State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri.B.Venkata Konda Reddy vs The Government Of A.P.State 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.125/2006 Between: Sri B.Venkata Konda Reddy S/o Pedda Konda Reddy r/o Thakkallapalli Village Putlur 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, State Bank of India, Tadipatri Branch Anantapur District. . Respondents/ Opposite Parties This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri N.U.Devanatha Reddy & Sri N.P.Sreenivasulu, advocates 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 N.R.K.Mohan, 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.25,000/- for lands in Sy.Nos.1647 & 1744-D Thakkallapalli Village in Senagalagudur Revenue Village, Putlur Mandal 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 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 Putlur Mandal, because they were covered with the insurance scheme, whereas the farmers in Thakkallapalli Village were not considered. Thus, the complainant raised Groundnut crop depending on monsoon. 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. The lands are situated on Eastern side under the revenue Village of Senagalagudur. The lands on Western side were under the Revenue Village of Putlur. The Bank was negligent in mentioning that the lands of Thakkallapalli Village were under Putlur Revenue Village, which was not correct. The lands of the complainant were on the Eastern side of the Village under Senagalagudur Revenue village limits. The crop insurance was given @ 46% in the loan amount to all the farmers, who had lands in the Revenue Village of Senagalagudur on the basis of failure of Groundnut crop.
The complainant did not get crop insurance due to the attitude of the Bank. One B.Ramakrishna Reddy of Thakkallapalli Village was given 46% insurance amount from the loan amount as if his lands were situated within Senagalagudur Revenue Village. But the crop Insurance was not given to the complainant, whose lands were also in Senagalagudur Revenue Village.
The Mandal Revenue Officer, Putlur on verification of the records sent a letter dt.17-07-2006 that the lands in Thakkallapalli Village in Sy.Nos.999 to 1100, 1599 to 1763, 2222 to 2250 and 2957 of Thakkallapalli Grama Panchayat had to be considered as the lands situated in Senagalagudur Revenue Village limits. The mistake committed by the Bank was published in Eenadu Daily, District edition dt.30-07-2006 and Andhra Prabha, District edition dt.29-07-2006. Pattadar Pass Book disclosed that Groundnut crop was raised. Thus, the complainant claimed Rs.11,500/- (46% on the loan amount) towards crop insurance, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards costs total Rs.23,500/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization with costs.
6. The 1st respondent filed a counter that the 1st respondent had no knowledge of the loan availed by the complainant from the Bank and crop insurance was collected by the 3rd respondent (Bank). As the crop was failed in Senagalagudur Village during Kharif, 2005, crop insurance was sanctioned. It was not correct that the staff did not give suitable instructions to the filed staff drawing samples for crop cutting experiments relating to the rules and guidelines that were applicable. Senagalagudur Revenue Village was taken as unit during Kharif 2005 and 8 crop cuttings were conducted in a scientific way by the Primary workers.
The Bank had to get Survey Numbers of the Village. All the Survey Numbers in Senagalagudur Revenue Village were to be covered under crop insurance . It was correct that there was shortage of 46% of crop yielding in Senagalagudur Village as per Government records. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Putlur sent a letter stating that Sy.Nos.999 to 1100, 1599 to 1763 and 2222 to 2250 and 2957 of Thakkellapalli Grama Panchayat had to be treated as lands of Senagalagudur Village.
The present petition was not maintainable since the Government was not performing any service or hire to the farmers. The complainant was not a consumer and there was no deficiency of service and the complaint was not maintainable for want of notice u/s 80 C.P.C. The Government would assist Agricultural Insurance Company of India Ltd., in assessing the extent of crop loss. Thus, the petition may be dismissed.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. During Kharif 2005 the threshold yield in Putlur was 451 Kgs., per hectare and actual yield through CCES was 693 Kgs. per hectare. Hence, there was no shortfall in the yield and no claim was payable. In Senagalagudur Village, the threshold yield was 451 Kgs. per hectare and actual yield through CCES was 245 kgs., per hectare during Kharif 2005.
Hence, there was shortfall of 46% in the yield. Thus, the claims were paid. Senagalagudur Village and Putlur Village were notified as insurance unit No.162 and 160. 8 CCEs were conducted in Senagalagudur and Putlur Village to assess the yield of Groundnut un-irrigated crop. The crop was classified as Groundnut (un-irrigated) and Groundnut (irrigated) in Kharif.
10. NAIS was multi agency scheme involving various agencies like Banks and State Government Departments and each agency was specified, the responsibility in the operation of the scheme. AIC of India was implementing agency of NAIS. The Bank had to send the prescribed norms and details of the crop insurance proposals. The Banks had to verify the revenue records regarding location of land, Survey Number and Village particulars. If the Banks would furnish the correct particulars, there was no deficiency of service on their part. But the Banks have committed mistakes of reporting the correct Village name causing deficiency of service on their part. The AIC of India would depend on the proposals received from the Bank paid the claims to the eligible notified areas as per the scheme.
Therefore, the role and responsibility of each agency was specified in the scheme. The selection of the field to conduct crop cutting experiments was done by the Chief Planning Officer.
SLCCCI would notify the crops and areas under NAIS including Villages in Mandal.
11. 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 it was 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.
12. The 3rd respondent (Bank) filed a counter denying the complaint averments. There was no negligence on the part of the Bank in not giving insurance amount to the complainant. Paper news was not authenticated evidence. The complainant had to prove when insurance coverage was compulsory to agricultural loan and Kisan Card loan for notified crops and notified areas up-to full loan amount. The complainant had to prove that he had lands at Thakkallapalli within Senagalagudur Revenue Village, which was notified area for raising Groundnut crop as notified crop. The Bank collected premium and remitted to Nodal Banki, who submitted to the 2nd respondent. The complainant had to prove that the crop was irrigated or un-irrigated and crop name had to be mentioned. It had to be proved that the yield was 25% average in Senagalagudur Village during 2005 Kharif.
It was to be proved that the 1st respondent failed to give instructions to the field staff drawing samples for crop cutting experiments and the revenue authorities had given clear guidelines to the Banks, while sending the list of farmers for collecting crop insurance. In view of abolition of Village Administrative Officers for each Village and appointing Panchayat Secretaries and non appointment of Secretaries to each revenue village, the Bank mentioned Thakkallapalli Village would come under Putlur Revenue Village. There was no negligence on the part of the Bank. The respondents 1 and 2 should have extended the crop insurance to the farmers of Senagalagudur, which was a part of Thakkallapalli Panchayat. The 3rd respondent collected the premium and sent to the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent had to sanction crop insurance to the complainant after getting necessary information from the 1st respondent. The 3rd respondent was not responsible for non-extending the insurance coverage. The 1st respondent had to decide the revenue limits of the agriculture lands and not with 3rd respondent. Thus, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
13. 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?
14. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A6 were marked and on behalf of the respondents Ex.B1 to B3 were marked.
15. POINT NOS.1 to 3:- The complainant availed a crop loan from the 3rd respondent-Bank of Rs.25,000/- for his lands in Sy.Nos.1647 & 1744-D of Thakkallapalli Village in Senagalagudur Revenue Village, Putlur Mandal a notified area for raising notified crop namely Groundnut crop during Kharif season 2005.
16. 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 rain 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.
17. The entire complaint disclosed that the lands of the complainant were classified as un-irrigated depending upon monsoon and groundnut crop was raised (un-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 submitted to the Bank that he cultivated his dry land with the help of rain water. When 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.
18. Ex.A1 was Xerox copy of Pattadar Pass Book. Ex.A2 was Xerox copy of Pass Book of the Bank. Ex.A3 was Xerox copy of the letter from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Putlur to the Bank. Ex.A4 & A5 were Xerox copies of paper cuttings. Ex.A6 was Xerox copy of adangal extract. The documents of the 2nd respondent were Ex.B1 was Xerox copy of Data issued by the Agriculture Insurance Co. of India with regard to actual yield and shortage of yield of Groundnut crop. Ex.B2 was Xerox copy of unit wise estimate of average yield. Ex.B3 was Xerox copy of yield calculation data.
19. 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 in Putlur for Groundnut (un-irrigated) was 693 Kgs., per hectare as against 451Kgs., per hectare. So there was no shortage in the yield. In Senagalaguduru the actual yield was 245 Kgs., per hectare as against 451 Kgs., per hectare and claims were paid.
20. 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 had no jurisdiction to enquire into the dispute raised by the complainants. 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.
21. 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. General 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.
22. 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 the letter from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Putlur to the Bank.
Ex.A4 & A5 - Xerox copies of paper cuttings Ex.A6 - Xerox copy of adangal extract.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2 Ex.B1 - Xerox copy of Data issued by the Agriculture Insurance Co. of India with regard to actual yield and shortage of yield of Groundnut crop.
Ex.B2 - Xerox copy of unit wise estimate of average yield.
Ex.B3 - Xerox copy of yield calculation data.
Sd/-
Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT (F.A.C.) DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR Typed by JPNN