State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Agriculture Insurance Company Of India ... vs Balaji on 5 August, 2022
1 Appeal No.146/2018
Date of Filing : 27.01.2018
Date of Disposal : 05.08.2022
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 05th DAY OF AUGUST 2022
PRESENT
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT
Mr. K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
APPEAL NO.146/2018
Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited,
Regional Office, III Floor,
Krishi Bhavan, Building No.18,
Nruphathunga Road,
Bangalore-560001. . .. Appellant/s
(By Adv.Sri.S.K.Udayabanu)
VS
1.
1. Balaji
S/o Namdev Rao, Major,
Agriculturists,
R/at Dabka Village, Aurad Tq.,
Bidar Dist - 585401.
(R.1 By Adv.Sri.Bandagar Shivaji)
2. Branch Manager
Prathamika Krashika Pattina
Sahakara Sanga Niyamitha,
Dabaka Village, Aurad Tq.,
Bidar Dist-585401. .. Respondent/s
2 Appeal No.146/2018
ORDER
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT
1. This is an appeal filed U/s 15 of the C.P Act, 1986 by the Appellant/OP.1 aggrieved by the order dated 26.12.2017 passed in CC/105/2016 by Bidar District Forum.
2. Heard. Perused the impugned order and appeal grounds.
3. The Complainant is the farmer owning the land in sy.no.42 situated at Dabka village, Aurad taluk, Bidar district, got insured the soya crop for the year 2015-16 (khariff) under the scheme of NAIS (National Agricultural Insurance) of OP.1 and paid the premium through OP.2/bank. Due to lack of rainfall in the year 2015-16, the entire soya crop was damaged, for which he suffered heavy loss. The state Govt., had declared the year 2015-16 as drought affected ad released funds to the farmers of the Bidar district. Accordingly, he made request to settle the claim, which is not settled by OP.1. As such, consumer complaint came to be filed alleging deficiency in service in not settling the genuine claim of the Complainant. OP.1 contended that, based on the crop cutting experiments, Karnataka State Govt., provided the yield data, according to which, there was no shortfall in yield in respect of rainfed soyabean crop, and thus 3 Appeal No.146/2018 question of settling the claim does not arise. After rival contention of both parties, Forum below held an enquiry and passed the order in favour of the Complainant, directing the OP.1 to reimburse the sum insured along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation, besides awarding Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards cost.
4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, OP.1 come up with this appeal, contending that, impugned order suffers from material irregularity and contrary to the facts and law, is liable to be set aside.
5. On perusal of the impugned order, we found, Forum below thrown light on the documents such as resolutions dtd.20.01.2016 and 12.05.2016 passed by Revenue authorities, wherein declared the area as drought hit, resultant crop loss and recommended/requested funds for grants to the affected farmers; rain fall chart for the year 2015, wherein shows nominal rain falls in between June and October 2015; report dtd.29.03.2016 of Directorate of Economics and Statistics, wherein shows a fair average yield of soyabean in respect of different villages. Accordingly, held, OPs failed to prove, there was satisfactory average yield in the villages under caption. 4 Appeal No.146/2018
6. It is the contention of the OP.1 that, since the insured soya crop was under the scheme of NAIS, it is for the Complainant to prove their loss of crop by producing CCE (crop cutting experiment) report. However, District Forum, believing only on the drought declaration by Revenue Authorities, held the Complainant is eligible for claim amount, amounts to lack of application of mind to the facts of the case. Further contended that, neither the Complainant nor the District Forum is sure about the sum insured. Instead of calculating the compensation, given a general direction to pay insured amount along with interest, is contrary to the law and facts.
7. In the light of the above observations, we are of the considered view that, evidence ought to have been collected from the Complainant to ascertain what is the sum assured and what is the yield notification. Yield notification for particular year would be enough for obtaining yield in average. Crop insurance pertains to the year 2015-16. Yield may not be essentially equal in respect of loss as it depends upon the crop raised by individual farmer. In the circumstances, District Forum has to rely upon the CCE report of Director of Economics and Statistics Department to assess what is the actual loss if any suffered based on the affidavit evidence and material evidence to 5 Appeal No.146/2018 fix the compensation. In the circumstances, matter requires to be remanded to the District Forum to reassess the loss suffered by the farmer/Complainant on account of failure of the crop depending upon the yield notification and also price index. In such view, impugned order directing OP to pay sum assured is held not just and proper as there is no clear mention regarding how much amount has to be paid. Accordingly, we proceed to allow the appeal, consequently impugned order is hereby set aside. In view of the above observations and materials lapses, the matter is remanded to the District Forum to dispose of the case afresh in accordance with law.
8. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission to disburse the same to the Complainant soon after modifying the award in accordance with law.
9. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal.
Judicial Member President *NS*