State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Farmers Service Co-Operative ... vs The General Insurance Corporation Of ... on 19 May, 2010
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. C.C. 62/2003 Between: The Farmers Service Co-operative Society Ltd. Rep. by its President T. Pattabhi Reddy Park Street, Sullurpet Nellore Dist. *** Complainant And 1) The General Insurance Corporation of India Rep. by its General Manager 8th Floor, United India Towers 3-5-817, Basheerbagh Hyderabad. 2) The Govt. of A.P. Rep. by Principal Secretary to Govt. Dept. of Agriculture & Co-operation A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3) The Commissioner of Agriculture Govt. of A.P. Fathemaidan Road, Hyderabad. 4) The Director Bureau of Economics & Statistics Khairatabad, Hyderabad. *** Opposite Parties Counsel for the Complainant: M/s. Indus Law Firm. Counsel for the OPs: M/s. Deepak Bhattacharjee (OP1) CORAM: HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT & SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND TEN Oral Order:
(Per Honble Justice D. Appa Rao, President) ***
1) This is a complaint filed u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking declaration that repudiation of the claim for crop losses in respect of 1560 farmers constitutes deficiency in service, and compensation for the Rabi season 2000-2001, and treat the crop loss as declared by the Dist.
Collector to an over all limit of Rs. 1 crore and pay compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that it is a non-profit registered co-operative society comprising of small and marginal farmers as its Members. The society has been adopted by State Bank of India, Sulluerpet branch under the scheme evolved by National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS). Under the said scheme the bank would provide monetary help in the form of crop loans to the farmers through the society which in turn had to insure the crops against damage/loss due to natural calamities such as floods, drought etc. 1560 farmers had taken crop loan from the bank which in turn deducted insurance premium from the loan accounts and paid to Op1 insurance company towards crop insurance for Rabi season 2000-2001 under NAIS. Sullurpet was severely hit by drought in the Rabi season 2000 -2001. The State Government declared it as drought hit area. The Revenue Department evaluated the crop loss for the year 2000-2001 at 60% - 100% and published in the District Gazette Dt.
3.5.2001. However, Op1 insurance company did not compensate the loss, though it had paid to the farmers of Doravari Sattram, and Tada mandals of Nellore district, which are adjacent to Sullurpet mandal. Thereupon it got issued legal notice on 17.6.2002 for which Op1 gave vague reply. The repudiation was unjust, discriminatory, constitutes deficiency in service.
It filed W.P. No. 14304/2003 before the High Court of A.P., and the same was closed as infructuous, when the respondent informed that there was no crop loss in Sullurpet. As per the procedure the agency had taken the yield from different lands from different villages where it had adequate irrigation through bore wells. The method adopted by Op1 was unscientific and erroneous. In fact the Revenue Department basing on the crop surveys conducted for the rabi-season for the year 2000- 2001 notified Sullurpet as drought hit area mentioning the details of crop loss. It mentioned that the crop loss in 33 villages ranged between 60% and 100%. The average crop loss in the entire mandal was 75.85%. Though Op1 collected Rs. 1,84,989.30 towards premium it did not adopt scientific method while assessing the loss.
Had it followed proper method by taking the yield data from the tank ayakut lands it could have found that there was loss of crop due to drought. In fact it had collected the data in respect of 3 out of 7 villages on 12.4.2001 after expiry of Rabi season by 31.3.2001. The said data could not be relied representing the true picture. The very purpose of insuring the crop is defeated. Op1 did not come to the rescue of farmers on loss of crops, and relieve the farmers from economic crisis. Therefore it filed the complaint for a direction to Op1 to treat the crop loss for each of the farmers at 75.85% besides compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs and costs.
3) Op1 insurance company resisted the case. It alleged that the complainant was not a consumer and the complaint was not maintainable, and liable to be dismissed. The claim is under the Rashtriya Krishi Bhima Yojana i.e., National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS) which scheme was upheld by the Honble Division Bench of the High Court of A.P. The claims for a particular crop in a particular insurance under NAIS are based on actual yield data as furnished by the Bureau of Economics & Statistics Department through crop cutting experiments and not on the basis of Gazette notification issued by the State Government. The State Level Co-ordination Committee, on crop insurance, before the commencement of the season notifies the crops and areas. During Rabi 2000-2001 season for paddy crop, Sullurpet was notified as insurance unit No. 16. Since the scheme operates on area approach, all the farmers growing the notified crop in an insurance unit are deemed to have suffered loss when the actual yield determined through conduction of cross cutting experiment (CCE) is short of the threshold yield which the average of past thee years average yield multiplied by level of indemnity. The claims are calculated by the following formula:
Claim = Shortfall in yield x sum insured Threshold yield Where shortfall in yield = Threshold yield - Actual yield.
During Rabi 200-2001 season the threshold yield for paddy crop in Sullurpet mandal was 1611 Kgs/hect and the actual yield determined through CCEs was 1799 Kgs/hect. Since there was no shortfall in the yield claims were not entertained. There was no discriminatory action or deficiency of service on its part. The method is scientifically designed by the NSSO and is in practice since long, not only in the State of A.P. but also in the entire country and the same methodology is used to determine the production estimates in the country. The selection of plots is done on randam sampling method. The scheme is implemented by the State and Central Governments along with implementing agency viz., General Insurance Corporation of India. The notification of the Dist. Collector has no application in the instant case. No individual policy is issued. The complainant is not holding policy on behalf of the farmers. There is no deficiency in rendering service. There was no violation of statutory rules or conditions of the scheme. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The complainant in proof of its case filed the affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A6 marked besides third party affidavits of Koduru Peda Chengaiah, Yeluru Ankaiah, Boggula Chengaiah, Yeluru Gangamma, Illi Jamunamma, Notam Chengaiah and Notam Subrahmanyam stating that they got their lands irrigated through water drawn from the wells, and there was no water in their village during Rabi season 2000-2001. Refuting their evidence Op1 filed the affidavit evidence of its Regional In-charge and got Exs. B1 to B27 marked.
5) Earlier this Commission by its order Dt. 8.6.2006 held that farmers of the complainant had lost crop besides the State Government declaring it as drought in the Dist. Gazette Dt. 3.5.2001 and therefore directed Op1 insurance company to settle the claim.
6) Aggrieved by the said order, Op1 preferred F.A. No. 362/2006 before the National Commission. The National Commission by its order Dt. 22.4.2009 set-aside the order, remanded the matter directing this Commission to pass order on merits, especially, after carefully going through the terms and conditions of the scheme of National Agriculture Insurance Scheme and guidelines issued in that regard besides clarifications given on each point by Ministry of Agriculture on Frequently Asked Questions and pass orders on merits after affording opportunity to all the parties.
7) After remand the Government of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Agriculture & Co-operation, Hyderabad, the Commissioner of Agriculture, Government of A.P, Hyderabad, the Director, Bureau of Economics & Statistics, Hyderabad were impleaded as Ops 2 to 4 respectively.
8) Op2 filed counter resisting the case. While mentioning the details of the claim it alleged that the scheme was applicable to farmer loanees as well as non-loanees. As per the scheme the crop cutting experiment shall be undertaken per unit area/per crop on a sliding scale. A technical advisory committee comprising the representatives from National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO), Ministry of Agriculture and the implementing agency shall be constituted at National level to decide the size of CCE and other technical matters. As per the modalities of the scheme a State Level Co-ordination Committee is required to be formed in all the implementing states for overseeing the implementation of the scheme. Accordingly a SLCCCI committee was constituted with the following Members.
1. The Agricultural Production Commissioner/Principal Secretary (Agriculture & Co-operation) to Govt.
2. The Secretary to Govt.
(Finance Dept)
3. The Secretary to Govt. (Co-operation Dept)
4. The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture.
5. The Director of Economics & Statistics Representatives.
1) Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India
2) General Insurance Corporation of India
3) R.B.I.
4) National Bank of Agricultural and Rural Development (NABARD)
5) Convener, State Level Bankers Committee
6) National Sample Survey Organization
7) State Apex Co-operative Bank.
During Rabi season 2000-2001 Doravarisatram, Tada and Sullurpeta were notified by SLCCI as insurance unit No. 32, 17, and 16 respectively for paddy crop in Nellore district. The Bureau of Economics & Statistics conducted the cross cutting experiment and found that the actual yield was 1799 Kg/hectare for paddy in Sullurpet mandal as against threshold yield of 1611 Kg/hectare. Since the actual yield was higher than threshold yield, no claim was settled. The selection of the plot is done on Multistage Stratified Random Sampling Method. The estimates of Revenue Department or any other agency cannot be entertained for assessment of loss under this scheme.
If any defect or shortcoming is found, the complainants can approach the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India and seek for amendment or alteration of the scheme as per the procedure. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
9) Opposite party No. 3 the Commissioner of Agriculture adopted the counter of opposite party No. 2.
10) Opposite Party No. 4 the Director Bureau of Economics & Statistics filed its written version almost in the lines of opposite party No. 1s version. It alleged that the declaration by revenue authorities that Sullurpet mandal was drought hit has no relevance for the claim of crop insurance. The claims of the farmers for the crop loss will be settled by the insurance company (NAIS) on the basis of yield data furnished by it basing on the crop cutting experiment (CCE). The CCE would be conducted as per the procedure laid down by National Sample Survey Organization. The crop cutting experiments are conducted based on scientifically designed methodology followed in all the 22 States and 4 Union Territories where NAIS is being implemented. It consists of locating and marking of an experimental plot of a specified size in a field selected on the principles of random sampling. Harvesting and threshing of its produce and recording weight of the produce in the prescribed forms. Basically they are randomly selected from timely reporting scheme villages. They further gather important information viz., village wise allocation of experiments, four digited random numbers for selection of survey and sub-division numbers, pair of three digit random numbers for location of plot for each experiment and finally each experiment which have to be supervised by different agencies. The claims would be worked out as per the procedure, by the insurance company, once the yield data is submitted by the State Government as per cut off date decided. During the Rabi Crop for the year 2000-2001 in respect of Sullurpet mandal 12 experiments were conducted in six villages and the average yield data figure was higher than the threshold yield and hence the farmers of Sullurpet mandal were not entitled for any insurance claim though the mandal was declared as drought hit, and notified in Andhra Pradesh Gazette. The drought declaration will be normally in Kharif season only. The Rabi season starts from October and ends by January. The harvesting would be completed in the month of February to April. Therefore the allegation that the Rabi season was expired on 31.3.2001 and the data collected on 12.4.2001 was beyond Rabi season is not correct. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
11) The points that arise for consideration are :
i) Whether the crop assessment made under the NAIS scheme for the Rabi season 2000-2001 was contrary to the scheme and not binding on the complainant society?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to crop insurance?
iii) To what relief?
12) It is an undisputed fact that the farmers are members of the complainant society and are covered by National Agricultural Insurance Scheme. They are all residents of Sullurpet mandal. When they claimed the amount towards crop loss for Rabi season 2000-2001 it was repudiated on the ground that there was no loss of crop entitling any compensation under the policy where the threshold yield for paddy crop in Sullurpet mandal was 1611 Kgs/hect and the actual yield determined through crop cutting experiment was 1799 Kgs/hect. Since there was no shortfall in the yield they were not entitled to the claims.
13) Ex.
B16 is the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS) notified by Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture & Co-operation Dt. 16.7.1999 vide Ex. B1. Clause-4(iv) covers the drought and dry spells among other losses. Clause-10 deals with Seasonality Discipline. For Rabi season it would cover from October to next March. The cut off date for receipt of declaration is May and the cut off date for receipt of yield data is July/September. Clause 12 deals with levels of indemnity and threshold yield:
12. LEVELS OF INDEMNITY & THRESHOLD YIELD:
Three levels of indemnity, viz., 90%, 80%, & 60% corresponding to Low Risk, Medium Risk, & High Risk areas shall be available for all crops ( cereals, millets, pulses & oilseeds and annual commercial / annual horticultural crops) based on Coefficient of Variation (C.V) in yield of past 10 years data. However, the insured farmers of unit area may opt for higher level of indemnity on payment of additional premium based on actuarial rates.
The Threshold Yield (TY) or Guaranteed Yield for a crop in an Insurance Unit shall be the moving averages based on past three years average yield in case of Rice & wheat and five years average yield in case of Other crops.
14) In the instant case rice crop is in question.
Clause 11 deals with estimation of crop yield. It reads as follows :
11.
Estimation of Crop yield:
The State/UT Govt. will plan and conduct the requisite number of Crop Cutting Experiments (C.C.E's) for all notified crops in the notified insurance units in order to assess the crop yield.
The State/UT Govt.
will maintain single series of Crop Cutting Experiments (C.C.E's) and resultant yield estimates, both for Crop Production estimates and Crop Insurance. Crop Cutting Experiments (C.C.E's) shall be undertaken per unit area/ per crop, on a scale, as indicated below:
SI. No. Unit Area Minimum number of C.C.Es required to done
1.
Taluka / Tehsil / Block 16
2. Mandal / Phirka /any other smaller 10 unit area comprising 8-10 villages
3. Gram Panchayat comprising 4-5 villages 8 A Technical Advisory Committee ( T.A.C .) comprising representatives from N.S.S.O., Ministry of agriculture ( G.O.I.) and IA shall be constituted to decide the sample size of CCEs and all other technical matters.
Clause 13 deals with coverage and indemnity: It reads as follows :
If the 'Actual Yield' (AY) per hectare of the insured crop for the defined area [ on the basis of requite number of Crop Cutting Experiments (CCEs)] in the insured season, falls short of the specified Threshold Yield (TY), all the insured farmers growing that crop in the defined area are deemed to have suffered shortfall in their yield. The Scheme seeks to provide coverage against such contingency.
'Indemnity' shall be calculated as per the following formula:
Shortfall in Yield/ Threshold Yield x Sum insured for the farmer { Shortfall in Yield = Threshold Yield - 'Actual yield ' for the Defined Area} 13A.
INDEMNITY IN CASE OF COVERAGE AND INDEMNITY:
Loss assessment and modified and modified indemnity procedures in case of occurrence of localized perils, such as hailstorm, landslide, cyclone and flood where settlement of claims will be on individual basis, shall be formulated by IA in coordination with state / UT. Govt.
The loss assessment of localized risks on individual basis will be experimented in limited areas, initially and shall be extended in the light of operational experience gained. The District Revenue administration will assist IA in assessing the extent of loss.
The implementing agency is G.I.C. of India till such time an exclusive Organization will be set up. There was a mention:
A State Level Co-ordination Committee on Crop Insurance (SLCCCI) would be formed in all the implementing States / UTs for the purpose of overseeing implementation of the Scheme. The committee will be headed Agricultural Production Commissioner (APC) or by an Official of equal rank of the State and will include senior Officers of the State, VIZ. Secretary (Agriculture), Secretary (Cooperation), Secretary (Finance), Director, Bureau of Statistics & Economics, Registrar of Co-operative Societies, representative of Ministry of Agriculture, Financial Institutions including NABARD, RBI, State Apex Co-op. Bank, Convener, State Level Bankers Committee (SlBC) and Implementing Agency (IA).
15) The very same procedure is mentioned in Clause-5 for assessment of crop yield. It also mentioned that a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) comprising representatives from NSSO, MOA and IA shall be constituted at National level to decide the sample size of CCEs and also technical matters pertaining to Threshold Yield / Actual Yield etc.
16) National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS) clarifies and answers frequently asked questions.
Q16: When and how, the claims are settled under NAIS?
In case of widespread calamities leading to damage and loss of crops, claims are settled on area approach basis. Any insured crop in a notified area recording lower actual yield than the guaranteed yield as per the crop estimation surveys conducted by the state govt. shall automatically become eligible for compensation/claim. The shortfall in yield is determined for each crop and is the difference between the guaranteed yield and the current seasons actual yield. Shortfall % is determined by expressing the shortfall as a proportion of guaranteed yield. Claim is then computed by multiplying the sum insured with the shortfall %. Therefore no claims would be admissible/payable in case the current seasons actual yield is more than the threshold yield. Applicable amounts of claims so arrived at are routed to the farmers through the banks in case of those farmers who are covered through the banks.
Even in case of non-loanee farmers who approach AIC directly for insurance coverage, the claim amounts are paid by way of cheques or through designated bank branches such that claim amounts get credited to their accounts. The claim assessment and payment would be done after receipt of requisite yield data from concerned agencies.
The methodology of claim assessment based on individual approach shall be intimated to all concerned upon finalizing the areas and modalities.
Q17:
Whether annavari or any similar declaration/certification by the revenue or agriculture departments of the State Govt. at village/block/district level has any bearing on claim settlement?
Ans:
No, claims under the scheme are settled strictly as per the provisions and guidelines described and not according to declaration of flood/drought/annavari by any other agency/authority.
17) No doubt the Government of A.P. by notification Dt. 3.5.2001 under Ex. A3 published in the Nellore District Gazette notified the Sullurpet Mandal where the lands of the complainants are situated as drought hit area. It was mentioned that the crop loss ranging between 60% and 100% and the average loss was 75.85%. It is not as though it was published without any basis. It was based on various recommendations of the Working Group on scientific method of assessing crop yield in the event of natural calamities for conversion of short term production loans into medium term and long term loans appointed by the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture in January, 1980 and the require concept/basis in particular have been followed while declaring Annewari. It was mentioned that to determine the crop assessment they have followed scientific methodology by adopting crop cutting experiment (CCE).
18) Learned counsel for the complainant contended that they are relying on Ex. A3 in order to show that the claims are not made without any basis, and the officials of the Government after equally adopting the very same procedure under the scheme declared as drought hit area. There is no reason why the very same yardstick should not be applied to their case, more so, when the assessment of the yield by the respondents were not made as per NAIS scheme.
19) The National Commission has ruled out the applicability of NAIS scheme on the basis of assessment made by respective State Governments. Therefore, we do not intend to consider the assessment made by the State Government where it had declared as drought hit as it has no bearing for extending the benefit to the farmers under the NAIS scheme.
20) Opposite Party No. 2 categorically alleged that the crop loss will be settled under NAIS scheme on the basis of yield data furnished by t he Director, Bureau of Economics & Statistics (Op4). In its written version, it has stated that the methodology of the yield data assessment, the State Government, Department of Directorate of Economics & Statistics through conduct of crop cutting experiments under general estimation sureys, the method is scientifically designed by the NSSO and is in practice since long not only in our state but also in the entire country and the same methodology is also used to determine the production estimate in our state. The selection of the plots is done on multistage stratified random sampling method.
21) Opposite Party No. 4 explained in detail as to how the experiments are conducted and the process of crop cutting experiments consisting of :
i) locating and marking of an experimental plot of a specified size in a field selected on the principles of random sampling.
ii) Harvesting and threshing of its produce and
iii) Recording weight of the produce in the prescribed forms.
It further amplified stating:
crop cutting experiments for the Rabi Crop of the year 2000-2001 in respect of Sullurpet mandal totally 12 experiments were conducted in six villages and the average yield data figure was higher than the threshold yield and hence the farmers of Sullurpet mandal were not entitled for any insurance claim in so far as paddy cultivation for Rabi 2000-2001 is concerned. The Declaration by Revenue Department that a certain area as drought affected may be relevant for providing some drought relief measures, but not for claim of crop insurance, as crop insurance is payable based on yield estimates as provided by this opposite party.
He went on stating that:
the crop cutting experiments are conducted in a scientific manner and as per the procedure prescribed by NSSO. It is done totally on a scientific basis as stated supra. Though the mandal was declared as drought affected in A.P. Gazettee the drought declaration will be normally in Kharif season only. The Rabi season in Nellore district starts from October and ends by January. The harvesting normally be completed in the month of February to April.
22) At the outset, we may state that except reeling out all these facts, no record was filed to show, how, when, and where these experiments were conducted. It did not file the data furnished to the concerned authorities. It is not known in which of the villages, these experiments conducted. When matters are contested questioning the non-application of the benefit to them it is bounden duty to file the entire record and satisfy that it had followed the procedure. There is no standby presumption that the yield estimates made by Op4 satisfy insurer are to be taken as ex-facie correct. More than that the opposite parties had to prove that a State Level Co-ordination Committee on Crop Insurance (SLCCI) was formed. No record is filed to prove SLCCI with the authorities mentioned above entrusted to the Director, Bureau of Economics & Statistics (Op4) to furnish crop yield. Except making pleadings no evidence is placed. There is no reason why opposite parties did not file this crucial evidence.
23) As we have earlier pointed out for estimation of crop yield a Technical Advisory Committee ( T.A.C .) comprising representatives from N.S.S.O., Ministry of agriculture ( G.O.I.) and IA shall be constituted to decide the sample size of CCEs and all other technical matters. In the first instance there is no proof that the Government of A.P. has notified the cases where requisite number of CCE may be conducted in accordance with the cut off dates fixed under the scheme. There is no proof that a Committee comprising representatives of State/UT Govt., National Sample Survey Organization(NSSO) and IA was set up at the State level to monitor / supervise and advise in matters relating to adequacy and quality of CCE's. Equally there is no proof that a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) comprising representatives from NSSO, MOA and IA was constituted to decide the sample size of CCEs and also technical matters pertaining to Threshold Yield / Actual Yield etc.
24) Obviously there is no notification entrusting the matter to it to submit the yield estimation. It is contrary to Clause-11A of NAIS scheme. Learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that at any rate, Ex. B1 notification was issued by Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture & Co-operation Dt. 16.7.1999, based on which Op4, furnished the estimates for the Rabi Season 2000-2001. A perusal of Ex. B19 does not any way indicate that by virtue of notification Dt. 16.7.1999 (Ex. B1) such an estimation was given. The reference was to their own office letter Dt. 30.5.2001. When the complainant has been consistently contending that OP4 has no right to estimate the average yield nor such a report is binding, the opposite parties except stating that by virtue of notification Ex. B1 Dt.
16.7.1999 they assessed the average yield no authorization was filed to show that OP4 was entrusted to assess the crop loss. In order to assess the loss, Clause-11 has to be followed, which we have already excerpted.
25) Though the opposite parties are asserting that samples were taken as mentioned in the scheme, which the complainants dispute there is no reason why the same was not filed. The details of estimates/survey made by Op4 mention as to the extent, survey number and the village where samples were taken were not funished. The complainant could have cross checked and adduced evidence admitting or denying it. It should be trnansparent so as to enable the ryots to verify the facts. The opposite parties at least could have filed the entire record to show that the average yield was 1799 Kg/hectare for paddy in Sullurpet mandal as against threshold yield of 1611 Kg/hectare.
26) Admittedly the rabi season expires by 31st March every year. Admittedly the data was collected by Op4 was on 12.4.2001.
Obviously, in order to defend belated collection of data, it has contended that in Nellore District Rabi season starts from October and ends by January and the harvesting normally would be completed in the months of February to April.
This is contrary to record. No evidence was let in to prove that Rabi season extends beyond 31st March. Undoubtedly, OP4 had collected these samples beyond the expiry of the season, and was communicated to Op1 insurance corporation under Ex. B19 on 27.7.2001, noting the average yields. The average yields provided for the years 1997-1998 to 2000-2001 are as shown below :
S.No. Year Unit No. No. of expts Analysed Average yield
1.
2000-2001 16 12 1799
2. 1999-2000 16 12 1871
3. 1998-1999 12 12 1690
4. 1997-1998 16 14 2482 Alleging the average yield for the above three years were more than the threshold yield of 1611 Kgs/hectare, more so for 2000-2001 was 1799, it had repudiated the claim.
27) To sum up, the insurance corporation has formulated Ex. B16 scheme and guidelines indicating as to how a farmer would be entitled to the benefit of insurance policy, when he sustains loss. An elaborate procedure is contemplated for assessment of crop yield. A Technical Advisory Committee comprising representatives from N.S.S.O., Ministry of agriculture (G.O.I.) and IA shall be constituted to decide the sample size of CCEs and all other technical matters. There is no proof that they have decided the sample size etc. Even otherwise a State Level Coordinating Committee has to be formed comprising several officials of the several departments of State Government besides the Implementing Agency (IA). The State Government shall notify the crops in order to enable the SLCCI to consider factors such as availiability of past yield data, cropped area and to conduct requisite number of crop cutting experiments (CCE) etc. There is no proof that estimation of crop yield was entrusted to OP4, as required under the scheme. Evidently when Op4 had estimated the yield, it did not take representative of NSSO, MOA and IA. The yield data as furnished by Op4 cannot be the basis for rejecting the claims of the complainants, as it was contrary to the scheme framed by NAIS.
28) The learned counsel for complainant represented that by virtue of orders of National Commission Dt. 8.2.2008 in F.A. No. 362/2006 the entire amount due to them was deposited and they had withdrawn on furnishing bank guarantee. Since they are all poor farmers if recovery proceedings are initiated though the insurance corporation did not follow the procedure while repudiating the claim, it would cause injustice to them. We are not convinced with such contention. If the complainants are not entitled to the benefits necessarily they had to refund the amount. However, in the light of evidence filed before this Commission, we are of the opinion that the committee was not constituted as required under clause-11 under the NAIS scheme and equally there is no proceeding authorizing Op4 alone to conduct cross cutting experiments and arrive at threshold yield as well as actual yield. Evidently the complainant had proved that their crops were lost due to drought. We are of the opinion that the insurance corporation could have followed the methodology as mentioned in its scheme and assess the loss, and extend the benefit whatever they are entitled to.
29) Therefore, we are of the opinion that the very rejection of their claims would constitute deficiency in service. They are entitled for compensation towards loss of crop for Rabi season 2000-2001. However, they are entitled to the said benefit up to a limit of Rs. 1 crore. Since the said amount was received, while allowing the complaint, we direct the same to be assessed, by OP1, (NAIS) and adjust towards the amount if any, payable by them to the complainants within eight weeks. In view of the fact that the matter relates to 2003, we do not intend to award any compensation. In the circumstances of the case each party to bear its own costs.
30) The complaint is accordingly allowed in part as indicated above. Time for compliance eight weeks.
1) _______________________________ PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________ MEMBER APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT: OPPOSITE PARTIES None None Exhibits marked for complainant:
A1- Letter dt.21-6-2003 addressed by the opposite party to the complainants Counsel.
A2 Declaration Form issued by Nodal Bank under National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS) to the General Insurance Corporation of India.
A3-Notification published in the Nellore District Gazette dt.3-5-2001, A4- Legal notice issued by the complainants counsel to the Manager of the Opposite party Insurance Company.
A5-Postal acknowledgement and Ex A6 is the letter dt.30-8-2002 addressed by the Opposite party to the President of the Sullurpet Farmers Service Co-op Society Ltd.
Exhibits marked for opposite party:
B1- Letter dt.16-7-1999 of the Ministry of Agriculture along with scheme of Rashtriya Krishi Bima Yajana.
B2- Consent and letter of Authority dt.28-3-2000, B3- G.O.Rt,.No.826,Agriculture and Co-op (F.P.II(1) Department dt.21-8-2000, B4-Comprehensive Group Insurance Scheme.
B5-Notification dt.18-3-1986, B6- Circular dt.28-1-1988 B7 to B15 are the copies of judgments in WP.Nos.6614/1998dt.27.9.1997; WP No. 346/1992, WP.No.11882/1993.dt.23-8-1988; WP.No.1828 of1003 dt.8-3-1994, W.P.No.13209 of 1995 dt.25-9-1995, WP.No.3510 of 1987 dt.23-4-191,WP.No. 20227 of 1998 dt.7-3-1989, W.P.No.11380 of 1993,dt.8-9-1989 and W.P.No.20650 of 2000 dt, 18-2-2002.
B16 National Agricultural Insurance Scheme and guidelines B17 The factual position of the Threshold Yield of SULLURPETA MANDAL Nellore district for rabi 2000-01 B18- G.O.Rt.No. 7, of Agrl and Co-op (FP.II) Dept.dt.3-1-2001 B19 Lr.dt.27-7-2001 of Director of Economics and Statistics Hyd.
B20- Lr.dt.31-7-2000 of Director of Economics and Statistics Hyd B21- Lr.Dt.30-7-99 of Director of Economics and Statistics, hyd.
B22Lr.dt.31-7-98 of Director of Economics and Statistics, Hyd.
B23- Photostat copy of G.O.Ms.No.142,dt.12-6-2000 B24 Photostat copy of Scheme & Guidelines of National agricultural Insurance Scheme B25- Photostat copy of Commissioner of Agriculture No.Crop.Ins(2)/224/2009dt.15-9-2009 B26- Extract of Chapter V of Agricultural statistics Manual Part-2,2001 B27- Extract of Chapter III of Manual on Crop Estimation Surveys on Food and Non-Food crops in A.P. issued by Director of Economics and Statistics
1) _______________________________ PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________ MEMBER Dt. 19. 05. 2010.
*pnr