State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Singam Siva Sankar Reddy S/O.Eswar ... vs The Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena ... on 25 April, 2013
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD. F.A.Nos.761/2012 to 810/2012 against C.C.Nos.73/2012, 92/2011 to 99/11, 101/11, 11/12 to 35/12, 37/12 to 39/12, 41/12 to 46/12, 49/12, 51/12 to 54/12 and 59/12 District Forum, YSR DISTRICT AT KADAPA Between 1. Singam Siva Sankar Reddy S/o.Eswar Reddy, aged about 40 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.761/2012 2.K.China Anki Reddy S/o.Rama Subba Reddy, aged about 42 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.762/2012 3. Pochamreddy Konda Reddy S/o.Venkata Swamy Reddy, aged about 68 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.763/2012 4. Gajjala Venkata Subba Reddy S/o.Chenna Reddy, aged about 55 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.764/2012 5. Komma Sivalinga reddy S/o.Sambasiva Reddy, aged about 74 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.765/2012 6. Guramkonda Khadaroon W/o.Shareef, Aged about 35 years, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.766/2012 7.Vangala Chiranjeevi Reddy S/o.Pedda Konda Reddy, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.767/2012 8. Singam Siva Nagi Reddy S/o.Anki Reddy, aged about 36 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.768/2012 9. Gajjala Siva Sankar Reddy S/o.Chenna Reddy, aged about 52 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.769/2012 10. Singamhari Narayanamma W/o.late Anki Reddy, aged about 62 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.770/2012 11. V.Ranga Reddy S/o.Chinna Ranga Reddy, aged about 43 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.771/2012 12. Maduru Obula Konda Reddy S/o.Obula Reddy, aged about 68 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.772/2012 13.Yellamreddy Ramalingeswar Reddy S/o.Kullaya Reddy, aged about 35 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.773/2012 14. Gajjala Gangi Reddy S/o.Venkatarami Reddy, aged about 35 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.774/2012 15. Singam Malleswar Reddy S/o.Sadasiva Reddy, aged about 36 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.775/2012 16. Gajjala Alivelamma W/o.Rama Subba Reddy, aged about 46 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.776/2012 17. Vonteddu Sujathamma W/o.Sahadeva Reddy, aged about 38 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.777/2012 18. Sake Subanna S/o.Peddanna aged about 65 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.778/2012 19.K.Nagabhushana Reddy S/o.Ramasubba Reddy, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.779/2012 20. Gajjala Somakka W/o.Konda Reddy, aged about 65 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.780/2012 21. Singam Naramma W/o.Sadasiva Reddy, aged about 65 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.781/2012 22. Singam Sankar Reddy S/o.Bala Somi Reddy, aged about 52 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.782/2012 23. Yellamreddy Padmanabha Reddy S/o.Kullaya Reddy, aged about 35 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.783/2012 24. Thunga Sarveswara Reddy S/o.Samba Siva Reddy, aged about 50 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.784/2012 25. Singam Siva Rami Reddy S/o.Pedda Somi Reddy, aged about 70 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.785/2012 26.Katikareddy Usha Devi W/o.Anki Reddy, aged about 40 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.786/2012 27. Gurramkonda Fakruddin S/o.Peeru Sab aged about 42 years, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.787/2012 28. Singam Mallikarjuna Reddy S/o.Samba Siva Reddy, aged about 50 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.788/2012 29. Sodum Gopal Reddy S/o.late Linga Reddy, aged about 50 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.789/2012 30. Yellamreddy Nageswara Reddy S/o.Kullaya Reddy, aged about 30 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.790/2012 31. N.Subhadra Devi W/o.Parameshwar Reddy, aged about 28 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.791/2012 32. Singam Pratap Reddy S/o.Rama Subba Reddy, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.792/2012 33. N.Bramhananda Reddy S/o.Varada Reddy, aged about 38 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.793/2012 34. Yellamreddy Siva Lakshumma W/o.Kullaya Reddy, aged about 50 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.794/2012 35. R.Somanna S/o.Somanna Reddy, aged about 55 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.795/2012 36. Siripireddy Chandra Kanthamma W/o.Somi Reddy, aged about 70 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.796/2012 37. Maduru Chinna Obula Reddy S/o.Bala Narayana Reddy, aged about 38 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.797/2012 38. Vonteddu Venkata Narayana Reddy S/o.Venkata Reddy, aged about 54 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.798/2012 39. Palem Rami Reddy S/o.Venkata Reddy, aged about 55 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.799/2012 40. Vangala Rama Subbamma W/o.Veera Reddy, aged about 60 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.800/2012 41. Gajjala Rosi Reddy S/o.Chenna Reddy, aged about 43 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.801/2012 42. Thodima Ramana Reddy S/o.Narayana Reddy, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.802/2012 43. Thodima Chandrasekhar Reddy S/o.Gurivi Reddy, aged about 60 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.803/2012 44. Vonteddy Ganga Rathnamma W/o.Sudhakar Reddy, aged about 40 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.804/2012 45. Gurramkonda Rasool Bee W/o.Valli Saheb, aged about 38 years, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.805/2012 46. Rajipati Johara Bee W/o.Siddaiah Reddy, aged about 50 years, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.806/2012 47. Setturu Pedda Mahaboob Saheb S/o.Hussain Saheb, aged about 48 years, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.807/2012 48. S.Someswar Reddy S/o.Somi. Reddy, aged about 50 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.808/2012 49. Setturu Papa Saheb S/o.Hussain Saheb, aged about 56 years, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.809/2012 50. Vonteddu Saraswathi W/o.Venkata Ranga Reddy, aged about 53 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Maddulapaya Village, Thondur Mandal, Kadapa District. Appellant/ Complainant in FA.No.810/2012 And 1. The Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Thondur Post and Mandal, Kadapa District. 2. The General Manager, Head Office, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Nagarjunapet, Kadapa. 3. The Chief Regional Manager, Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., 8th floor, United India Towers, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. (3rd respondent added as per orders in I.A.No.104/12 dt.03-4-2012.) (The name of National Agricultural Insurance Co. Amended to Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., As per orders in FA IA No.1017/2013 dt.22/4/13) Respondents/ Opp.parties in FAs.761/12 To 830/12 Counsel for the Appellant : M/s.P.S.P.Suresh Kumar (Common in all appeals) Counsel for the Respondents: M/s.K.Srinivasa Murthy-R1 and R2. M/s A.Jayanthi-R3 (Common in all appeals) QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, HONBLE Incharge President AND SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
THRUSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Incharge President) *** Since these batch of appeals deal with similar facts, they are being disposed of by a common order:
F.A.No.761/2012Aggrieved by the order of C.C.No.73/2012 on the file of District Forum, YSR District at Kadapa, the complainant preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is an agriculturist having agricultural land in Maddulapaya village of Thondur Mandal to an extent of Ac.3.13 and insured his groundnut crop for the year 2009 under the Khariff season and paid the total insurance premium to opposite party no.1 bank as he had an SB account in the same bank. The complainant submits that he was sanctioned for a crop loan of Rs.24,000/- from opposite party No.1 bank and that 112 farmers of Maddulapaya village had taken the crop loan and paid the total insurance amount but only 4 farmers were sanctioned the insurance claim for the year 2009 under the Khariff season for the loss of groundnut crop. The complainant and 107 farmers approached opposite party no.1 bank and also opposite party No.2 several times requesting for sanction of insurance claim at 98.66%. A letter was also sent to the third opposite party, which is the insurance company herein but there was no response. A legal notice was issued to opposite parties 1 and 2 on 27-6-2011 demanding that they pay insurance claim for the year 2009 at 98.66% and received a reply notice dt.08-7-2011 from opposite party no.1 bank admitting that while submitting crop loan statement for the Khariff year 2009, they have mentioned the village name as Ahobilam instead of Maddulapaya village and therefore a mistake occurred while feeding the data in the computer. The complainant further submits that opposite party no.1 sought one months time to get clearance from the higher officials to correct this mistake but thereafter did not receive any response in settlement of the claim. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay the crop insurance claim of Rs.23,698/- at 98.66% for the year 2009 under Khariff season together with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.3,000/-.
Opposite party No.1 filed counter admitting that the complainant is a resident of Maddulapaya village and Ac.3.13 is cultivated by him as per the revenue record and admits that the opposite party bank sanctioned a crop loan amount of Rs.24,000/- and collected an insurance premium of Rs.756/- insuring his groundnut crop to be raised after debiting his loan account on 21-8-2009. This opposite party collected the premiums from all eligible farmers to whom crop loans were arranged during the Khariff season of 2009 and sent the same in turn to its Regional Office at Kadapa under three separate declarations No.191, 249 and 217 for June, July, and August, 2009 in a consolidated format containing the particulars of crop loan borrowers and the loan amounts that were sanctioned along with particulars of nature of land for onward transmission to opposite party No.3, Agricultural Insurance Corporation of India Ltd., Hyderabad. Opposite party No.3 having declared crop insurance amount as damage at 98.66% did not release the insurance amount to this complainant and other 107 farmers. The same was brought to the notice of the Regional Manager of the respondent bank, who addressed a letter dated 08-1-2011 to the Regional Manager of opposite party No.3 requesting him to settle the crop insurance claim. As per revenue records, the village name is Maddulapaya whereas the villagers used to call this village as Ahobilam, therefore while entering the data into the computer, the village name was fed as Ahobilam for the months of June, July and August, 2009. In the system, the village name was picked up as Ahobilapuram which is in the service area of Pulivendula Mandal and not within the service area of this opposite party branch.
Opposite party No.1 bank further submits that on 15-2-2011 the General Manager addressed one more letter to opposite party No.3 referring to the earlier letter dated 08-1-2011 with respect to pending claims but there was no response from opposite party no.3. The District Collector had clearly mentioned that the village Maddulapaya has another name as Ahobilam and therefore recommended the release of crop insurance amount. Opposite party No.1 bank received a legal notice from the complainant on 27-6-2011 and sent a reply on 08-7-2011 stating that the bank authorities are in touch with opposite party no.3, insurance company, and requested that the complainant gives them one months time to settle the matter. They submit that there is no deficiency in service on their behalf and seek for dismissal of the complaint.
Opposite party No.1 bank additional counter stating that they have addressed letter dated 08-1-2011, 15-2-2011 to the insurance company to settle the claim amounts of the complainants and it played a role like facilitator and also addressed another letter dated 25-8-2011 reminding settlement of claim but there was no response and submitted that there is no deficiency in service on its behalf and submitted that it is the third opposite party that has to settle the claim amount.
Opposite party No.2 filed a memo adopting counter of opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.3 filed counter stating that this opposite party receives only consolidated declarations from the designated Nodal Banks and no individual farmer details are provided to this opposite party. The loan disbursing branches while disbursing the crop loans have to debit the insurance premiums from the farmers account and submit the details crop wise, month wise and notified area wise to this opposite party.
Likewise opposite party no.2 submitted three 3 declarations pertaining to Ahobilapuram village of Pulivendula Mandal for groundnut Un-irrigated crop and 3 declarations for Maddulapaya Village of Simhadripuram Mandal in respect of Un-irrigated groundnut crop. Opposite party no.3 submits that in their reply letter 25-4-2011 they have clearly stated that the claims were worked out and settled on the basis of declarations received from the second opposite party and it is the bank which has to verify all the details and the details submitted by them will be treated as correct and final if no communication is received by the opposite party within 10 days.
Opposite party no.1 have admitted the mistake of feeding a wrong village name Ahobilam instead of Maddulapaya and opposite party No.3 operates on area approach basis and this concept lead to the formation of Notified areas and a system of establishing the actual average yield in the defined area through the crop cutting experiments, which are scientifically designed to reflect the average yield of the area.
It is submitted that under the NAIS for a particular notified crop and notified area, THRESHOLD YIELD (Guaranteed yield) is fixed on the basis of past three/five years average yield data compiled by the through Crop Cutting Experiments multiplied by Applicable Level of Indemnity for the crop. The ACTUAL YIELD of a particular notified area for a particular notified area for the insured season is assessed through Crop Cutting Experiments by the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of Andhra Pradesh. If the ACTUAL YIELD of a notified crop in a notified area is less than the THRESHOLD YIELD fixed for the area, all the concerned farmers whose crop loans have been insured will become eligible for compensation. The compensation is calculated as under:
Shortfall in yield CLAIMS PAYABLE= ------------------------- X sum Insured Threshold yield (Where the shortfall in yield = Threshold yield Actual yield and Sum insured is the amount of the loan covered under the Scheme).
It is further submitted that for the purpose of implementation of the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme, the State Level Co-ordination Committee for Crop Insurance (SLCCCI) is constituted in the state headed by the Principal of Special Chief Secretary (Agriculture). The Committee notifies crops and areas for a particular season and also oversees the implemention of the scheme in the state. Other members of the SLCCCI are Heads and Senior Officers of AIC. Economics and statistics Dept., cooperation department, Revenue department, SLBC, APCOB, NABARD, RBI etc., It is submitted that the State Government of Andhra Pradesh, during Kharif 2009 season, has notified village as Insurance Unit for Groundnut (un-irrigated) crop in Kadapa District. 20 villages of Simhadripuram mandal were notified as insurance unit No. from 98 to 117. Muddlapaya village is notified as Insurance Unit No.104 and in Pulivendula Mandal 20 villages were notified as insurance Unit No. from 134 to 150 and Ahobilapuram village is notified as Insurance Unit No.140 as per the Govt. Notification.
It is submitted that during Kharif 2009 for groundnut (unirrigated) crop, for Ahobilapuram notified village of Pulivendula mandal, as per claims settlement process no claims were payable and for Maddulapaya notified village of Simhadripuram mandal, the claims were settled at the rate of 98.66%.
Accordingly this opposite party had settled the claims at the rate of 98.66% to Maddulapaya village for the three declarations received from Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Kadapa (opposite party No.2), amounting to Rs.434104.00 (Total sum insured for 3 declarations Rs.440000 x 98.66% claims % = Rs.434104.00 claims paid). Opposite partyNo.3 submits that there is no deficiency in service on their behalf and prays for dismissal of the complaint against them.
Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A3 and B1 to B12 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation observing that the period of limitation cannot be reckoned from the date of repudiation of the claim and that there was no cause of action at Thondur Mandal and cause of action cannot be said to be continuous till denial of the claim.
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.
The appellant filed written arguments and respondents/opp.parties 1 and 2 also filed common written arguments.
The brief point that falls for consideration are whether
a) Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
b) Whether there is any deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite parties?
At the outset, we address ourselves to the point of limitation on which ground, the District Forum has dismissed the complaints.
It is not in dispute that the loan account of the complainant was debited on 21-8-2009 as mentioned by opposite party No.1 in para 3 of their counter. On 15-2-2011 the bank addressed a letter to the insurance company evidenced under Ex.B2 referring to the letter dated 8-1-2011 evidenced under Ex.B1 requesting opposite party no.3 to settle the claim amount. Thereafter the complainant also got issued a legal notice Ex.A2 dated 27-6-2011 for which the opposite party No.1 replied vide Ex.A3 dated 8-7-2011. We also rely on the decision of the National Commission reported in III (1993) CPJ 1231 between Bunduram V. The Manager, the Primary Co-op Agrl. Development Bank Limited, according to Article 44(b), the limitation for filing claim starts from the date of occurrence causing loss or date of denial either wholly or partly by the insurance company. The respondents in their common written arguments in para 20 stated that as a matter of last ditch efforts, the Regional manager of the Regional Office, Kadapa sent a letter dated 10-10-2011 to the Deputy General manager of the Insurance company requesting them to settle all claims of 108 farmers. Keeping in view the aforementioned decision and also the continuing correspondence between the bank and the insurance company and also the complainant and the Bank together with the admission of the bank that there was a mistake and also the statement of the Bank in their reply notice seeking one months time to settle the claims, we are of the considered view that this complaint viewed from any angle cannot be barred by limitation.
Now we address ourselves to whether there is any deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite parties?
It is the complainants case that he opened an SB account in opposite party No.1 bank and he has crop loan account No.391/2009 for which he was sanctioned a loan amount of Rs.24,000/- from opposite partyNo.1 bank for his groundnut crop which he was cultivating in Ac.3.13 for the Khariff season,2009 and paid the total insurance amount to opposite party No.1 bank. Ex.A1 is the copy of the pattadar passbook of the complainant in which he is stated to have agricultural land of Ac.3.13 in Maddulapaya village. It is the complainants case that when there was a loss in crop due to drought, a claim was made with opposite party No.1 bank which was not settled by the bank. It is an admitted fact that the complainant got issued a notice on 27-6-2011 evidenced under Ex.A2 calling upon the opposite parties to settle the claim at 98.66% as done for other four farmers of Maddulapaya village. Opposite party No.1 in their letter Ex.A3 dated 08-7-2011 admitted to their mistake. It is also admitted in the reply notice that the Collector and District Magistrate, Kadapa also recommended to opposite party No.3 for settlement of the claim vide letter dated 7-3-2011. In their reply notice, opposite party No.1 bank also submitted in para 7 that they are taking all necessary steps to clear the claims at an earliest point of time and that the delay caused is not intentional. It is pertinent to note that opposite partyno.1 has in their counter and in their reply notice sought for one months time for settlement of the claim amounts.
Ex.B1 reads as follows:
Ref:
Your letter No.Kharif-2009/claims/5397/2010 dated 26-11-2010.
With reference to subject matter we wish to bring to your kind information that Maddulapaya village in Simhadripuram Mandal is in the service area of our Thondur branch. During Kharif, 2009 our Thondur branch has extended crop loans for groundnut un-irrigated crop in Maddulapaya village as follows:
Months No. of farmers Amount insured or financed Subsidy Premium remitted % of claim April & May 2009
---
---
June/ 2009 31 498000 1211 16219 NIL July/2009 62 2376000 4308 78852 NIL August/2009 15 562000 957 18713 NIL September 4 160000 420 5180 98.66% Total 112 3596000 118964 In this connection, we are informed by our Thondur branch that the village Maddulapaya is also called as Ahobilam locally. As per revenue records, the village name is Maddulapaya, however the local villagers call it as AHOBILAM. While submitting crop insurance statement for Kharif, 2009 our Thondur branch has mentioned the village name as AHOBILAM instead of MUDDALAPAYA as available in revenue records. As such while entering the data into the computer, the village name was feed to the system as Ahobilam for the months of June, July and August, 2009.
However, for the month of September, 2009 the village name was mentioned correctly as Maddulapaya and the claim at the rate of 98.66% was settled by our office.
Ex.B2 dated 15-2-2011 also reflects the admission of the same mistake. Ex.B3 dated 28-5-2011 reads as follows:
Due to the mistake crept in while punching the data in the declarations, the genuine (108) farmers who are the real sufferers due to the crop damage are deprived of the claim benefit to the tune of Rs.3389957.60 even though they have genuinely paid the premium and the bank has also remitted the same to AIC of India within the stipulated time.
We have vide our letter 2nd cited requested to kindly consider the request of Regional office, Kadapa, and also farmers, keeping in view the fact that the farmers have paid the premium well before the cut off date and to settle the claim in respect of 108 farmers for claim amount of Rs.3389957.60.
We have been informed vide letter 3rd cited, that as the claims were approved and settled for Kharif-2009, nay mistake/omission at this stage cannot be considered.
However, as the premium has been actually paid by the farmers and remitted to you genuinely and the bank has remitted the same well before the cut off date and the farmers have actually suffered the crop loss, we once again request you to kindly reconsider the request of the farmers and the Regional office, Kadapa favourably.
When the sanctioning of the crop loan is not in dispute and the complainant has also evidenced the same by filing Exs.A1 to A3 and it is also an admitted fact by opposite party no.1 bank that a mistake has crept in by mentioning Ahobilam village instead of Maddulapaya village and it is also an admitted fact that the computer had taken it as Ahobilapuram in the service of Phulivendula mandal, the liability of opposite party No.1 bank cannot be overlooked.
Now we address ourselves to the liability of the Insurance Corporation:
Ex.B7 deals with the main objectives of the scheme are:
(i) To provide a measure of financial support to farmers in the event of crop failure as a result of drought, flood, etc.
(ii) To restore the credit eligibility of farmers, after a crop failure, for the next crop season, and
(iii) To support and stimulate production of cereal, pulses and oilseeds.
Salient Features of the NAIS Scheme
1. Crops Covered:
The Crops in the following broad groups in respect of which i) the past yield data based on Crop Cutting Experiments (CCEs) is available for adequate number of years, and ii) requisite number of CCEs are conducted for estimating the yield during the proposed season:
Food crops (Cereals, Millets & Pulses), Oilseeds, Sugarcane, Cotton & Potato (Annual Commercial / annual Horticultural crops) Other annual Commercial / annual Horticultural crops subject to availability of past Yield data will be covered in a period of three years. However, the crops which will be covered next year will have to be spelt before the close of preceding year.
3. Farmers to be covered All farmers including sharecroppers, tenant farmers growing the notified crops in the notified areas are eligible for coverage.
The Scheme covers following groups of farmers:
On a compulsory basis: All farmers growing notified crops and availing Seasonal Agricultural Operations (SAO) loans from Financial Institutions i.e. Loanee Farmers.
On a voluntary basis: All other farmers growing notified crops (i.e., Non-Loanee farmers) who opt for the Scheme.
4. Risks Covered & Exclusions Comprehensive risk insurance will be provided to cover yield losses due to non-preventable risks, viz.:
Natural Fire and Lightning Storm, Hailstorm, Cyclone, Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane, Tornado etc. Flood, Inundation and Landslide Drought, Dry spells Pests/ Diseases etc. Losses arising out of war & nuclear risks, malicious damage & other preventable risks shall be excluded.
5. Sum Insured / Limit of Coverage The Sum Insured (SI) may extend to the value of the threshold yield of the insured crop at the option of the insured farmers. However, a farmer may also insure his crop beyond value of threshold yield level upto 150% of average yield of notified area on payment of premium at commercial rates.
In case of Loanee farmers the Sum Insured would be at least equal to the amount of crop loan advanced. Further, in case of Loanee farmers, the Insurance Charges shall be an additionally to the Scale of Finance for the purpose of obtaining loan.
In matters of Crop Loan disbursement procedures, guidelines of RBI / NABARD shall be binding.
9. Area approach and Unit of Insurance The Scheme would operate on the basis of Area Approach i.e., Defined Areas for each notified crop for widespread calamities and on an individual basis for localized calamities such as hailstorm, landslide, cyclone and flood. The Defined Area (i.e., unit area of insurance) may be a Gram Panchayat, Mandal, Hobli, Circle, Phirka, Block, Taluka etc. to be decided by the State/UT Govt. However, each participating State/UT. Govt. will be required to reach the level of Gram Panchayat as the unit in a maximum period of three years. Individual based assessment in case of localized calamities, to begin with, would be implemented in limited areas on experimental basis, initially and shall be extended in the light of operational experience gained. The District Revenue administration will assist Implementing Agency in assessing the extent of loss.
NAIS FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:
Q 1 : What is insurance ?
Ans: Insurance is a fiancial arrangement whereby losses suffered by a few are met from the funds accumulated through small contributions made by many who are exposed to similar risks.
Q 2 : What is crop insurance ?
Ans: Crop insurance is an insurance arrangement aiming at mitigating the financial losses suffered by the farmers due to damage and destruction of their crops as a result of various production risks.
Q 4 : What are the objectives of National Agricultural Insurance Scheme ?
Ans: The objectives of the NAIS are as under:-
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, pests & diseases so as to restore their credit worthiness for ensuing season.
To encourage the fanners to adopt progressive farming practices, high value in-puts and higher technology in Agriculture. To help stabilize farm incomes, particularly in disaster years.
Q 5 : What are the various risks covered under the scheme?
Ans: The Scheme provides comprehensive risk insurance for yield losses due to
(i) Natural Fire and Lightening, Storm, Hailstorm, Cyclone, Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane, Tornado Flood, Inundation and Landslide.
(ii) Drought, Dry spells.
(iii) Pests / Diseases etc. Q 8 : Who is eligible to be covered under the scheme? .
Ans: All farmers growing insurable crops and availing Seasonal Agricultural Operations (SAO) loans from Banks / PACS are compulsorily covered under the Scheme by the Banks/ PACS, whereas the non-borrowing farmers growing insurable crops can also avail the benefit of the Scheme by submitting prescribed proposal forms at the nearest Banks/ PACS.
Q 10 : What is the Unit of Insurance?
Ans : The scheme operates on the basis of Area Approach i.e. defined areas for each notified crop for widespread calamities and individual assessment is done on experimental basis for localised calamities, such as, hailstorm, landslide, cyclone and flood in certain pre-notified areas. The size of unit area varies from State to State and crop to crop. Presently, the defined area is Block/ Mandal/ Taluka / Patwari halka / Nyayapanchayat/ Gram Panchayat/ Village, etc. Q 19 : What are the essential requirements before a farmer becomes eligible for claim under the Scheme ?
Ans : The essential requirements are :
♦ The farmer should have availed a crop loan for the insured crop. In case of non-loanee farmer, he should have submitted a proposal for insurance with requisite premium.
♦ The proposal/crop insurance Declaration with accurate and complete particulars should have been sent to AIC by the Bank along with requisite premium.
♦ The State Govt.
conducts requisite number of Crop Cutting Experiments for the insured crop in the insurance unit and submits the yield data to AIC within the prescribed date.
♦ The yield data so submitted by the State Govt. shows short fall as compared to the Guaranteed yield.
Q 20 :What are the benefits expected from the Scheme:
Ans : This Scheme is expected to Be a critical instrument of development in the field of crop production, providing financial support to the farmers in the event of crop failure.
Encourage farmers to adopt progressive farming practices and higher technology in Agriculture.
Help in maintaining flow of agricultural credit.
Provides significant benefits not merely to the insured farmers, but, to the entire community directly and indirectly through spillover and multiplier effects in terms of maintaining production & employment.
Streamline loss assessment procedures and help in building up huge and accurate statistical base for crop production.
The learned counsel for O.P.3 drew our attention to Ex.B7 which is the scheme and Guidelines of National Agricultural Insurance Scheme:
SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR FIS/NODAL BANKS/LOAN DISBURSING POINTS:
In case of farmer is deprived of any benefit under the scheme due to errors/omissions/commissions of the Nodal Bank/branch/PACS, the concerned institutions only shall mark all such losses.
It is the case of the opposite partyNo.3 insurance corporation that no liability can be fastened upon them as they have received all the details from the Nodal bank which has fed the wrong village name and that it is the Nodal bank which has to verify and consolidate the crop wise, month wise, notified area wise details. In Ex.B5 the bank stated as follows:
My client is taking all necessary steps to clear the claims at an earliest point of time to the eligible farmers and also stated in the same reply notice that they need one months time to correct the mistake.
We also rely on the decision of the National Commission in CDJ 2011 consumer case No.041 in Agricultural Insurance Corporation of India V. Bhanwarlal and others in which the National Commission held that there is deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite partyNo.1 bank in not settling the amounts. We also rely on the decision of National Commission in R.P.Nos. 2143-2148 of 2009 in which the national Commission had confirmed the order of the State Commission with respect to the liability of the bank and observed that the farmer cannot be deprived of any benefit under the scheme due to error/commissions of the Nodal bank/branch and only the concerned institution shall make good such losses.
Keeping in view the aforementioned clause and the admission of the bank that they require one months time to settle the account, and aforementioned judgments and documents, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on behalf of opposite party Nos.1 and 2 bank. Case against insurance corporation is dismissed. It is open to the bank to recover the money from the insurance corporation if so advised.
The batch case details of case number and loan amount together with the premium amounts paid are as follows:
In the result this appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside and consequently the complaint is allowed directing opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay the sum insured as stated in the aforementioned table together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the realization together with costs of Rs.3,000/- to be paid within four weeks from the date of receipt of order. The complaint against insurance company is dismissed without costs.
F.A.Nos.762/2012 to F.A.No.810/2010:
For the same reason as stated in F.A.No.761/2012, these appeals are also allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside and consequently the complaints are allowed directing opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay the sum insured as stated in the aforementioned table together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the realization together with costs of Rs.3,000/- to be paid within four weeks from the date of receipt of order. The complaint against insurance company is dismissed without costs.
Sd/-INCHARGE PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt. 25-4-2013