State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Chief Regional Manager/ Person In ... vs 1.Nalla Pratap Reddy, on 9 January, 2024
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
F.A.No. 215 OF 2020
AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.215/2017
DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION ADILABAD,
Between:
The Chief Regional Manager/Person In-charge,
Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd.,
8th Floor, United India Towers, Basheerbagh
Hyderabad
Rep. by its Regional Manager.
......Appellant/ Opposite Party No.1
And:
1) Nalla Pratap Reddy, S/o Chinna Ramulu,
Aged 60 years., Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Village and Mandal Talamadugu,
Dist. Adilabad. .....Respondent No.1/ Complainant
2) The District Agriculture Officer,
Adilabad. .....Respondent No.2/ Opposite Party No.2
Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1: Sri Valluri Mohan
Srinivas
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 /Complainant : M/s K.R.R.
Associates
Counsel for the Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 :
Govt. Pleader for State
QUORUM :
HON'BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, I/c PRESIDENT
&
HON'BLE SRI. K. RANGA RAO, MEMBER - (JUDICIAL)
TUESDAY, THE 09th DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR
**********
Order : (PER HON'BLE SRI. K. RANGA RAO, MEMBER - JUDICIAL)
1.This appeal is filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 U/s. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying this State Commission to allow the present appeal by setting aside the impugned order dated 08.01.2020 passed in C.C. No. 215/2017, by District Commission, Adilabad.
22. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint. The Appellant is the Opposite Party No.1. Respondent No.1 is the complainant and Respondent No.2 is the Opposite Party No.2 in the C.C.
3. The succinct facts of the complaint are that the complainant is an agriculturist and he has Ac.03.05 gts. in Sy.No.54/A and Ac.03.02 gts. in Sy.No.55/A of Agriculture land at Shivar, Dorli Mandal, Talamadugu, Adilabad District. He had sown soya bean crop in June 2016 in an extent of total Acs.06.07 gts. in Sy.No.54/A and Sy.No.55/A of land in Kariff season 2016. He insured his soya bean crop under policy of Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojana Scheme (PMFBYS) and paid the premium amount of Rs.1,560/- @ Rs.260/- per acre for his Ac.06-00, for the said policy to Opposite party No.1 vide DD No.001896 on 28.07.2016 as suggested by Opposite Party No.2.
4. The complainant further submits that he invested a sum of Rs,15,000/- per acre for purchasing soya bean seeds, ploughing the agriculture land, sowing the seeds, labour charges, fertilizers and pesticides. On the whole, he invested a total sum of Rs.90,000/- for Ac.06-00 of the land. Due to cyclone/heavy rains in the month of September, the entire soya bean crop in his Ac.06- 00 of land was damaged. If his crop was not damaged due to heavy rains, he may get net income of Rs.30,000/- per acre and for Ac.06-00 a total sum of Rs.1,80,000/-. The normal yield of soya bean crop is 08-10 quintals per acre and MSP is Rs.3,050/- per quintal. Opposite Party No.1 being the insurer is liable to pay a sum of Rs.13,000/- per acre under the policy of Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojana Scheme as per the norms. He made claim for the damaged crop before Opposite Party No.1 as suggested by Opposite Party No.2, claiming an amount of Rs.78,000/- . But Opposite Party No.1 instead of paying Rs.78,000/- , paid only Rs.21,840/- for Ac.6-00 in September 2017 by way of online transfer to his account. He is entitled to the remaining amount of Rs.56,160/- for Ac.6-00 from Opposite Party No.1 but, Opposite Party No.1 is not showing any interest to settle the balance of the 3 claim amount and the same amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1. Hence, the complaint.
5. The Opposite Party No.1 filed counter/written version denying the averments/allegations mentioned in the complaint. Opposite Party No.1 submits the complainant misunderstood the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Opposite Party No.1 further submits that the Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojana is launched from the Kariff season of 2016 by Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India and the same is farmer friendly scheme and which aims at supporting sustainable production in agriculture sector by way of :
a) Providing financial support to farmers suffering crop loss/damage arising out of unforeseen events.
b) Stabilizing the income of farmers to ensure their continuance in farming.
c) Encouraging farmers to adopt innovative and modern agricultural practices.
d) Ensuring flow of credit to the agriculture sector.
Which will continue to food security, crop diversification and enhance in growth and competitiveness of agriculture sector besides protecting farmers from production risks.
6. Opposite Party No.1 further submits that farmers are deemed to have suffered localized laws and would be eligible for financial support and percentage of loss would be arrived at by requisite percentage of sample survey as decided by the joint committee of the affected area by the insurance company. The average yield of the notified crop in the insurance unit will be average yield of last 07 years excluding upto 02 declared calamity. The Actuarial Premium Rate (APR) would be charged under PMFBY by Implementing Agency (IA). The rate of insurance charges payable by the farmer will be as per the terms and the conditions. Opposite Party No.1 submits that the preliminary objection is that the complaint is not maintainable as the claims under individual assessment due to localized calamity. As per the procedure under 4 PMFBYS the crop damaged of the complainant was assessed at Rs.21,840/- and the same has been paid to the complainant online as such there is no question of further claim. Opposite Party No.1 contends that referring Ex.A1 under heading localized risks which is as under maximum payout would be in proportion to cost of inputs, incurred upto the occurrence of insured peril, subject to the sum insured. If the payout under area approach (based on CCE and Data) is more than localized losses, the higher claims will be payable to the insured farmers. As per the norms of the PMFBYS, this Opposite Party has disbursed the claim and there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party No.1. The claim of the complainant to pay full sum assured is beyond the provisions of the scheme and therefore his complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
7. The Govt. Pleader filed counter/written version on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 contending that the complainant is to put to the strict proof of the title, extent and possession of his Ac.6-07gts. of the land and also the other averments of the complaint. It is submitted by Opposite Party No.2 that during the month of September 2016 there were heavy rains due to cyclone in an around Talamadugu Mandal and upon survey, it was observed the Ac.6-00 of the land of the complainant in Sy.No.54/A & 55/A at Dorli Village was damaged and the damage of his soya bean crop was assessed to a tune of 66% and according to the scheme of PMFBY, the compensation is payable by Opposite Party No.1 for the said damage. Opposite Party No.2 is not liable to pay any damages or compensation and he is only a formal party. The liability for payment of compensation/damages is to be fixed on Opposite Party No.1 only.
With the above submissions, Opposite Party No.2 prayed to dismiss the complaint against Opposite Party No.2.
8. During the course of enquiry, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A4. On behalf of the opposite party No.1, one Smt. Bharathi Vajjiravelu, who is the 5 Chief Regional Manager of Agricultural Insurance Company of India Limited, filed her evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.B1 and B2. Smt. V.Asha Kumari, Dist. Agriculture Officer, filed affidavit and reported no documents to be marked.
9. The District Forum after hearing and considering the material available on record, "the complaint against opposite party No.2 is dismissed and allowed in part against opposite party No.1, directing to pay an amount of Rs.28,080/- (Rupees twenty eight thousand and eighty only) @ 12% per annum from the date of complaint to its realization, compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only). The costs of the complaint being Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only). Time for compliance is within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order in CC, failing which the complainant is at liberty to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986."
10. Aggrieved by the above order of the District Forum, the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 filed the present appeal FA No.215/2020 with the following grounds of appeal:-
The order of the District Forum is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The Forum below ought not to have fixed the amount payable on sympathetic grounds, but has to fix as per the scheme of PMFBY.
The Forum below ought to have observed that as per the joint survey recommendations, the compensation of Rs.21,840/- was already paid by opposite party No.1 to the complainant.
The Forum below ought to have noticed that the crop damage of the complainant was assessed at 47.65 per hector and accordingly, opposite party No.1 has paid just compensation to the complainant for his crop damage. The District Forum keeping the above fact in mind ought to have dismissed the complaint.
With the above grounds the appellant/opposite party No.1 prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned order 6 of District Commission, Adilabad and dismiss the complaint with costs throughout.
11. Heard both sides.
12. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified, or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief?
13. To decide the point for consideration, we have scrupulously and meticulously examined the whole material borne by the record and the same would manifest that it is the specific case of the complainant that he had sown soya bean crop in June 2016 in his Ac.6.07 gts. of the agricultural land owned by him in Sy.No.54/A and 55/A and he insured the soya bean crop in Kariff Season of 2016 under the policy of Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojana Scheme for which policy he paid the insurance premium of Rs.1,560/- for Ac.6-00 @ Rs.260/- per acre through DD vide DD No.001896, dated 28.07.2016 in favour of opposite party No.1. After insuring his soya bean crop, he invested an amount of Rs.15,000/- per acre totaling Rs.90,000/- for Ac.6-00 towards purchase of soya bean seeds, ploughing the agricultural land, sowing the seeds, labour charges, fertilizers and pesticides but, due to heavy rains because of cyclone in the month of September 2017, the entire soya bean crop in his Ac.6-00 of land was damaged and became black and split. After the damage of the crop, he filed the claim petition before Opposite party No.1 claiming a sum of Rs.78,000/- as per the norms of Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojana Scheme @ of Rs.13,000/- per acre, which is the assured sum under the insurance policy of PMFBY scheme. But, opposite party No.1 paid only a sum of Rs.21,840/- for Ac.6-00 in September 2017 but, in fact as per the scheme of Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojana, he is entitled to Rs.78,000/- and therefore, after deduction of the paid amount of Rs.21,840/-, he is still entitled for the remaining amount of Rs.56,160/-. Inspite of his repeated request opposite party No.1 has not evinced any interest to settle his claim which amounts to deficiency of service on the 7 part of opposite party No.1 and therefore, he filed the complaint seeking the reliefs mentioned in the complaint.
14. To prove his case, the complainant besides filing his evidence affidavit, got marked Ex.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is the Xerox copy of DD for Rs.1,560/- which is the premium amount under the policy of Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojana for his Ac.6-00 of land, which is drawn in the name of opposite party No.1. Ex.A2 is the Xerox copy of Pattadhar Pass Book which is in the name of the complainant. A perusal of the same shows that the complainant owns Ac.3-05 gts. in Sy.No.54/A and Ac.3.02 gts. in Sy.No.55/A of the agricultural land and the same is his own land. As per his consistent version and evidence, he had sown soya bean crop in Ac.6-00 of the land out of the said Ac.06.07 gts.
15. Ex.A3 is the pamphlet of Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojana Scheme. A perusal of the same shows that the damage/loss of the crop of the complainant is indemnified under the policy of Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojana, if the crop is damaged due to cyclone and heavy rains. Ex.A3 further shows that the full assured sum under the policy for the damage of the crop will be given to the farmers who have taken insurance policy for their crops under the Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojana. Ex.A4 xerox copies of newspaper cuttings 10 in number establish the fact that due to heavy rains and cyclone, the soya bean crop of the farmers at Dorli Village, Talamadugu Mandal, Adilabad District, was damaged. At this juncture, it is germane to refer to the version of Opposite party No.2 who is Mandal Agricultural Officer, of Talamadugu Mandal, Adilabad District, which is pressed by him in his counter/written version and evidence affidavit. The said version is during the month of September 2016, there were heavy rains due to cyclone in and around Talamadugu Mandal and upon survey, it was observed the soya bean crop in the Ac.6-00 land of the complainant was damaged due to the said heavy rains and the said damage of the crop was assessed to a tune of 66% and the compensation for the same according to the scheme of Prime Minister Fasal Bheema Yojana is payable by opposite party No.1 to 8 the complainant. Of course, opposite party No.1 also admitted in his written version and evidence affidavit as to complainant insuring his soya bean crop in his Ac.6-00 of land under the policy of Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojana and he paid the insurance premium of Rs.1,560/- for his Ac.6-00. The assured sum for each acre is Rs.13,000/-. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention here that in Ex.B2 the Gazette Notification, dated 30.05.2016 issued by the Govt. of Telangana, contains the column the level of indemnity for crop damage due to unforeseen events, such as the heavy rains due to cyclone in the case on hand and the said level of indemnity for the damage of the crop is 80%. Opposite party No.2, the Mandal Agricultural Officer, who is a competent person to assess the damage of the crop categorically stated in his written version and evidence affidavit that the soya bean crop in Ac.6-00 of the land of the complainant was damaged to the tune of 66%. It is the consistent version and evidence of the complainant that he invested a total amount of Rs.90,000/- to raise the soya bean crop in his Ac.6-00 of agricultural land at Rs.15,000/- per acre and if his crop was not damaged due to heavy rains, he may get net income of Rs.30,000/- per acre totally Rs.1,80,000/- for his Ac.6-00 as the normal yield of the soya bean per acre is 8-10 quintals and MSP is Rs.3050 per quintal. It is also further consistent version of the complainant as per the norms/scheme of Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojana, he is entitled for the claim of Rs.78,000/- for the damage of his soya bean crop in his Ac.6-00 of land @ Rs.13,000/- per acre which is a assured sum under the insurance policy. But, opposite party No.1 paid only a sum of Rs.21,840/- for Ac.6-00 for the damage of his crop and denied the balance of the assured sum of Rs.56,160/-He is entitled for the same. But, however, the District Commission allowed his complaint in part and the said order is legal and sustainable as such the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
16. But on the other hand, it is a case of the appellant/opposite party No.1 that the damage of the crop of the complainant is below 50% and they assessed the loss of the said damage of the crop and paid Rs.21,840/- to the complainant by online transfer to his 9 account and as such the complaint is not maintainable but, the District Forum unnecessarily allowed the same in part and the said order is against the scheme of the Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojana.
17. Here how the loss/damage of the crop is to be assessed is a crucial question that is to be addressed. Ex.B1 is the operational guidelines of Pradhana Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana which is issued by Dept. of Agriculture Co-operation and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi. Clause No.XI provides as to the assessment of the loss. Sub Clause 1 of Clause XI discloses that the scheme operates on the basis of area approach i.e. Defined areas for each notified crop for wide spread calamities and insurance unit is village/ village panchayat or any other equivalent unit for major crop and for other crops it may be a unit of size higher than village/village panchayat level, to be decided by State/Union Territory Govt., State Govt. Dept., overseeing conduct of CCEs will submit yield data as per cutoff date decided by SLCCCI, along with results of individual CCEs. Yield data will be furnished to insurance Company by State Govt./Union Territory, in accordance with the cutoff dates fixed, and crops and areas notified, based on total number of CCEs being conducted.
18. Ex.B2 Gazette Notification, dated 30.05.2016 issued by the Govt. of Telangana, at Page No.2 under point No.2, it is stated that settlement of claims - "as per the PMFBY Guidelines and Administrative approval of Govt. of India for Kariff 2016 season issued vide letter 13015/03/ 2016-Credit - II, dated 23.02.2016 the condition that, the indemnity claims will be settled on the basis of yield data furnished by the State Govt. based on requisite number of Crop Cutting Experiments (CCEs) under General Crop Estimation Survey(GCES) conducted and not any other basis". Under Point No.3 of Gazette Notification it is mentioned that "claims for prevented showing will be based on area sown and claims for localized risks for post-harvest losses will be assessed by insurance surveyors for each affected farmer. For this purpose the 10 joint committee comprising of loss surveyors, representative of Implementing Agency and State Govt. Officials of concerned departments will be formed to supervise the claim assessment process".
19. In the case on hand, the crop damage of the complainant in his Ac.6-00 of land is covered under localized risks/localized perils. As seen from the material borne by the record, it is the stand of opposite party No.1 that opposite party No.1 assessed the damage of the crop and accordingly, settled the claim of the complainant by paying Rs.21,840/- by online transfer to the account of the complainant. Opposite party No.1 is silent as to on what basis the said amount is paid towards the crop damage of the complainant. The record is silent as to the data with regard to crop damage by the Joint Technical Committee. As per Ex.B2 Gazette Notification, issued by the Govt. of Telangana, the Joint Committee comprising
(i) loss surveyors (ii) representative of Implementing Agency (iii) State Govt. Officials of concerned Dept., together have to supervise the loss assessment. But such type of process has not taken place as no material is filed by opposite party No.1 about the same. Opposite party No.2 who is Mandal Agriculture Officer has physically visited the Ac.6-00 agriculture land of the complainant along with complainant and opposite party No.1 and assessed the crop damage to a tune of 66%. Opposite party No.1 admitted that the assured sum of insurance per acre is Rs.13,000/- under the policy of Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojana Scheme. So, the total assured sum under the policy of PMFBY scheme for Ac.6-00 of the land of the complainant comes to Rs.78,000/-. As per Ex.A3 pamphlet of the Prime Minister Fasal Bima Yojana, there shall not be any reduction in the quantum of assured sum of the insurance in case of crop damage due to unforeseen events such as heavy rains , cyclone in the case on hand. Even according to Ex.B2 Gazette Notification the level of indemnity for crop damage in localized risks is 80%. In view of the same, having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the District Forum rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant in part and awarded suitable 11 compensation in consonance with 66% of crop damage of the Ac.06-00 of the land of the complainant. The appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
20. Viewed from any angle, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the order of the District Commission, Adilabad, as such we confirm the same and consequently, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
21. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, the order of the District Commission is confirmed. There is no order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
I/c PRESIDENT MEMBER-JUDICIAL
Dated : 09.01.2024
*AD