, Complainant/s submits that they have not got the sum assured from the OPs.  

12.       OP No.4 and 5 submits that, they have acted as a mediator between the OP No.1 and complainants and after receiving the premium amount, entire total premium amount had been transferred to OP No.1 and furnished the statement of account pertains to the complainant which shows that, the payment has been made through NEFT towards the insurance amount.

13.       On-going through the records on file, it is an undisputed fact that complainant has insured his crop with OP No.1 and it is also undisputed fact that OP No.1 has received the premium amount from the complainant.  It is pertinent to note that, the complainant has not filed the documents stating that, there is a shortfall in that area and the payment has not been made by the insurance company as per the report of agriculture department.  The complainant submits that, their lands are non-irrigated land.  However, it is the duty of the complainant also to furnish the documents pertaining to the  shortfall  of   yield for the 2016-17 Rabi season and has suffered

 loss.  The documents which have been produced by the complainant says that, they have paid the premium amount towards the crop insurance, but failed to prove that, he has suffered loss due to failure of crop by producing documents with respect to shortfall of yield for the particular season and the OPs have failed to pay the compensation.  The burden is on the complainant to prove that, he has suffered loss due to shortfall of yield and less rain, but the complainant failed to do so.  Such being the case, the complainant has failed to prove that, the OPs have committed deficiency in service.  Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 and 2 in Negative.

             14.        POINT NO. 3: In view of our findings on the above points, we pass the following: 

//O R D E R//

1.  The above Complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

            2.  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