National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Agricultural Insurance Company Of ... vs Kemlegowda on 5 October, 2006
NCDRC NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1440 OF 2006 (from the order dated 17.2.2006 in Appeal No.48 of the State Commission, Bangalore) Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd. Petitioner Versus Kemlegowda Respondent REVISION PETITION NO. 1441 OF 2006 (from the order dated 17.2.2006 in Appeal No.38 of the State Commission, Bangalore) Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd. Petitioner Versus Seethamma Respondent REVISION PETITION NO. 1443 OF 2006 (from the order dated 17.2.2006 in Appeal No.49 of the State Commission, Bangalore) Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd. Petitioner Versus Kumar Respondent REVISION PETITION NO. 1445 OF 2006 (from the order dated 17.2.2006 in Appeal No.48 of the State Commission, Bangalore) Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd. Petitioner Versus C.K. Swamy and another Respondents REVISION PETITION NO. 1447 OF 2006 (from the order dated 17.2.2006 in Appeal No.36 of the State Commission, Bangalore) Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd. Petitioner Versus Jayaram & another Respondents BEFORE : HONBLE MR.JUSTICE M.B. SHAH, PRESIDENT MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishnu Mehra, Advocate 05.10.2006 ORDER
M.B. SHAH, J. PRESIDENT.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner exhaustively. In our view, impugned order passed by the State Commission does not call for any interference.
The District Forum in its order dated 30.11.2005 discussed the contention of the petitioner and held as under:-
In this case, the respondent no.1 has only one objection, that is, the complainant during 2002 season has not at all grown any potato crop in his land ( NC+ 0). Hence he is not eligible for any crop claim compensation. But the complainant before this forum has produced one R.I.C. copy, in which Sy. No. 47/P5, 2.0 acres land for having grown potato crop is mentioned in col. No.12(9) clearly which is identified as N.P..3. The Village Accountant, Chatachatahali also had given his crop certificate, in which the complainant had grown in her own land Sy. No.47/P5 in 2.00 areas of land during 2002-2003 potato crop is certified which is identified as No.P5. Given the RKBY Proposal Form also the complainant has paid premium of Rs.1,291/- also is mentioned- which is identified as N.P.2 from the above mentioned documents, the complainant has clearly proved his status, hence the Respondent no.1 is liable to pay the msr. claim but till date they have not paid the same is deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent no.1. Hence, Respondent no.1 has to pay Rs.5,000/- also.
Relying upon the said findings recorded by the District Forum, the State Commission, and Karnataka held that there is no reason to doubt the revenue record produced by the complainants.
However, Mr. Mr. Mehra, learned counsel for the petitioner-
Insurance Company, after obtaining instructions from the concerned officers, submitted that investigation was carried out by the Agricultural Finance Corporation at the instance of the General Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the GIC) and the investigation report is not considered by the State Commission. In our view, this submission is totally misconceived because the District Forum and the State Commission have arrived at the conclusion that revenue records clearly establishes the case of the complainants that the crop, as stated, for taking the policy, was cultivated by them. Hence, it cannot be said that the State Commission has not considered the investigation report, because the said report would not nullify the revenue records.
Further it is to be stated that Government pronounces various schemes for welfare of the farmers. Insurance schemes are also pronounced every year so that farmers get insurance coverage. In case there is failure of crop, the bureaucrats implement the said schemes in such a way that farmers are required to spend the amount in litigation and in approaching the officers. This not only increases corruption, but also causes financial hardship to the farmers. This is unfortunate part of life.
With regard to the investigation report, we have to state that the report is an afterthought and it would not nullify what is recorded on the spot by the Village Accountants with regard to cultivation of the crop.
However, at the end, we would state that conclusions and recommendations of investigation report which is produced before us may be implemented by the Authority. Relevant recommendations are as under:-
B. Recommendations The different officials of the agencies involved in various stages of processing and implementation of crop insurance scheme like Village Accountants, Bankers, etc., should be properly trained and guided. This would go a long way to streamline and strengthen the effectiveness of the scheme to ensure smooth operation/fair-play in settlement of claims so as to achieve the desired goals of the Government.
(a) Village Accountants The Village Accountants should be properly trained and guided regarding their role in issue of Certificates and furnishing relevant information correctly and timely. Field visits should be invariably insisted upon and certificates should be based on the visits and updated records.
(b) Bankers The bankers should also be trained in guiding the farmers in filling up the proposal forms. As far as possible, they should ensure that the insurer or his, representative fills the forms. Correct guidance should be given regarding details to be furnished such as Survey Numbers, Crop and Area Grown, cut-off dates, etc. The bankers should scrutinize the proposal forms, in detail with respect to attachments like Area Sown Certificates, RTCs and ensure the correctness of information provided. They should also maintain the proposal forms in a systematic manner.
(c) Govemment of Karnataka A co-ordinated action of the implementing departments, viz., Revenue and Agriculture and Banks must be insured by GOK.
It must be ensured that complete information to all participating farmers in respect of notified crops, notified areas, seasonality disciplines, cut-off date, insurance premium payable in respect of A, Band C parts based on threshold yields, etc. Strict action may be initiated on those indulging in malpractices and wrong claims. Appropriate action to be taken/initiated in this regard should be decided- in consultation with GIC, DOA and Revenue Department.
(d). GIC/ AIC A coordinated action of all stakeholders should be ensured.
The scheme should be planned in advance and sufficient notice given to all participating farmers/agencies.
Orientation to participating agencies should be adequate.
In view of varying rainfall distribution pattern across Karnataka, cut off dates for seasonality, discipline could be different for different districts instead of common cut-off date for the State as a whole.
Last day rush for payment of premium by farmers should be avoided as it results in improper processing of proposal forms. The schemes should be planned and implemented well in advance.
In any case the Recommendation: Different officials of the agencies involved in various stages for processing the implementation of the crop insurance scheme like Village Accountants, Bankers etc. should be properly trained and guided be implemented at least by the GIC before recovering the premium from the poor farmers and in any case before giving them hope that if there is failure of the crop, they would get the assured sum within reasonable time and they would not be driven from pillar to post i.e. from officer to officer and from court to court and face various hurdles and litigation. Recommendations of such investigating agency are required to be implemented and are not to be used only for litigation. This leads to frustration and corruption. Todays newspaper report reveals that India is worlds No.1 bribe payer.
With these observations, these revision petitions are dismissed.
Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Secretary, Government of Inda, Ministry of Agriculture, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110001 for taking appropriate action so that farmers may not suffer and such schemes are implemented properly.
Sd/-
J. (M.B. SHAH) PRESIDENT Sd/-
(RAJYALAKSHMI RAO) MEMBER Sg/1