State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gujarnar-Nandlalbhai Javerbhai Patel ... vs State Bank Of India on 9 November, 2022
Details DD MM YY
Date of Judgment 09 11 2022
Date of filing 08 04 2022
Duration 01 07
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
GUJARAT STATE, AHMEDABAD
First Appeal No. 280 of 2022
Court No. 1
1. Sandipbhai Nandlalbhai patel
Age- 31, Business: Farming
Religion: Hindu, Address: Karsan para,
Opp. Sardar Society, Sayla,
Ta. : Sayla, Dist.: Surendranagar ...Appellant
Vs.
1. Manager Shri,
State bank Of India,
Address: Sayla Shakha, Sayla bajar, Sayla-363430
Dist. : Surendranagar
2. Universal Sompo General Ins. Co. Ltd.
Unit No. - 405, Fourth Floor, Opp. Hammor Restaurant
Panchwati Society, Chimanlal Girdharlal Road,
Elis bridge, Ahmedabad- 380009 ....Respondents
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. P. Patel, President
Ms. A. C. Raval, Member
Mr. R. N. Mehta, Member APPERANCE : Ld. Advocate, Ms. Rajendrasinh B. Raol, For the appellant Order By : (Ms. A. C. Raval, Member]
1. The appellant/ original complainant has filed present appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the respondent/ original opponents before the State Commission, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned District Consumer ADIT A-280-22 Page 1 of 10 Disputes Redressal Commission, Surendranagar dated 24.02.2022 in complaint Case No. 966 of 2019.
2. Heard Ld. Advocate Mr. Rajendrasinh B. Roal for the appellant. This case is pertaining crop compensation under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna 2018-19 (hereinafter referred as PMFBY.) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and this case is one of the cases of group matter. Hence, this Commission has decided to hear and dispose of this appeal finally on merits at the admission stage.
2.1 The appellant is original complainant and respondent No. 1 is original opponent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 is original opponent 2 before the District Commission. hereinafter the appellant and respondents will be referred as per their original status.
3. Facts of the case of the complainant:
The complainants are farmers and they possess agriculturel land in their respective villages. The complainant is possessing land in Village Sayla, Ta. Sayla, Dist. Surendranagar.
It is the case of the complainants that the Central Government has introduced PMFBY 2018 across the country. Under this scheme the farmers who get the loan from the financial institution are compulsorily covered under the insurance. The complainants have been granted the loan from the Bank and the Bank has deducted the premium at the time of disbursement of the loan. The said premium was deposited with the ins. co. The description of the loan and insurance premium are asunder:
Crop Farmers loan Premium
Survey Area/hector/sq
Loan amou paid
AC No. nt .mt.
No.
Irrigated 1,68,840 16,184 02-02-34
56110074777 1004/Paikee3
cotton/
Peanut
Sum insured was Rs. 1,68,840. That the loanee farmers were mandatorily covered under the scheme and the premium was automatically deducted from their loan account.ADIT A-280-22 Page 2 of 10
Due to severe drought condition during the season. The crop for the year 2018-19 failed but the insurance company has not paid any compensation. Therefore, the complainant has given the application dated 24.05.2019 to the opponents for payment of crop compensation as stated in the application. The insurance company has not provided the copy of policy to the complainants. The complainant filed consumer complaint before the ld. District Commission, Surendranagar for amount of Rs. 4,68,840 with 12% cumulative interest and Rs. 10,000 for the compensation towards mental agony harassment and cost of litigation.
3.1The complainant has produced following documents before this commission with D' list at page no. 8
1. Revenue records to show the ownership of the land.
ii. Bank loan verification application form under PMFBY scheme.
iii.The resolution dated 21.11.2018 of agricultural department.
iv. Details regarding indemnity level AY for Kharif 2018 TY for Kharif 2018.
v. Details of co-payment.
vi. Report of Mamlatdar sayla stating the five years rain condition, 3.2 Defence:
The Opponent Insurance company has stated in its written Statement filed before the Learned District Commission that as per the data of Actual Threshold Yield provided by government for the said crop the claim is not payable because 8830/- was already paid as a part of mid-season adversity.
Application No. Mid Season Liquidation Date UTR No. 2018943552 8830 15-Mar-19 NO74190211569323 It is further submitted that the mid-season adversity was declared by the Government in the particular district. Therefore claim was given to the insured farmers on the basis of the formula and illustration provided in the PMFBY operational guidelines.ADIT A-280-22 Page 3 of 10
4. Order under challenged:
Following order passed in Complaint no. 966 of 2019 on 24.02.2022.
The complaint is dismissed No order as to cost.
5. Argument of the Complainant :
The advocate of the appellant/Complainant argued that the loss accrued to the complainant has not been calculated as per the PMSBY guideline issued by the government. The Insurance Company has not produced any data declared by the government or any calculation by which complainant's entitlement has been denied. The learned District Commission has passed the order relaying upon the written statement filed by the Insurance Company. The appellant has paid the premium to cover future loss but the Insurance Company has not provided compensation for the actual loss accrued to the complainant. As per the policy condition Insurance Company should pay the entire amount of loss accrued to the complainant and requested to admit and allowed the appeal and to set aside order passed by the Learned District Commission.
Merits of the case:
6. The Government of Gujarat has issued notification No. G. R. No. PFB-102018-4506-K-7 dated 04.12.18 for implementation of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY)Kharif-2018-19 and Rabi-summar-2018-19. The said notification is provided by the appellant. At page 52 in Appeal No. 280/2022. This is considered in the present case.
6.1It is not in dispute that the complainants are farmer they have received the loan from the opponent no. 1 Bank. As per the PMFBY scheme the loanee farmers are covered under the compulsory insurance. The amount of premium was deducted by the bank at the time of disbursement of the loan. There is no dispute about the sum insured and premium paid by the complainant.
6.2 The Ins. co. Is implementing agency for payment of compensation under the PMFBY scheme introduced by the Central Government for whole India. Under the scheme provisions regarding which crops are covered, compulsory and voluntarily coverage, risk to be covered and exclusion, premium rates, mode of collection of premium, procedure for ADIT A-280-22 Page 4 of 10 assessment of loss and process and approval of claim, etc. Are specifically provided. It was also placed on website for general information. There is no provision to provide policy and terms and conditions of policy to each and every farmer. Therefore, the question of not providing the terms and conditions does not arise.
6.3The State Government has notified Threshold Yield (TY) as per resolution dated 0 4 . 1 2 . 2 0 1 8 . The Government has to further issued notification declaring the Actual Yield (AY) by adopting Crop Cutting Experiments as suggested in the resolution dated 04.12.2018 fora defined area.
6.4 It is beneficial to refer here some of the relevant Provision of Clause XI which reads as under:
On Account Payment of Claims due to Mid-Season Adversity
1.It is proposed to provide immediate relief to insured farmers in case of adverse seasonal conditions during the crop season viz. floods, prolonged dry spells, severe drought etc., wherein expected yield during the season is likely to be less than 50% of Threshold yield.
a) Eligibility Criteria:
i. All notified Insurance Units would be eligible for "ON ACCOUNT" payment only if the expected Yield of the affected crop during the season is less than 50% of threshold yield.
ii. The provision is invoked by the State Government through damage notification based on the proxy Indicators. iv. Insurance company may decide the quantum of likely losses and the amount of' on-account' payment based on the joint survey of Insurance Company and state government officials.
vii. If adversity occurs within 15 days before the normal harvest time, this provision will not be invoked.
c) Loss assessment procedure:
i. Joint committee of State Government and the insurer for assessment of crop damage, has to be formed and notified before start of the crop season by the SLCCCI for each district.ADIT A-280-22 Page 5 of 10
e)Conditions:
i. Mere disbursement/ sanction of loan without receipt/ debit of premium before the notification of calamity would not make a farmer eligible for the claim.
ii. The On-account payment would be disbursed by the insurance company only after the receipt of Government share of premium subsidy.
iii. These claims would be adjusted from the end season area approach yield based claims.
6.5We have gone through the recorded of the case and it is observed that in the written statement filed by the Insurance Co. before the Learned District Commission, in para 10 it is observed as under :
10. The insurance company receives the premium from bank and subsidy for the said farmer/complainant. It is further submitted that Threshold Yield and Actual Yield/Estimated Yield is provided by Government to this opposite party and this opposite party will calculate the loss amount on the basis of the same. Therefore, it is not true that the calculation of loss done by the insurance company is vague and invalid.
It is further submitted that the mid-season adversity was declared by the Government in the particular district. Therefore claim was given to the insured farmers on the basis of the formula and illustration provided in the PMFBY operational guidelines.
In the written version filed before the Learned District commission at para 21 it is submitted by the Ins. Co. that, " Earlier we had already paid Rs. 8830/- as Mid-Season adversity loss amount. Hence, there is no claim pending on yhe part of the answering opposite party."
Application No. MID Season Liquidation date UTR No. 2018943552 8830 15-Mar-19 N074190211569323 6.6 Clause XI (10) provides how to assess, process and approve the claim if raised by the insured farmers which reads as under:
Assessment of Claims (Wide Spread Calamities)
10. If 'Actual Yield' (AY) per hectare of insured crop for the insurance unit (calculated on basis of requisite number of CCEs) in insured season, falls short of specified 'Threshold Yield' (TY),all insured farmers growing that crop in the defined area are deemed to have suffered short fall in yield of similar magnitude. PMFBY seeks to provide coverage ADIT A-280-22 Page 6 of 10 against such contingency. 'Claim' shall be calculated as per the following formula:
(Threshold Yield - Actual Yield)
------------------------------ X Sum insured Threshold Yield Where, Threshold yield fora crop in a notified insurance unit is the average yield of past seven years (excluding a maximum of two calamity year(s) as notified by State Government/ UT) multiplied by applicable indemnity level for that crop.
6.7 The insurance company has produced resolution dated 04.12.2018 issued by Agriculture, Farmers welfare and Co-
operation department at page 52 in appeal No.280/2022. By this notification the Threshold Yield (TY) for all Kharif-2018- 19 season crops for whole Gujarat is notified. On perusing the same and considering the crop area (Taluka) following facts are emerged.
Sr Taluka Page Crop Threshold
. No. Yield
1 Sayla 53 Irrigated Cotton 1082
6.8The appellant insurance company has produced letter dated 18.04.2019 issued by Director of Agriculture at page 50 wherein the Average Yield (AY) value of kharif-2018-19 season for the crop of Irrigated cotton of Surendranagar District is mentioned. On perusing the same following facts are emerged.
Sr Taluka Page Crop Average
. No. Yield
Irrigated
1 Sayla 51 1126.148
Cotton
6.9 We have calculated the compensation as per provision of Clause XI(10) of the scheme2018-19 as under: Crop- Irrigated Cotton. In this case sum insured is Rs. 168840/-
ADIT A-280-22 Page 7 of 10Short fall Yield=(Threshold Yield(TY) -Actual Yield(AY)) =(1082 - 1126.148) =- 44.148 Claims Payment =Short fall in Yield *Sum Insured Threshold Yield (TY) = - 44.148*168840/-
1082= -6889.05 The figure comes in minus. Therefore, compensation is not required to be paid by the insurance company.
7. In Revision Petition No. 2971 of 2012 dated 01.02.2017 in case of Agricultural Insurance Co. of India Ltd. vs. Hem Shankar & anr. wherein, it is held as under:
"11. The documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner in the shape of letter dated 29.01.2010 from the Government of Rajasthan, Commission rate of Agriculture, says it clearly that based on the data form the crop-cutting experiments for Kharif 2009season, the average yield of maize in the area of the complainants was more than the guaranteed or the threshold yield. In the guidelines to financial institutions attached with the scheme, it has been stated in clause 20 that claims under the scheme will be settled only on the basis of data received from crop-cutting experiments and not on any other basis such as an navari, declaration of drought etc. It is made out, therefore, that the orders passed by the Consumer Fora below which are based on the figures of the damage to the crop given by the Revenue Department, can not be made the basis for determining the compensation payable to the farmers. The orders passed by the consumer fora below are, therefore, perverse in the eyes of law.
12. Similar view has been taken in a number of cases already decided by this Commission. In a case recently decided by this Commission in FA No. 264/2010, "Agriculture Insurance Co. of India vs. Farmers‟ Service Co-op. Society Limited" and allied matters, an order was made on 31.05.2016,and it was held as follows:-
"It is very clear, therefore, that the declaration made by the Revenue Department of the State Government, saying that it ADIT A-280-22 Page 8 of 10 was a drought affected area is of no consequence, in so far as the out come of the present case is concerned. The farmersinquestionhavebeengotinsuredundertheprovisionsofth eNational Agriculture Insurance Scheme and hence, the decision is to be taken, based on the provisions of the Scheme. The Department of Agriculture and Cooperation of the State Government have also taken this plea in their appeal filed before this Commission that the decision has to be based on the guidelines issued in the Scheme."
13. In another case decided on 06.10.2016 n RP No. 2574/2012, "Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd. vs. Agriculture Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Ors." and allied matters as well, it has been held that decision about payment of compensation to the farmers insured under the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme has to be taken in accordance with the provisions laid down under the scheme.
8. This Commission has considered the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in Civil Appeal No(s). 6040- 6041/2011 in case of Ajitsinh Malubhai Ghummad Etc. vs. Union of India & Ors. wherein, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"The learned District Forum, inter alia found that the Threshold Yield(TY) i.e. assured produce is 1124 kilogram per hector 2 where as actual produce per hector of paddy crop is 1507 kilogram. Therefore, the appellants have not suffered any loss. The complaint was thus dismissed. Such order of the District Forum was not interfered within appeal by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission and later in revision by the Commission.
The appellants could not refer to any clause in the scheme that if the yield is less due to insufficient rains, that deficiency would be covered under the scheme of insurance. Still further, the Actual Yield(AY) was more than the Threshold Yield (TY) in the area in question, still further, all the three forums have taken a concurrent view that the appellants have failed to prove any loss, which is covered by the scheme of insurance."
In view of the said fact, we do not find any error in the order passed by the Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986."
9. This Commission has considered the grounds stated in memo of appeal, reasons stated in judgment and order passed by the Ld. District Commission, documentary evidence produced on record, argument advanced by the ld. advocate of the appellants, ratio laid down in above referred ADIT A-280-22 Page 9 of 10 judgments and facts and circumstances of the case. In this case the Threshold Yield (TY) is less than the Actual Yield(AY) and amount towards mid- season adversity is already paid therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the compensation. The complainant has failed to prove any loss, which is covered under the scheme of PMFBY. In view of the above deliberations we are of the opinion that judgment and order passed by the Ld. District Commission legal, correct and valid in eye of law. It is further appeared that the ld. District Commission has considered the factual aspect and provision of scheme in proper way. Therefore, the appeal is required to be dismissed. Hence, following final order is passed.
ORDER I) The appeal No. 280 of 2022 is d i s m i s s ed a t a d m i s s io n sta g e .
II) The order dated 24.02.2021 passed by the Ld. District Commission, surendranagar in Complaint No. 966/2019 is hereby confirmed.
III) No order as to costs.
IV) Copy of this order to be provided free of costs to the parties.
Registry is directed to send a copy this order to the District Commission Surendranagar through E-mail in PDF form at for taking necessary action.
Pronounced in the open Court today on ,2022 [Mr. R.N. Mehta] [Ms. A.C.Raval] [Mr. Justice V. P. Patel] Member Member President ADIT A-280-22 Page 10 of 10