State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri.P.Venkatarami Reddy vs The Govt. A.P.State Rep.By Itsdistrict ... on 8 November, 2007
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR. PRESENT:- Sri P.V.Nageswara Rao, M.A., L.L.M., President (F.A.C.) Smt.S.Lalitha, M.A., M.L., Member, Thursday, the 8th day of November, 2007 C.C.NO.93/2006 Between: Sri P. Venkata Remi Reddy, S/o P. Chenna Reddy r/o Yerragunta Village Rapthadu Mandal Anantapur District. Complainant Vs. 1. The Government of A.P. State rep. by its District Collector, Anantapur. 2. General Insurance Corporation of India rep. by its Divisional Manager, State Level Crop Insurance Cell, 8th floor, United India Towers Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 3. The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Rapthadu Village & Mandal Anantapur District. Respondents This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri P.Guru Prasad, advocate for the complainant and Sri T.Bharath Bhushan Reddy, advocate for the 1st respondent, Sri A.G.Neelakanta Reddy, advocate for the 2nd respondent and Sri A.N.Guru Prasad, advocate for the 3rd respondent and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following: O R D E R
1. The complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act on behalf of the complainant.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:-
The complainant was a farmer availed seasonal agricultural loan from 3rd respondent of Rs. 35,000/- on 01-07-2005 for land in Sy.No.97-1 of Yerragunta Revenue Village, a notified area and raised Groundnut crop, which was a notified crop.
3. Insurance coverage was compulsory for all borrowers, who availed loans in notified areas for raising notified crops up-to full loan amount and also for Kisan Card Loans under National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS). The 3rd respondent collected the premium and credited to its Nodal Bank, who in turn submitted to the 2nd respondent. It was for the benefit of farmers and their welfare in pursuance of failure of crops and uncertain monsoon conditions. In the guidelines of 2nd respondent, it had to be specified the crop name and whether it was irrigated or un-irrigated. The complainants loan was classified as un-irrigated depending upon monsoon and was significant at the time of crop cutting.
The entire revenue village was taken as unit at the time of crop cutting for insurance coverage. The entire groundnut crop was spoiled due to lack of rains in Yerragulnta and Rapthadu Mandals. The yield was 20% average in the Village.
4. The 1st respondent failed to give proper instructions and appraise field staff drawing samples for crop cutting experiments. It was deficiency of service and negligence towards farmers including the complainant and were discriminated from other farmers in Rapthadu Mandal, because they were covered with the insurance scheme, whereas the farmers in Yerragunta were not considered. The rainfall in Yerragunta Mandal was less than in Rapthadu Mandal. Thus, the complainant raised Groundnut crop with irrigation facility or un-irrigated. The crop cutting experiments should be conducted separately to crops with un-irrigated. If the crops would be raised with water at regular intervals, the yield would be good.
5. There was an yield of 1.420, 1.910, 2.430 and 1.530 Kgs. in the fields irrigated with bore-well, whereas the yield was 0.200, 0.250, 0.180, 0.220 Kgs depending on monsoon. The average yield during Kharif season was equivalent to the normal yield after computing the yield in irrigated and un-irrigated land. The claim of the complainant was rejected. The insurance coverage was extended to Rapthadu farmers, whereas Yerragunta farmers were victimized due to deficiency of service by the 1st respondent in collecting samples from experimental plots, choosing experimental plots from irrigated lands. The insurance coverage of the complainant and other farmers in Yerragunta was on the basis of un-irrigated crop.
6. The 1st respondent staff collected samples in Survey Nos.230/6, 138/2, 96/5, 354, 300, 252/2, 253/1 and 367 belonged to Harijana Peddanna, Chinna Venkata Ramudu, Y.C.Chenna Reddy, Katamaiah, Lakshmi Devi, Linga Redd and Narasimham. During the Kharif season with the help of bore wells Groundnut crop was raised in Survey Nos.230/6, 138/2, 252/2 and 253/1. The staff failed to collect samples from the said fields.
7. Thus, the complaint was filed for Rs.35,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 01-07-2005 till realization, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and costs.
8. The 1st respondent filed a counter that the 1st respondent had no knowledge of the loan availed by the complainant and crop insurance collected by the 3rd respondent. It was not correct that the Groundnut crop raised at Rapthadu and Yerragunta Mandals was failed due to lack of monsoon and yield was 20% only.
It was not correct that the staff did not issue instructions to the field staff drawing samples for crop cutting experiments relating to the guidelines that were applicable.
Instructions were given to the drawing field staff conducting crop cutting experiments, considering the Village as one insurance unit during Kharif 2005-06. There was no deficiency of service because the staff did service to the farmers.
9. The respondent was not a necessary party and the complainant was not a consumer and it was not maintainable for want of notice under section 80 of C.P.C.
10. The staff collected the samples in Survey Nos.230/6, 138/2, 96/5, 354, 300, 252/2, 253/1 and 367. It was not correct the Groundnut crop was raised with bore-well in Survey Nos.230/6, 138/2, 252/2 and 253/1 because there was no water in bore-well in Survey No.138/2 and the crop was raised with rainwater and in Survey No.230/6, there was bore without electric motor and so it was raised with rainwater and there was no bore-well in Survey No.253/1. There was bore-well without water in Survey No.252/2. If the farmers raised the crops with bore-well, it would have brought to the notice of the officials at the time of collecting the sample. Yield would depend upon nature, fertility of soil and maintenance. The Government assisted Agricultural Insurance Co. Ltd., in assessing crop loss.
Thus, there was no deficiency of service and the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
11. The 2nd respondent filed a counter denying the complaint. The name of the 2nd respondent in the cause title was not correct. The complaint was barred by time. Thus, the Forum had no jurisdiction and the complainant was not a consumer. The crop insurance was not a commercial transaction and so the insurance company could not come forward to take up insurance business. The Government of India had brought out Comprehensive Crop Insurance Scheme (CCIS) from Kharif 1985 and implemented till 1999 Kharif. It was renamed as National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS) from Rabi season 1999-2000. In major modifications, it included non-loanee farmers not availing the institutional credit for raising notified crop on an optional basis and included the annual commercial and horticultural crops. The AIC of India was implementing agency for National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS). It was superior to Comprehensive Crop Insurance Scheme (CCIS) in various aspects like coverage of farmers, crops, premium rates, limit of sum assured. The scheme was to avoid hardship to livelihood, failure of crops by floods, natural calamity and pests and financial support to notified crop failure and to help farmers in disasters. A State Level Co-ordination Committee on Crop Insurance (SLCCCI) was constituted to implement the NAIS, which would notify the crop and area in a particular season and to look-after the implementation of the scheme. It was implemented in A.P. also. The NAIS operated a scheme on an Area Approach basis similar to Comprehensive Crop Insurance Scheme. It was for the farmers on group basis for providing compensation on the basis of average yield in defined area. The concept was for formation of notified areas and a system of establishing the actual average yield in the defined area. The compensation paid could not be equal to the loss suffered by each farmer. The loss of an individual would reflect the result shown in the average yield data of the defined area. Topographical conditions and Ecological factors were not the criteria. The Government made defined area smaller so that the loss to individual farmer had greater reflection in the yield in a defined area.
12. The SLCCCI notified crops and areas under NAIS for Kharif 2005 including Groundnut crop in Anantapur, Kadapa Districts, Castor oil Crop in Mahaboobnagar District, Redgram crop in Prakasam and Maize crop in Karimnagar District. The threshold yield (guaranteed yield) was fixed on the basis of 3 to 5 years average yield data of Economics and Statistics Department of the State Government through the crop cutting experiments multiplied by level of indemnity. The Actual yield from particular notified crop in a particular notified area was assessed through crop cutting experiments (CCE) by the Government. If actual yield was less than threshold yield, the farmers whose crop loans had been insured were eligible for compensation under the formula.
Claims payable = Shortfall in yield X Sum assured Threshold yield i.e. shortfall in the yield= Threshold yield actual yield.
The sum assured was loan amount covered under the scheme.
13. The Groundnut crop in the District was cultivated in un-irrigated rain fed conditions during Kharif. It was classified as Groundnut (un-irrigated) and Groundnut (irrigated). The selection of the field was as per the Government Statistics by the Chief Planning Officer. The sampling of the field was prior to harvest stage. The primary worker would conduct CCES and enquire the farmer and then select the sampling field supporting to the Groundnut (irrigated) and Groundnut (un-irrigated). In case of Groundnut (un-irrigated), the Government notified the Villages as insurance unit, whereas in Groundnut (irrigated), the mandal was classified as unit. In Kharif 2005 Eight CCEI were conducted in Yerragunta Village to assess the Groundnut (un-irrigated) crop.
14. The claims could be paid on the basis of notified area average yield assessed on the basis of crop cutting experiments, but not on the basis of District Gazette or Annawari Certificate. The actual yield in Kharif 2005 for (un-irrigated) Groundnut was 256 Kgs/hectare as against 245 Kgs per hectare. There was no shortfall in the yield. Hence, claims were not payable.
15. As per the judgments of Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.Nos.11882, 13115, 13116, 13117, 13118, 13119 of 1987 the Mandal was treated as Unit. Similarly in W.P.No.13510/87 of Honble High Court held that the actual yield was more than threshold yield. In O.P.No.41/1996 of A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, there was no jurisdiction to entertain the disputes under Comprehensive Crop Insurance Scheme and the farmers were not consumers.
In W.P.No.20650/2000 of Honble High Court of A.P., it was upheld the validity of NAIS and similarly the W.P.No.11213/2000, 12475/2000, 13576/2000 and 13621/2000 were dismissed by the Honble High Court of A.P. relying on the decision of W.P.20650/2000. The disputes related to Civil Disputes and Civil Suits could be maintainable. Thus, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
16. The 3rd respondent filed a counter that the complainant availed crop loan and paid premium and the same was remitted to the Nodal Bank. There was no relief against the Bank in deficiency of service. Thus, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
17. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following points are settled for determination:
i) Whether there is any deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the respondents ?
ii) Whether the District Consumer Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint ?
iii) Whether the complaint is entitled for the relief as prayed for?
iv) To what relief?
18. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A5 were marked and on behalf of the respondents Ex.B1 to B3 were marked.
19. POINT NOS.1 to 3:- The complainant availed a crop loan from the 3rd respondent-Bank of Rs. 35,000/- on 01-07-2005 for land in Sy.No.97-1 of Yerragunta revenue Village a notified area for raising notified crop namely Groundnut crop during Kharif season 2005.
20. The insurance coverage was compulsory for all loanee farmers, who availed seasonal agricultural loans in notified area for raising notified crops up-to full loan amount and was also for Kisan Cardholders under National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS).
The 3rd respondent(Bank) collected and deducted the insurance premium from the loan amount of the complainant and deposited with statement to the 2nd respondent (Insurance Company) for the benefit and welfare of the farmers in view of failure of crops and uncertain monsoon conditions. It was mentioned in guidelines to note whether the crop was irrigated or un-irrigated alongwith crop name. It was crop insurance under Comprehensive Crop Insurance Scheme.
The loans were classified as un-irrigated depending upon monsoon and it was significant at the time of crop cutting.
More-over, the entire revenue Village was treated as a unit at the time of crop cutting for insurance coverage and on account of lack of rains there was no yield of Groundnut crop and crop was failed with 20% yield. The complainant raised Groundnut crop in his lands during Kharif season with the help of bore-well and irrigated with bore-well water. It was an admitted fact by the complainant in his complaint. More-over the complainant contended that the Government failed to take proper measures in collecting samples at the time of crop cutting experiments to the field staff.
21. The entire complaint disclosed that the loans of the complainant were classified as un-irrigated depending upon monsoon, but raised Groundnut crop with the help of bore-wells as irrigated. The Government contended that the complainant raised the Groundnut crop and cultivated with bore-wells and therefore, the loans were treated for wet-land cultivation and insurance claim was not granted. Though the crop was raised and irrigated in dry land with the source of irrigation with bore-well, it was treated as wet land cultivation and hence, the claim was not considered. The crop insurance compensation was granted to the farmers, who availed crop loans for irrigating crops in dry lands without bore-well water. Apart from it the Government contended that the staff drawing samples for crop cutting experiments were given certain instructions. As stated earlier the complainant himself admitted to the Bank that he cultivated his dry land with the help of bore-well water.
As the Groundnut crop was raised with the help of bore-well water, it was treated as irrigated dry. The 3rd respondent-Bank also admitted the loan availed by the complainant and payment of premium and remitted to Nodal Bank.
There were no relief against the Bank because the insurance claim would be paid by the insurance company and not by the Bank. The prima-facie burden was on the complainant that his land was dry land and he was not having any bore-well for irrigation and the crop was not raised with bore-well water and the source of irrigation was not with bore-well and the land was not irrigated dry.
22. In the case C.C.No.87/2006 an Advocate-Commissioner was appointed in I.A.No.165/2007, who filed a report after visiting the Survey No.230/6 of H.Peddanna and found a bore-well with electricity connection and water was coming out, but there was no standing crop. There was no bore-well and no electricity connection in Survey No.253/1 of Venkatarami Reddy without standing crop in his land. A bore-well and Groundnut crop was observed with electricity connection No.380 in Survey No.138/2 of Chinna Venkataramudu.
There were no water canals in the field where the crop was raised. Bore-well and its working was observed in Sy.No.252/1 of P.Linga Reddy with electricity connection. The warrant was re-entrusted to the same Commissioner in I.A.No.209/2007, who filed a report that there was no bore-well and no electricity connection and no wells in Survey No.252/2.
23. There was bore-well with electricity connection and drawing water in Survey Nos.230/6 and in Survey Nos.138/2 and in Survey No.252/1.
But there was no bore-well in Survey No.252/2 and 253/1. There was no necessity to the Government and the Banks to create fabricated revenue records, with false information. There was no contrary documentary evidence to the documents filed by the respondents.
24. Ex.A1 was Xerox copy of Pattadar Pass Book. Ex.A2 was Xerox copy of Bank Pass Book.
Ex.A3 was Xerox copy of adangal extract. Ex.A4 was Xerox copy of account extract of the Bank. Ex.A5 was Xerox copy of the Circular of the Bank. The documents of the respondents were Ex.B1 Scheme and guidelines of NAIS issued by the General Insurance Corporation of India, New Delhi.
Ex.B2 was copy of guidelines of field staff during 2005 Kharif. Ex.B3 was Xerox copy of Unit-wise estimate of average yield showed Yerragunta Village with 256 Kgs., per hectare.
25. The Insurance Company/2nd respondent raised the objection that the District Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the complainant was not a consumer and the Comprehensive Crop Insurance Scheme was not a commercial transaction and so the insurance company did not come forward to take up crop insurance business. The Comprehensive Crop Insurance Scheme came into existence from 1985 Kharif season and implemented till 1999 Kharif season. It was a scheme formulated by the Government of India. The name of Comprehensive Crop Insurance Scheme was changed as National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS) from Rabi season 1999-2000. It included the non-loanee farmers not availing the institutional credit for raising notified crops on an optional basis and included the annual commercial and horticultural crops. The 2nd respondent was implementing agency for NAIS to avoid failure of crops by floods, natural calamities, diseases and livelihood to farmers and financial support to notified crop failure and help to the farmers in disasters. A State Level Co-ordination Committee and Crop Insurance (SLCCCI) was constituted to notified crop in notified area and in a particular season and to look-after the implementation of the scheme. The NAIS operated the scheme on an Area Approach basis similar to Comprehensive Crop Insurance Scheme. It was for the farmers on group basis for providing compensation on the basis of average yield in a defined area. The compensation would not be paid equally to the loss suffered by the each farmer. The threshold (guaranteed) yield was fixed on the basis of 3 to 5 years average yield as per the data of Economics and Statistics Department of the Government.
The actual yield was assessed through crop cutting experiments from a particular notified crop in a particular notified area by the Government. If the actual yield was less than the threshold yield then the farmers were eligible for compensation. The 2nd respondent mentioned the actual yield in Kharif 2005 for Groundnut (un-irrigated) was 256 Kgs., per hectare as against 245 Kgs., per hectare. So there was no shortage in the yield.
26. In an unreported decision in W.P.No.13510/1987 of Honble High Court of Andhra Pradesh decided on 23-04-1991 Indupuru Venka Reddy and others Vs. Union of India, New Delhi, The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, Syndicate Bank, Kavali, The Pinakini Grameena Bank, Kavali and the General Insurance Corporation of India, New Delhi, it was held that the actual yield was more than threshold yield at the Mandal and the respondents did not indemnify the loss suffered by the petitioner. Therefore, the complainants are not entitled for any relief from this Forum and it has no jurisdiction to enquire into the dispute raised by the complainants. However, the complainants are not precluded from seeking appropriate remedy before any appropriate Forum. The scheme was for farmers collectively, but not individuals. In the said W.P.No.13510/87, the petitioners were a group of farmers and not individuals.
In the present case even the entire Village was suffered, the case was filed individually.
27. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer an unreported decision in O.P.No.41/1996 of A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad dt.30-11-1999 in the Secretary, Bapatla Mandal Consumers Welfare Association, Bapatla Vs. Group Insurance Corporation of India, Hyderabad, State Level Crop Insurance Cell, A.P., United India Insurance Building, Hyderabad and Andhra Bank, Appikatla, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District, it was held that the complainant was not a consumer and the Commission had no jurisdiction to enquire into the dispute raised by the complainant. The Comprehensive Crop Insurance Scheme was introduced at the instance of the Central Government and the compensation to be paid under the Scheme was not by virtue of any hiring of services for consideration. The participation of the State Government was not purely contractual on the basis of the services hired for consideration, but on the basis of the scheme itself.
In view of the above decision, the complainant was not a consumer under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
It was not a consumer dispute, because the farmers covered under the scheme were not consumers. Hence, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the complainant is not entitled for any relief from this Forum. However, the complainant is not precluded from seeking any appropriate relief from any appropriate Forum. Thus, the complaint is not maintainable. Hence, the points are answered accordingly.
28. POINT NO.4:- In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs. The complainant is not precluded from seeking appropriate remedy before any proper Forum of competent jurisdiction, if so advised.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 8th day of November, 2007.
Sd/-
Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT (F.A.C.) DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, ANANTAPUR. ANANTAPUR.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT : NIL OPPOSITE PARTIES: NIL EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT Ex.A1 -
Xerox copy of Pattadar Pass Book.
Ex.A2 - Xerox copy of Bank Pass Book.
Ex.A3 - Xerox copy of adangal extract.
Ex.A4 - Xerox copy of account extract of the Bank.
Ex.A5 - Xerox copy of the Circular of the Bank.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2 Ex.B1 Xerox copy Scheme and guidelines of NAIS issued by the General Insurance Corporation of India, New Delhi.
Ex.B2 - Copy of guidelines of field staff during 2005 Kharif.
Ex.B3 - Xerox copy of Unit-wise estimate of average yield showed Yerragunta Village with 256 Kgs., per hectare.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT (F.A.C.) DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR Typed by JPNN