Complainant/s:           1. Mahadevappa S/o  Basappa Ganiger,

                                                  Age: 75 years, Occ: Agriculture,

                                             2. Ishwarappa S/o Gulappa Hanasi,

                                                  Age:49 years, Occ: Agriculture,

                                              3. Manjunath S/o Hanamappa Bendal,

                                                  Age:40 years, Occ: Agriculture,

                                               4. Vinodkumar S/o Gulappa Hanasi,

                                                  Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture,

                                               5. Vinodkumar S/o Gulappa Hanasi,

                                                  Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture,

                                                All R/o Magadi,  Shirahatti Taluk,

                                               Dist: Gadag.

                                                (Rep. by Sri.P.S. Dharmayat, Advocate)   

                                                          V/s

ORDER

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

            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 and Bengalgram crops in 2016-17 in their respective lands 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 and Bengalgram crops in 2016-17 Rabi season in their respective lands bearing sy No.254/5B measuring 10-00 Acres, sy. No.254/5B measuring 10-00 Acres, sy.No.197/2 measuring 4-36 Acres, sy.No.203/2 measuring 6-05 Acres. Sy.No.309/1A measuring 3-25 Acres and sy.No.197/2 measuring 4-35 Acres situated at Magadi village, Laxmeshwar Hobli, Shirahatti Taluk and insured with AIC for the yield and paid the premium amount of Rs.5,042-18  through the Nodal Banks in 2016-17 under PMFB for a sum assured amount of Rs.3,35,830-70, the Rabi crop failed due to shortfall of rain. The complainants are the non-loanee farmers.  The crop of the complainants is good and healthy and was growing well.  The year 2016-17 was hit by draughts, because of lack of rainfall, the whole crops of the complainants were ruined and complainants 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 complainants have 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 complainants have not received the compensation amount till today.  The other farmers of their village have received the crop insurance amount except the complainants.  The complainants approached the OPs personally, but it went in vain.  Therefore, the complainants got issued legal notice on 16.03.2019 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 16.03.2019 when the complainants got issued legal notice.   Hence there is deficiency in service and prayed to order the OPs to pay Rs.3,35,830-70 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.1 & 3 filed written version and but, OP No.2 failed to file written version. 

                                     The brief facts of the Written Version of OP No.1:-

            5.         OP No.1 stated that the above complaint is not maintainable both in law and also on facts. The Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana is being implemented in the country under the orders of Government of India vide ref: No.13015/03/2016/credit II dated 23.02.2016 of the Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and cooperation, New Delhi w.e.f., 07.10.2016.  It is further submitted that, the State Level Coordination Committee on Crop Insurance (SLCCCI) presently overseeing implementation of NAIS and NCIP may be authorized to oversee implementation of PMFBY.  It is submitted that, the scheme operates on the basis of “Area Approach” i.e., defined Areas of each notified crop for widespread calamities and insurance unit is village/village panchayat level, to be decided by the State/UT Government.  Yield date will be furnished to insurance company by State Government/UT, in accordance with the cut-off dates fixed and crops and areas notified, based on total number of CCEs being conducted.  Insurance company should be given complete access to co-witness the CCEs, as also the digital images of the CCEs and relevant data in the requisite format by the State Government.  It is further submitted that, if “Actual yield” per hectare of insured crop for the insurance unit in insured season, falls short of specified “Threshold Yield”, all insured farmers growing that crop in the defined area are deemed to have suffered shortfall in yield of similar magnitude.     

            Claim shall be calculated as per the following formula:

            (Threshold Yield – Actual Yield) X Sum insured

Threshold Yield

It is further submitted that, the complainants have demanded for claim settlement in respect of Jowar (Irri) and Bengalgram crops pertaining to Lakshmeswar Hobli, Lakshmeswar Taluk, Gadag District under Rabi 2016-17.  It is further submitted that, this OP has already settled the eligible claim vide NEFT on 24.06.2019.  This OP has rightly paid the claim under the Government Scheme to insured which is eligible claim amount as per the terms and conditions of the scheme.  Claims can be settled only after receiving the yield data from the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of Karnataka and after the claims processing is initiated by the Government.  Accordingly, this OP settled the claim and calculated the compensation as per the Data provided by the Directorate of Economics and Statistics as prescribed under PMFBY.     Therefore, this OP has not committed any deficiency in service and complainants are hiding the material facts and fraudulently claiming the undue amount and hence, prays to dismiss the complaint.

            6.         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 eligible farmers have received an amount of Rs.154.34 Crores in 2016-17 Rabi Season.  As per the guidelines, the complainants are not eligible to claim the insurance amount.  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 OPs3 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.

            8.         The complainant No.4 filed Chief affidavit along with 21 documents.  On the other hand, the Manager of OP No.4 filed the Chief Affidavits and 04 documents behalf of OPs. 

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

      10.                   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

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

12.       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 and Bengalgram for Rabi season in the PMFBY which is Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme. The Complainant/s on good faith and for protection of their crop as per publications and advice of OPs insured their crop irrigated Jowar and Bengalgram under Magadi village, Lakshmeswar Hobli and Taluk and paid the premium of Rs.5,042-18  with OP No.1 and obtained receipt and Sum Assured was Rs.3,35,830-70.  In this year, Complainant/s experienced less rain and suffered loss, but OP No.1 deposited less amount in the Complainant/s account by wrong calculation after filing this complaint before this Forum. OP No.1 deposited only 1,330-41 and Rs.12,505-60 in all Rs13,836-01.  Hence, Complainant/s submits that they have not got the sum assured from the OPs. On the other hand, OP No.1 submits that as per the Scheme Condition, the payout is calculated and deposit the amount in the respective account of the Complainant/s and submits that they have received the report from Karnataka State Natural Disaster Monitoring Centre and photocopy of the same had been produced before the Forum and submits that they have deposited the payout amount to the Complainant/s account and they are not responsible any loss or the Company had not made any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the Government, they have paid the insurance amount and prayed to dismiss the case. 

13.       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. 

14.       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.  It is pertinent to note that, the agriculture department filed a document stating that, there is no shortfall in that area and the payment has been made by the insurance company as per the report of agriculture department.  The issue of irrigated and non-irrigated land is a major dispute.  The complainants submit that, their lands are non-irrigated lands but, the insurance company paid the fewer amounts to them.  However, it is the duty of the complainants also to look-after the premium they paid and the policy issued to them as to whether the OPs have received the proper amount and the details of the property has been correctly mentioned or not in premium paid receipts.  The document which has been produced by the complainant says that, they have paid the premium amount towards irrigated lands.  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.

             15.        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.

            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 19^th day of August-2021)

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

                  MEMBER                                              PRESIDENT