Karnataka

Gadag

CC/45/2019

Basavannappa K. Lakkundi and Others - Complainant(s)

Versus

The State Of Karnataka, Rep by DC Gadag and Others - Opp.Party(s)

B.V.Neerloti

20 Feb 2021

ORDER

-::O R D E R::-

 

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

 

1.      The complainants have filed this complaint claiming direction to the OPs to pay the crop insurance amount of Rs.5,27,598/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a, Rs.10,000/- each compensation towards mental agony and such other relief.

 

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

2.      The case of the complainants is that, the complainants are the permanent residents of Lakkundi village, Taluk and District Gadag have insured their Onion and Red Chilli crops which were grown in their lands with OP No.2 under FASAL BHEEMA YOJANA for 2016-17 Khariff season as mentioned below:

Sl.No.	Name	Sy. Nos.	Extent	Premium paid	Insured amount	Crop
01	Basavanneppa Lakkundi	269/1	09-18	11,574/-	2,31,487/-	Onion & Red Chilli
02	Gangadhara V. Lakkundi	218/B	03-00	2,894/-	57,871/-	Onion & Red Chilli
03	Shaila V. Soppina	207/B	03-31	3,621/-	72,420/-	Onion & Red Chilli
04	Eramma B. Soppina	16/2	02-30	3,115/-	62,300/-	Onion & Red Chilli
05	Basavakumara S. Kallimath	61/2	03-16	3,732/-	74,640/-	Onion & Red Chilli
06	Shivanand S. Bilekudari	23/4, 23/1K/2	01-15 01-25	1,444/-	28,880/-	Onion & Red Chilli
Total =					5,27,598/-

 

The complainants have obtained the receipts for having paid the premium amount with the OP No.3 through OP No.2 as they are the loanee farmers under OP No.2.  But the OP No.3 has not paid the insurance amount to the complainants even though the above said crop failed due to shortfall of rain during the Khariff season 2016-17 and also failed to give suitable reasons.  The OP No.2 has sent DD dated 11.08.2016 for Rs.79,962-85 to OP No.3 towards crop insurance premium amount.  The above complainants have obtained the crop loan from OP No.2 and paid the insurance premium amount on the same.  The OP No.1 has not conducted the crop harvesting experiment in the lands of the complainant as to what crop has been raised in the lands of the complainants as fixed by the Government by giving notice to them, which is a deficiency of service.     The complainants approached the OPs and enquired about non-releasing of the insurance amount to them, but they failed to reply the same, which is a negligent act and deficiency of service.  The cause of action for these complaint arose on when the complainants have issued legal notice on 18.02.2019 and 19.02.2019 for that, the OPs have not given reply, which caused the complainants to sustain mental agony and financial loss.  Hence, the complainants have restrained to file these complaint against the OPs praying to pay Rs.5,27,598-00/- with interest at the rate of 18% towards crop insurance amount, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and financial loss with cost of the proceedings.

3.      Registered the complaint and notice was ordered as such OP No.2 and 3 present before the Forum.  In spite of service of notice, OP No.1 remained absent.  OP No.3 did not file written version in spite of several opportunities, hence taken as not filed.  OP No.2 filed written version the contents are as follows.

Written Version of the OP No.1

1. The OP No.1 contended that Complaint of complainants 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, some of the contents in para 1 are true, the same is to be proved by the complainants.
3. The contents of para 2 and 3 are false and the complainants have to prove that, they have grown the onion crop under rain fed and paid the premium for the same. 
4. The complainants are not the consumers and there is no contract of agreement between the complainants and this OP that of seller and the buyer.  This OP has made a party unnecessarily and therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of this OP and hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint. 

Written Version of the OP No.2

1. The OP No.2 contended that Complaint of complainants 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 complainants have paid the crop insurance premium amount for Onion and Red Chilli crops for the 2016-17 Khariff season under loanee farmer and the same has been sent to GIC within time limit i.e., on 11.08.2016 through DD No.759014 for a total premium amount of Rs.79,962-85, the same is informed to the complainants through reply dated 25.02.2019.    
3. It is further submitted that, the OP No.2 is only an agent between the farmers and the GIC and the scope of this OP is very limited one. 
4. It is further submitted that, the duty of this OP is to collect the applications/proposal forms and to collect the required premium as per the guidelines of the GIC and forward the same to GIC.  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.  This OP is 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 this OP does not arise and hence, the complaint filed by the complaints deserves to be dismissed.  

 

Written Version of the OP No.3

1. OP No.3 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 complainants 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 complainants and claims that the complainants are hiding the material facts and fraudulently claiming the undue amount and prays to dismiss the complaint.

4.  The complainant No.1 has filed his affidavit evidence with 49   documents behalf of complainants, the Manager of OP No.2 and Executive of OP No.3 filed their respective affidavit evidence with 04 documents which are as follows:

COMPLAINANTS FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

	Particulars of Documents	Date of Document
C-1	List of farmers given by OP No.2
C-2	Statement of Account of complainant No.1	01.01.2016 to 29.11.2018
C-3	R of R of complainant No.1	22.03.2012 to 01.03.2019
C-4	Statement of Account of complainant No.2	01.01.2016 to 29.11.2018
C-5	R of R of complainant No.2
C-6	Statement of Account of complainant No.3	01.01.2016 to 29.11.2018
C-7	R of R of complainant No.3	28.07.2014 to 21.08.2017
C-8	Statement of Account of complainant No.4	01.01.2016 to 29.11.2018
C-9	Statement of Account of complainant No.5	01.01.2015 to 10.09.2018
C-10	R of R of complainant No.5	13.01.2016
C-11	Statement of Account of complainant No.6	01.01.2016 to 29.11.2018
C-12	R of R of complainant No.6	19.11.2015 to 19.05.2018
C-13 & 14	Legal Notices	18.02.2019 & 19.02.2019
C-15 & 16	2 Postal acknowledgements
C-17 to C-20	4 Postal receipts	18.02.2019 & 19.02.20196
C-21	Reply Notice
C-22 to 37	CCE reports with letter
C-38 to 47	R of R
C-48 & 49	Proceedings regarding drought by the Government

 

          OPs FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

	Particulars of Documents	Date of Document
	Letter regarding proposal numbers of complainants
	Letter by Syndicate Bank to OP No.3 regarding sending of DD
	Demand Draft No.759014
OP-4	Authorization letter

5.      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 complaint?

 

2. Whether the complainants 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 Redchilli and Onion crops for Khariff 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 dry land bearing sy. No.269/1, measuring 09-18 Acres, sy. No.218/B, measuring 03-00 Acres, sy.No.207/B, measuring 03-31 Acres, sy.No.16/2 measuring 02-30 Acre,s sy.No.61/2 measuring 03-16 Acres, sy.No.22/4 measuring 01-15 Acres and sy.No.23/1K/2 measuring 01-25 Acres situated at Lakkundi village, Betageri Hobli, Gadag Taluk and insured the crops with Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., through OP No.2 as per the order of OP No.1 for the yield and paid the premium amount of Rs.26,380/- in 2016-17 under PMFBY for a sum assured amount of Rs.5,27,598/-.  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 OP No.1, but OP No.1 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 Khariff 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.1 submits that, complainants are not the consumers and there is no contract of agreement between the complainants and this OP that of seller and the buyer.  This OP has made a party unnecessarily and therefore, there is no deficiency of service on their part.

11. OP No.2 submits that, they have acted as a mediator between the OP No.3 and complainant and after receiving the premium amount, entire total premium amount had been transferred to OP No.3. 

13.    On-going through the records on file, it is an undisputed fact that complainant/s has insured his crops with OP No.3 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.3 received entire premium amount from the complainant/s. The disputed fact is that OPs are not paid the sum assured amount in spite of loss occurred to the complainant as per the complaint.    We have to discuss clearly about the scheme to conclude the case as per the pleadings of the complaint and OPs as stated supra.  

14.    The OP No.3 i.e., insurance Company taking  defence  that in this field, there is no  shortfall   of   yield  as  per  the  SAMRAKSHANA Portal  which  has  been  formed  by   the Government, it should be monitored by OP No.1 i.e., Deputy Commissioner and the Joint Director of Agriculture.  It is very much important to say that, the OP No.1 has not actively participated in the proceedings and not filed any written version to say that whether data in the Portal of SAMRAKSHANA is correct, to substantiate the same, they should have to place the documents before the Forum, it is the bounded duty of both OP No.1 to present before the Forum to say the truth.  The OP No.3 taken defence that the policy is only based on the CCE i.e., crop cutting experiment and actual yield and threshold yield will be calculated by taking CCE only and it is explained by them that, as per the SAMRAKSHANA there is no loss on yield.  Anyhow, complainant filed a document i.e., pertaining to the CCE which has been issued by Statistical Department, Gadag, the counsel for complainant made an IA to receive the document from the Statistical Department and summon the Statistical Officer before the Forum to depose the same in C.C.No.39/2018 and Advocate for the complainant filed certified copy of the evidence of Statistical Officer, Gadag to prove their case,.  In this evidence, the witness (Statistical Officer) admitted some of the fact that, he received the report from their representative who made the CCE on the field and in question No.5 to 7, the answer given by the Statistical Officer is not acceptable and answered vaguely that they are not present in the field during the CCE.  In the CCE, this person is the witness for the same.  To this question, the Statistical Officer said that, he did not know about this matter.  Such being the fact, the CCE said to be done is not acceptable because it is not made properly as per the terms and condition of the policy. 

15.    It is clear in the policy that, the person who had made CCE should be a qualified and he should be experienced in the field.  If one made CCE by sitting in somewhere and issuedth3e same report that is the previous years CCE, then it is clear that, the OP No.1 vicariously liable for the act made by his agent.

16.    Such being the case, how the OP No.3 received the data from SAMRASKHANA portal that to be saying that there is no loss of yielding.  This document is a mirror to say that, the OPs are made some blunder mistake by filling the data.  The OP No.1 had taken action against the officer and the agent who made this mistake. 

17.    Anyhow, complainant also failed to produce the document stating that, the entire crop is vanished and it is also a bounded duty of the complainant also to produce the document is said that they sow the particular crop during 2016-17(Crop Yielding Certificate) from the concerned authority and in the RTC produced by the complainant there is no such crop is mentioned in the RTC.  While arguing the matter, the learned counsel for complainant submits that, the Revenue Department were not changed the crop after informing the same to the concerned authority and they leave the column of the crop as it is what it is in previous years.  Hence, the RTC is not at all changed.    Anyhow,   the   Forum   comes to the conclusion that, the claim of the complainant is to be settled in a nonstandard basis.  Hence, we answer Point No.1 in Affirmative and Point No.2 in partly Affirmative. 

          18.  POINT NO. 3: In view of our findings on the above points, the complaints filed by the complainants are 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 and 3.

           2.   The OP No.3 is directed to pay 75% of the Sum Assured to Complainant/s within one month, failing which OP No.3 is liable to pay 18% interest from the date of filing this complaint till realization.

3.  OP No.1 is liable to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant/s towards compensation.  Further, OP No.3 is directed to pay litigation charges of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant/s.

4.  Complaint against OP No.2 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 20^th day of February-2021)

 

 

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

    MEMBER                                                     PRESIDENT