National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Agriculture Insurance Co. Of India ... vs Prahlad Singh on 16 August, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI (1) REVISION PETITION NO. 464-534 OF 2011 (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 554 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-MD) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi. Petitioners Versus 1. Prahlad Singh S/o Hari Singh, Rajput R/o Kotwadtal, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Main Branch, Churu, Rajasthan (Through its Branch Manager) 3. State of Rajasthan, Through its Collector, Distt. Churu Rajasthan Respondents (2) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 553 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Ijpal Singh, S/o Sampat Singh, Rajput, R/o Kotwad Tal, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Main Branch, Churu, Rajasthan (Through its Branch Manager) Respondents (3) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 555 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Leela, W/o Surendra Singh, Rajput, R/o Kotwad Tal, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Main Branch, Churu, Rajasthan (Through its Branch Manager) 3. State of Rajasthan through Collector, Jaipur Respondents (4) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 556 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Khemchand, S/o Bhaguram, Meghvanshhi, R/o Raipuria, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. Baroda Rajasthan Gramin Bank Branch Satda, Tehsil Churu Through Branch Manager) Respondents (5) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 557 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Rewant Singh, S/o Umsingh, Rajput, R/o Jasrasar, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Churu, Rajasthan (Through its Branch Manager) Respondents (6) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 558 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Hariram, S/o Chumnaram, Jat, R/o Khandwa Patta, Tal, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. Punjab National Bank Branch Ghantel, Churu, Rajasthan (Through its Branch Manager) Respondents (7) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 559 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Pannaram, S/o Dungar Ram, Jat, R/o Dhameri, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Main Branch, Churu, Rajasthan (Through its Branch Manager) Respondents (8) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 560 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Surendra Singh, S/o Harpal Singh, Rajput, R/o Kotwad Tal, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Main Branch, Churu, Rajasthan (Through its Branch Manager) (9) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 561 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Hanumanaram, S/o Sugnaram, Sharma, R/o Kotwad Nathantan, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Churu, Rajasthan (Through its Branch Manager) 3. State of Rajasthan through Collector, Churu Respondents (10) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 562 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Indrajram, S/o Meghwal, R/o Kotwadtal, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager 3. State of Rajasthan through Collector Churu, Rajasthan Respondents (11) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 563 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Onkarmal S/o Sheojiram, Kumhar, R/o Dhani Kumharan, Kottwadtibba, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (12) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 564 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Tej Kanwar W/o Mohar Singh, Rajput, R/o Kotwadtal, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (13) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 565 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Smt. Kiran Kanwar, W/o Dharampal Singh, Rajput. R/o Kunsisar, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Churu, Rajasthan (Through its Branch Manager) Respondents (14) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 566 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Bhawani Singh, S/o Bhopal Singh, Rajput. R/o Jodipatta Satyu, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager 3. State of Rajasthan through Collector Churu, Rajasthan Respondents (15) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 567 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Mangal Singh, S/o Pratap Singh, Rajput. R/o Kotwad-Tibba, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager 3. State of Rajasthan through Collector Churu, Rajasthan Respondents (16) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 568 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Jhabar Gurjar, S/o Dhannaram, Gurjar, R/o Kotwadtibba, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (17) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 569 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Mahaveer Singh, S/o Durjan Singh, Rajput. R/o Kotwadtal, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (18) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 570 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Bhuraram, S/o Phoosaram, Jat R/o Dhameri, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager 3. State of Rajasthan through Collector Churu, Rajasthan Respondents (19) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 571 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Khangaram, S/o Bhaguram, Meghvanshi, R/o Rajpuria, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. Baroda Rajasthan Gramin Bank, Branch Satda, Tehsil Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (20) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 572 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Ghisaram, S/o Ganpatram, Gurjur R/o Kotwadtibba, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (21) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 573 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Bhawarilal, S/o Ramchandra Sharmam, R/o Kunsisar, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Churu, Rajasthan (Through its Branch Manager) Respondents (22) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 574 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Samundra Singh, S/o Jeewan Singh Rathore, Rajput R/o Ladaria, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. Baroda Rajasthan Gramin Bank, Jasrasar, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Through its Branch Manager Respondents (23) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 575 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Magan Singh, S/o Durjan Singh, Rajput, R/o Kotwadtibba, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (24) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 576 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Rameshwarlal, S/o Tikuram, Jat, R/o Dhameri Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (25) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 577 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Mohanlal, S/o Bhagirathram, Brahmin, R/o Kotwadtibba, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (26) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 578 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Kanaram, S/o Ramuram, Jat R/o Kotwadtibba, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (27) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 579 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Sita Devi, W/o Shiv Bhagwal, 2. Rajendra Kumar, S/o Shiv Bhagwan 3. Shyam Sunder S/o Shiv Bhagwan 4. Om Prakash S/o Shiv Bhagwan All caste Rajpurohit, Ward NO.21, Near Jhunjharji Ka Kuan, Churu 5. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager 6. State of Rajasthan through Collector, Churu Respondents (28) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 580 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Ishri Singh, S/o Mehtab Singh, Rajput, R/o Kotwadtal, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager 3. State of Rajasthan Through Collector, Churu Respondents (29) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 581 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Gulabn Kanar, W/o Bhopal Singh,Rajput, R/o Kotwadtal, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (30) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 582 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Niranaram & Narainram, S/o Doongar Ram, Jat, R/o Dhameri, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager 3., State of Rajasthan through Collector, Churu. Respondents (31) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 583 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Datar Singh, S/o Narain Singh, Rajput R/o Kotwadtal, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (32) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 584 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Shrawan Kumar, S/o Ramlal, Jat R/o Dhani Dungarsinghpura, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, through its Branch Manager Respondents (33) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 585 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Mohar Singh, S/o Kalyan Singh, Rajput R/o Pithisar, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, through its Branch Manager Respondents (34) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 586 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Girdhari Singh, S/o Bhopal Singh, Rajput R/o Kotwadtal, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (35) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 587 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Pannaram, S/o Baluram, Meghwal, R/o Kotwadtal, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (36) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 588 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Hanumanaram, S/o Malaram, Dhanak, R/o Dhudhwa Meetha, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Branch Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (37) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 589 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Ramlal, S/o Ganpatram, Jat, R/o Dahmeri, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (38) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 590 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Pemaram, S/o Puraram, Jat R/o Dhameri, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (39) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 591 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Shanti, W/o Kishan lal, Jat, R/o Khasoli, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. Bank of Baroda, through Manager, Branch Office, Ratan Nagar, Thesil & Distt. Churu. Respondents (40) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 592 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Bhagwanaram, S/o Ishra Ram, Jat, R/o Dhameri, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager 3. State of Rajasthan, Through Collector, Churu Respondents (41) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 593 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Asman Kanar, W/o Hari Singh, Rajput R/o Kheewansar, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. Sawai Singh, S/o Hari Singh, Rajput R/o Kheewansar, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 3. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (42) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 594 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Susheela Kanwar, , W/o Vikram Singh, Rajput, R/o Kotwad Tal, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager 3. State of Rajasthan, Through Collector, Churu Respondents (43) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 595 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Pratap Singh, S/o Rameshwarlal, Jat, R/o Joddipat ta Satyu, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (44) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 596 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Mahipal Singh, S/o Sabbal Singh, Rajput, R/o Totwadtal, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (45) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 597 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Chandrawali, W/o Kurdaram, Meghwal, R/o Dhameri, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. Rakkumar, S/o Kurdaram, Meghwal, R/o Dhameri, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 3. Bhanwarlal, S/o Kurdaram, Meghwal, R/o Dhameri, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 4. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (46) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 598 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Mangal Singh, S/o Ridmal Singh, Rajput, R/o Kotwad Tibba, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager 3. State of Rajasthan, Through Collector, Churu Respondents (47) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 599 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Bhanwar Singh, S/o Prahlad Singh, Rajput, R/o Kotwad Tal, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager 3. State of Rajasthan, Through Collector, Churu Respondents (48) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 631 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Danaram, S/o Malaram, Chamar, Rajput, R/o Pithisar, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (49) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No.632 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Mohar Singh, S/o Gad Singh, Rajput, R/o Kotwad Tal, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. Bank of Baroda,through Branch Manager Branch Office, Ratan Nagar, Tehsil & Distt. Churu 3. State of Rajasthan, Through Collector, Churu Respondents (50) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 633 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Purnaram, S/o Taruram, jat, R/o Kgabdwa Patta, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. Punjab National Bank, Branch Ghantel, Distt. Churu, Trough Branch Manager Respondents (51) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 634 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Bhanwar Singh, S/o Bhopal Singh, Rajput, R/o Kotwadtal, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (52) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 635 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Nandaram, S/o Malaram, Meghwal, R/o Pithisar, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (53) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No.636 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Hanumanaram S/o Lekhuram, Jat, R/o Dhameri, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager 3. State of Rajasthan, Through Collector, Churu Respondents (54) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 637 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Sajjan Singh, S/o Bachhan Singh, Rajput, R/o Dhudhwa Khara, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. Punjab National Bank, Dhudhwa Khara, Distt. Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (55) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No. 638 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Rameshwarlal, W/o Kushlaram, Nai, R/o Dhudhwa Meetha, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Branch Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (56) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No.639 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Dhanney Singh, s/o Dan Singh, Rajput, R/o Rampura, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (57) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No.640 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. SBhanwar Singh, S/o Mohabbat Singh, Rajput, R/o Jodipattasatyu, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (58) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No.641 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Ballu Khan, S/o Malu Khan, Kayamkhani, R/o Pithisar, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (59) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No.642 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Madanlal, S/o Pannaram, Meghwal, R/o Kotwadtal, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (60) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No.643 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Ganpatram, S/o Magharam, Jat, R/o Khandwa Patta, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. Punjab National Bank, Brnch Ghantel Distt., Churu, through Branch Manager Respondents (61) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No.644 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Hanumanaram, S/o Kanaram, Jat, R/o Binasar, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. through Branch Manager Respondents (62) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No.645 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Mohanlal, S/o Bhaniram, Jat, R/o Dhadhar, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (63) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No.682 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Bhanwarlal, S/o Takhuram, Jat, R/o Dhani Asha, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (64) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No.683 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Shrawan Devi, W/o Amilal, Jat, R/o Dhani Asha, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (65) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No.684 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Kanaram, S/o Sagarmal, Sharma, R/o Jodi Patta Satyu, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (66) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No.685 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Amilal, s/o Takhuram, Jat, R/o Dhani Asha, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (67) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No.686 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Suraj Kanwar, W/o Dhanney Singh, Rajput, R/o Jodi Patta Satyu, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. Anwar Kanwar W/o Madan Singh, Rajput, R/o Jodi Patta Satyu, Tehsil & Distt. Churu, Rajasthan 3. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (68) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No.687 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Hansraj, S/o Umaram, Jat, R/o Jodi Patta Satyu, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (69) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No.688 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Manawati, W/o Ragharam, Jat, R/o Jodi Patta, Charnan, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Main Branch, Churu through Branch Manager Respondents (70) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No.689 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Gangajai, S/o Mangturam, Jat, R/o Binasar, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. Central Cooperative Bank, Branch Churu, through Branch Manager Respondents (71) REVISION PETITION (Against order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. No.690 of 2010 State Commission, Rajasthan) 1. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Regional Manager) Sanghi Upasana Towers, 4th Floor, C-98, C-Scheme, Near Ahinsa Circle, Jaipur Through Authorized Signatory 2. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd., (Chairman-cum-Managing Director) 13th Floor, Ambadeep Building, 14, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Through Authorized Signatory Petitioners Versus 1. Asgar Khan, S/o Bhadar Khan, Kayamkhani, R/o Jasrasar, Tehsil & Distt. Churu Rajasthan 2. Central Cooperative Bank, Branch Churu, through Branch Manager Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER For Petitioners : Mr. Sanjiv Sharma, Advocate For Respondents :Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Verma, Advocate for R-1 in (RPs No.466, 470, 473, 475, 478,479,481, 483,485-487, 489-494, 500-505,508,516 and 525 of 2011 and for R-2 in (RP No. 504 & 508 of 2011) for R- 3 in (RP No. 490 & 508 of 2011 Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for R-1 in (RPs No. 467,477,482,484,495,506, 517-519, 521, 524,533 and 534 of 2011) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER Pronounced on: 16th August, 2013 ORDER
PER MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Since in the above noted revision petitions, common question of law and interpretation of the Scheme and guidelines of National Agriculture Insurance (NAI) issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India is involved the same are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Case of Prahlad Singh Vs. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. and others (Complaint No.324 of 2008) is taken as a lead case.
3. Prahlad Singh filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Churu Rajasthan, (for short, District Forum) on allegations, which read as under;
1. That the complainant is rural farmer of village Kotvad Taal Tehsil and District Churu. Applicants farming land is situated in Field Survey of Common Khasra in Rohi Village Kotvad Taal Tehsil and District Churu.
2. That the applicant had made Kisan Credit Card of his farming land from the Respondent No.3 whose Account Number is 51055175717. In which the insurance of the complainants cultivated crop by respondent No.4 as per Public welfare State and Insurance rules the respondent 1 and 2 sent the insurance premium of insured crop after deducting from the Loan account of applicant (Kisan Credit Card) to Insurance Company and the amount of Insurance Premium is marked in loan account of the applicant.
3. That applicants crop gram which was cultivated in month of November, the insurance of crop by the respondent Bank and Insurance Company in weather based insurance scheme after taking applicants gram crop insurance premium Rupees 337/- per hectare the insurance of Rupees 15,000/- per hectare of insurance amount was done and the amount of insurance premium being deducted by the respondent bank sent to respondent Insurance Company. On date 31/12/07 total Rupees 2528/- insurance premium was deducted from the applicant.
4. That in weather based insurance scheme in Rabi crop 2007 insurance was done. Insurance claim for crop on weather (Temperature, frost, unseasonal rainfall, extreme winter etc. and on being temperature below zero for continuously for three days) variations insurance is payable as per rules. Churu District is nation-wide known for weather variations. The going on variations in weather in Churu District and Churu Tehsil with occurrence of frost etc. temperature many times was below zero and in the month January 2008 which is important time for Rabi crop the temperature was twice continuously below zero from date 1 to 3 January 2008 and from 21 to 24 January, 2008 on which the applicant and the cultivators who cultivated Rabi crop/gram crop in Churu District insurance claim as per insurance rules is payable, when at one time temperature is below zero for continuously three days is 10 percent insured amount and for two times 15 percent addition to total 25 percent of insured amount.
5. That due to the variations in weather and temperature being below zero the Rabi/Gram crop of Churu District and Churu Village and cultivators of applicants village was destroyed, on which request for giving the insurance claim by the applicant alongwith other cultivators to the Insurance Company, weather based crop insurance scheme Rabi 2007 stating to be automatic procedure of insurance and shortly deposit of claim amount in applicants loan account/Kisan Credit Card which is situated at respondent No.3 and gave assurance to deposit claim amount shortly till now not paying the claim amount is a serious deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
6. That for indemnity of damage of crops due to the weather variations for this reason the insurance was done from Respondent by the applicant and as per the insurance rules even after Churu District being unfavourable weather claim payment not being done by the Respondent Insurance Company to the applicant and other than the tehsil of applicant, payment of claim amount to cultivators of districts other tehsil is serious deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The Respondent Insurance Company has responsibility of payment of claim. Applicant in this regard has also many times requested to the Respondent number 4 for the payment of insurance claim.
7. That on not doing the settlement of insurance claim after again request of the applicant lot of perplexity, harassment, mental agony, suffering, pain, financial loss was incurred and the poor farmer is in a bad condition even after appraising the insurance company with regard to the report of the weather/temperature below zero in the weather Department and Newspaper on 21.07.2008, denying to settle the payment of insurance claim petition is filed.
8. That cultivation of crop in his field by the applicant in Tehsil and District Churu and by deduction of crop insurance premium by Respondent No.3 situated in Kasba Churu conformity is there and the hearing of the case in always is under the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Forum. There is no claim in any other courts, is under limitation and other facts at the time of arguments will be placed.
9. That the complaint is filed with the correct court fees of Rs.100/-.
Therefore, on filing the complaint alongwith the affidavit it is requested that by admitting the complaint of the complainant following reliefs may be granted;
a) Applicants weather based crop Insurance scheme Rabi Crop 2007 in November, 2007 of cultivated grams Insurance claim amount of Rs.28,130/- (Twenty eight thousand one hundred thirty only) with interest may be granted from the Respondent Insurance Company.
b) Compensation to the applicant for perplexity, harassment, mental agony, suffering, pain of Rs.2,000/- may be granted from the Respondent Insurance Company.
c) For other financial loss to the applicant Rs.5,000/- and for cost of complaint etc. Rs.2,000/- may be granted from the Respondent Insurance Company.
4. Petitioners/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in their reply stated as under;
2. Under weather based crop Insurance Scheme in the month of Rabi 2007-08 on the basis of cultivators accepted credit limit the insurance crop shown in the loan application by the complainant and cultivated areas insurance and making premium was compulsory, the collective insurance premium only is sent by bank to the Insurance Company. The fact of complainants cultivation may be proved by himself from state records of this years revenue accounts and land dues.
3. That the facts stated in clause number three are true and correct that under the weather based crop insurance scheme in the month of Rabi 2007-08 for the crop of gram insurance amount per hectare is Rupees 15000.00 and premium amount Rupees 337.00 is fixed and on sanctioned credit limit the insurance of notified crop shown in the loan application and shown area was to be done.
But Hon'ble court has to be informed that under the scheme declaration letter is sent by Bank. The declaration letter was sent by the Nodal Bank of Respondent No.3 State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, group-V, Hanumangarh, in which the information of group of cultivators namely reference unit area (Tehsil), crop, reference weather centre, cultivator number, insured area, insurance amount premium amount information is given. Any information on any special persons name is not sent. Since exact information was given by the Nodal Bank of respondent number three.Therefore complainants crop was insured or not can be proved by only the complainant and respondent number three. Therefore due to lack of information of complainants crops was insured or not is denied.
4. The facts stated in clause number 4 of the complaint is denied for not being completely true. The complainant on basis of the facts has filed this complaint under that no insurance claim is not liable to be paid. The complainant as on which departments information has submitted of temperature being below zero continuously the answering Insurance Company has no knowledge. The Insurance Company has stated that the weather centre on the basis of information and figures provided by the National Collateral Management Services Limited (NCMSL) the minimum temperature from date 1 to 3 January was respectively: 1.5, 2.3, 1.7 degree centigrade and from 21 till 24 January was respectively 1.6, 1.9, 1.7 and 1.8 degree centigrade. And during frost risk the insurance period covered on other days also for continuously till three days the temperature was not found to be zero degree centigrade or below. Since as per the scheme for continuously till three days the temperature is zero degree centigrade or below then only claim is payable because of this reason in Churu Tehsil claim was not payable.
5. That the facts stated in clause number 5 of the complaint are denied for being concocted and false. As far the question of settlement of claim in the weather based insurance scheme on the basis of the figures received from the automatic weather centre Churu established by National Collateral Management Services in Churu Tehsils reference unit area and in risk period for continuously till three days the temperature was not zero degree centigrade or below and other risk like rise temperature, unseasonal rain, favorable environment for grain filing as per the standards of the scheme the figures of the temperature were not found to be favourable therefore complainants claim was not found to be payable because of this reason any type of claim settlement was not done. In which the answering Insurance Company does not have any deficiency in service and not even unfair trade practice is there. Answering Insurance Company is venture of Central Government and is tied with legal regulations which is in accordance with legal and justice provisions without any prejudice does its work.
6. That the complete facts stated in clause number six of the complaint are denied for being false. As per the fixed standards of weather based crop insurance scheme the figures of weather compilation in Churu Tehsil were found to be unfavourable because of this reason in Churu Tehsil claim was not payable. Therefore, there does not arise any responsibility on respondent Insurance Company to provide the claim of the complainant. This way Respondent Insurance Company has not done any act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In other tehsil of Churu district figure of weather were found in accordance to the standards of the scheme therefore the settlement of claims was done.
7. That all the facts stated in clause number seven of the complaint are denied for being false. To respondent Insurance Company any kind of written or oral request has not been made till now, by the notification issued by Rajasthan Government and as per the figures provided by National Collateral Management Services Limited in accordance to the legal provisions of weather based Insurance Claim disbursement is done by the respondent Insurance Company. In this there is not any type of deficiency in service and no unfair trade practice is there of Respondent Insurance Company. Insurance Company has completely followed the principles of natural justice. Complainant does not have any claim against the answering Insurance Company.
8. That the facts of clause number 8 of the complaint is legal therefore there is no need for reply.
9. That the fact stated in clause number nine of the complaint is on the question of court fee which being question is under the jurisdiction of Hon'ble Forum is for that reason legal which does not need reply. With regard to the facts of sub clauses (a) (b) (c) of clause number 9 it is submitted that when on the basis of weather based crop insurance scheme and fixed standards and received figures from reference weather centre the claim was not payable then there is no question of proving the claim. Here the stated claim amount of complainant for compensation for perplexity, harassment, mental agony etc. and financial loss has been mentioned and there is demand of compensation it is denied. The last clause of complaint is regarding relief complainant is not worthy of any type of relief.
ADDITIONAL SUBMISISONS
1. That the Weather based crop insurance scheme by Rajasthan Government on experimental basis through the medium of Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited was decided to be implemented on Rabi 2007-2008 in 10 districts of State; namely Ajmer, Badhmer, Churu, Jaipur, Jaisalmer, Jodhpur, Sriganganagar, Kota and Udaipur on eight crops, namely, wheat, Barley, gram, mustard, coriander cumin, fenugreek and Isabgol. The notification issued by Rajasthan Government is Exhibit R-1 on its page number 8 reference unit area Churu of all tehsils of Churu Districts and information of reference weather centre from National Collateral Management Services (NCMSL) Churu and on page number 16 for Churu Tehsil alternative weather measurement centre Sardar Sehar and second alternative weather centre Indian weather Department Churu is marked- which is attached with the reply, which is a part of the reply only.
2. That the execution of the scheme in selected notified reference unit areas on the basis of Area Approach will be done means for the assessment of risk acceptance of claim reference unit area which for Churu tehsil is one unit area for Churu District will be considered as base. All the conditions related to the Insurance cover and assessment of claim will apply in equal way to the all insured cultivators cultivating notified crops in notified reference unit area.
3. That under the scheme for determination of damage the standard was fixed, in that frost, rise in temperature, unseasonal rain and attack on legume piercing total 4 types of risk are covered which are following:-
(a) Frost:- If
risk period from 16 December 2007 to 31 January 2008 minimum temperature continuously for 3 days is 0 degree Censius or below that. Maximum payable claim amount per hectare 4500.00 was fixed.
(b) Rise in Temperature:- If
risk period from 1 December 2007 to 15 March 2008 in partial average temperature, there is increase in pre determined temperature (trigger). Maximum payable claim amount per hectare 3000.00 was fixed.
(c) Unseasonal rain:- If
in risk period from 1 January 2008 to 15 March 2008 unseasonal rain, is more than the fixed standard. Maximum payable claim amount per hectare 3750.00 was fixed.
(d) Favourable environment for infestation on legume piercing:-
If risk period from 16 January 2008 till 31 March 2008 if partial average minimum temperature is more than 10 degrees, partial average maximum temperature between 27 degree to 34 degree and partial average dampness is between 65 and 85 then only or infestation on legume piercing will be considered as favourable environment. Maximum payable claim amount per hectare 3750.00 was fixed.
As a proof weather based insurance scheme district Churu Tehsil Churu for the product of crop Bengal gram Exhibit R-2 is presented with the reply which is one part only of reply.
4. That the assessment of claim in notified area/crop increase in average temperature, unseasonal rain, frost and due to temperature due to disease in insured crop on the basis of assessment of damage occurring in crops fortnight will be done. That means as per the product in frost if in the period from 16/12/07 till 31/12/07, from 1/1/2007 till 15/1/08 and from 16/1/08 till 31/01/08 it is found temperature continuously till three fortnight is 0 degree or below that in aforesaid fortnight Respectively: 7.5 percent, 10 percent and 15 percent insurance amount claim is payable. On the basis of figures received from National Collateral Management Services Limited in the above stated period due to the reason of not finding 0 degree centigrade temperature continuously till three days in frost risk claim will not be payable. As a proof the copy of figures received from National Collateral Management Services is R-3 and claim assessment sheet is R-4 are being presented with the reply. Which is a part of reply only.
5. That the collection of figures regarding weather Insurance will be done with through the medium of modern automatic weather centres. As mentioned in clause 15 notification of State Government Exhibit R-1 and in following of this reference the determination of damage is done by the Insurance Company only on the basis of the figures collected by National Collateral Management Services Limited.
Further petitioners in their reply have stated;
8. That complainant in the complaint for the purpose of determination of damage the calculation was done, any basis for that is not mentioned in the complaint that on what basis the amount mentioned in the complaint is formed as compensation. The assessment of compensation of complainant is done on fictional grounds which is not liable to be considered in anyway. This complaint has been filed only on the intention of receiving compensation from the answering Insurance Company which is a public venture company in the case, in which there is no reality.
5. District Forum, vide order dated 5.3.2010, allowed the complaint against petitioners and dismissed the same against respondent no.2/O.P. No.3 (i.e. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur).
6. Being aggrieved by the order of District Forum, petitioners filed appeals before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, Rajasthan (for short, State Commission). The State Commission, vide its impugned order dated 16.11.2010, dismissed all the appeals. However, it set aside the amount of compensation ordered to be paid towards mental agony.
7. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the State Commission, petitioners have filed the present petitions.
8. We have heard learned counsel Shri Sanjiv Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners, Shri Sanjeev Kumar Verma and Shri Sandeep Sharma, Advocates on behalf of respondent no.1 in the aforesaid petitions.
9. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that State Commission and District Consumer Forum, have not gone through the circular of Govt. of India dated 18-10-2007 and the notification of Rajasthan dated 28-11-2007 and the Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme implemented by the petitioner and passed the orders without understanding. Further, both Fora failed to notice that the responsibility of implementing the scheme was the joint responsibility of Rajasthan State Govt. and the petitioner, that is, Agricultural Insurance Company of India as per Clause 3,4 and 5 of the circular dated 18-10-2007.
10. It is also contended that Fora below were not correct in holding that if there is a difference/variation of temperature in the data collected by Churu Tehsil and Sardarshahar Tehsil, then data of weather station of India Meterological Department (IMD) is to be taken into consideration as this would be against the scheme which will be detrimental to the existence and viability of the scheme itself. The weather data for the purpose of assessment of compensation has to be only of those specific reference weather station which are commissioned for providing weather data as notified in the notification dated 28-11-2007 and Clause 5 of the scheme. Further, the petitioner is duty bound to follow the procedure prescribed in the notification dated 28-11-2007 of Rajasthan Govt. Clause 15 of the notification was to be considered before making such observation and in clause 15 it is held that the full responsibility of setting up and managing in a proper way of related weather stations is by the National Collateral Management Services Limited (NCMSL) or by any other competent agency. Thus, as per agreement dated 21.3.2007, petitioner can only go by the weather data provided by NCMSL, Churu Tehsil unless there was any complaint or mistake pointed out by anyone including the Respondents.
11. Further, both Fora failed to look into the circular dated 31.1.2008 of Government of Rajasthan, Commissioner of Agriculture to the District Collectors including the Churu District, furnishing the list of Automatic Weather Stations installed and directing the District Collectors to depute the concerned officer and verify the location of the station and watch the working of the stations and if there was any obstruction in functioning of the equipment in their area to report the same to the Commissioner Agriculture. Neither the District Collector nor any officer or any respondent ever made any report regarding any mistake or drawback in functioning of the equipment of the NCMSL Station at Churu and therefore subsequently they cannot raise any objection without any material to prove that there was error in recording the weather data by the Churu Tehsil Weather Station.
12. Another contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that Fora below should have taken into consideration letter dated 11-05-2009 by the Additional Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Govt. of India addressed to the Chef Secretary, Govt. of Rajasthan regarding settlement of claims of Churu and Ratangarh Tehsil of Churu district in which the Govt. of India has categorically stated that the matter has been examined in detail in consultation with the officials of the State Govt. and the Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited (AIC). In this particular case, State Govt. of Rajasthan had notified NCMSL Weather Station, Churu as the reference weather station and IMD Weather Station at Churu as a backup arrangement. Therefore, claims were required to be worked out on the basis of data generated by NCMSL Weather Station, Churu. In view of the above, it is not possible to provide crop compensation to the farmers on the basis of weather data of IMD weather station at Churu.
13. It is also contended that State Commission and District Commission has doubted the credibility of the NCMSL due to a disclaimer clause put on the website which says that NCMSL gives no warranty, express or implied to the accuracy, reliability, utility or completeness of the information. In every computer generated data as a matter of practice, the above clause is used so that third party or general public normally and ordinarily do not misuse the data for any other purpose. The understanding and observation of Fora below in this regard is absolutely uncalled for and due to the lack of understanding on the disclaimer clause.
14. It is also contended that conditions of insurance policy are to be construed strictly. Since, temperature at Churu as per the NCMSL Weather Station during the relevant period was not covered by the terms and conditions of the policies, as such petitioners are not liable to pay any amount, as from 1st January till 3rd January, 2008 and from 21st January till 24th January 2008, the temperature was more than zero.
15. Lastly, in support of its case, learned counsel for petitioner has cited following judgments;
i) Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Vs. Nain Singh and others (R.Ps. No.2303-2394 of 2008 and others) decided by this Commission on 22.4.2009;
ii) National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 Supreme Court Cases 700 and
iii) Sikka Papers Limited Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others, (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 777.
16. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondents that from 1st to 3rd January, 2008 and from 21st till 24th January, 2008, the temperature at Churu was zero and below. Regarding this, District Collector, Churu has also written letter dated 22.5.2008. Further, Weather Department, Jaipur also wrote a letter and called for Meteorological data in which also on the aforesaid dates, the temperature was considered below zero. Thus, it stand clearly established that temperature in Churu, during the aforesaid period was below zero.
17. It is further argued that no importance can be given to the report of NCMSL in view of their disclaimer. Moreover, petitioners have not established that when, where and in whose presence the related equipment was installed. In these circumstances, Alternative Weather Measurement Equipment installed at Sardarshaher, Churu as well as data of Indian Meteorological Department was to be considered, which goes in favour of respondent no.1
18. Lastly, it is contended on behalf of respondent no.1 that in view of the concurrent findings of facts given by the two Fora below, there is no jurisdictional error nor there is any infirmity in the impugned order. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 has relied upon following decisions in support of their case;
i) Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. II (2011) CPJ 19 (SC) and
ii) Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Vs. Kemlegowda and others (R.Ps No.1440,1441, 1443, 1445 and 1447 of 2006) decided by this Commission on 5.10.2006
19. District Forum in its order has held;
20. In this matter we have considered all arguments written arguments and legal precedents and on submitted records. In this matter in page number-5 of order in letter number P-1 (3) agriculture-1 (MC) 2007 dated 28.11.2007 by Hon'ble Dy. Secretary Agriculture to Government, has ordered that the collection of necessary data related to Insurance Company will be done through the medium of modern automatic weather stations and other accepted weather stations. The full responsibility of establishment and managing in a proper way of reference weather station by National Collateral Management Services Limited (NCMSL) or any other agency will be of Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited. From this order it is not clear that only (NCMSL) will be the competent agency and no other will be there. This is wrong because there can be other competent agencies also. The Indian Government in its order has not even taken the name of this agency. Now on thinking about this agency then what is it? Regarding this the learned counsel has placed a document Brief Note on NCMSL Profile. We read the whole of this Brief Note. This company is a private company and tells about itself as having its interference in market, prices, weather, crop commodity and business. In this document in 410 location, 167 Districts, in which in Rajasthan also 106 weather stations covering 25 Districts is being stated but firstly this company tells itself to be reputed company of crores of rupees of private sector regarding which neither registration has been placed nor any memorandum has been placed nor making style has been placed. The Forum has to see that the data given by this company is correct or not. In this regard, the respondent in reply in Churu where the equipment was positioned has not said when asked about this during arguments then the officer of company showed taking out one paper stated the name of Mohanlal Arya, New Bus Ward Number 13, Nai Sadak, Churu and stated that we had established equipment in his place but it is a matter of surprise that this person being living in Churu this person was not brought before the Forum nor his Affidavit was placed nor any agreement was placed nor gave money by cheques or how the payment was made could not tell about that. How this person was brought. Which person came to establish that regarding this nothing was stated whereas there was big responsibility on the respondent because on Hon'ble State Government in mentioned column number 15 it is clearly written that full responsibility of establishment and managing in proper way of reference weather station by competent agency will be of Agriculture Insurance Company of India. From the side of respondent this reply should had been made that they had authorized which person in Churu or to which company or which person. This was also not told. At least Hon'ble District Collector should had been informed. Therefore, before the Forum there is no substantial evidence to consider this. Now the certificate given by this company is following:-
Certification of Weather data provided by NCMI to AIC of India Ltd.
We hereby certify that the weather data collected and supplied by the company to AIC of India Ltd. for 6 locations in Rajasthan State (viz) Churu, Sardadarsahar, Ratangarh, Sujangarh, Rajgarh and Taranagar, through its network of automatic weather stations for the period Dec. 11, 2007 till March 2008 is supplied in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement dated July 10,2005 and the company has taken sufficient care to ensure its authenticity. We further certify that the said DATA (certified copy of which is enclosed) is authentic to the best of our knowledge and belief.
On behalf of National Collateral Management Services Limited.
Weather Data Disclaimer Quality assurance on meteorological sensors is high priority of National Collateral Management Services Limited (NCMSL) Automatic Weather Station Network (NAWSN) staff Transference of data to other location involves some level of risk which increases as the distance from the observation site increases and with the spatial variability of particular of interest in accordance with the scale of the weather event being measured. The data user assumes all responsibility for this risk. Nevertheless all records data gathered from instrumentation operating by NAWSN standards are considered as providing factual information on the weather occurring at a particular instance and location. These data will not give precise information on what occurred at a desired location away from the an NAWSN site. But they do represent a sample of what occurred locally during a particular time period or weather event.
The NCMSL shall not held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described or information contained on these pages. These data information and related graphics are not legal document and area not intended to be used as such.
The NCMSL given no warranty express or implied as to the accuracy reliability utility or completeness of this information. The user of this system assumes all responsibility and risk for the use of this server and the use of this server and the internet including but not limited to all implied warranties merchantability fitness for a particular purpose or non infringement.
21. In this certificate NCMSL Company itself has freed from all responsibilities as far now that the so called agreement of 10.07.05 was not presented it is clearly mentioned that this company NCMSL will not be responsible. It is not any document which can be considered whereas company is giving in writing then also from side of company what such fact has come which we can considered that in Churu NCMSL had placed equipment property till now also about the equipment, about bring of that equipment, about delivering that equipment to so called person Mohanlal or about any engineer checking it nothing is there in the record whereas Hon'ble Indian Government has considered Indian weather Department to be correct. And in our opinion also Indian Weather Department which is a Government organization and is responsible and everyday data are sent to Sanganer Jaipur and its certificate has also been placed by the complainant in which weather of day has been stated in which 6 days were below zero on its basis respondent was supposed to given compensation. What is the reason for not considering these data whereas the respondent himself has presented the documents in that, it is written that if from the aforesaid company equipment in any correct way or legal way has not come then data of I.M.L. Indian Weather Department will be considered. In this regard referring to this one letter we considered necessary which has been written from side of the Weather Department for agriculture insurance and with regard to supply of trustworthy weather data stated that it is written in that necessary data are sent after collecting. On 25.01.2008 this letter had been written by Director, Weather Department. With this letter 9 pages were sent but it is a matter of surprise that only one month Decembers record page has been placed by the respondent rest of the page have not placed.
22. The respondent company is a company formed seeing the interest of farmers and its officer should not behave like this and they should not conceal the documents whereas as per this letter 9 pages were sent then 9 pages should had been placed before the Forum by which the Forum could see how much temperature is there as per the instructions of the Weather Department. This part of officers of Insurance Company is totally wrong because they are companys senior and responsible officer and they bring all true facts before the Forum they should not do such thing that they do not present the documents in their custody. This way respondent company has concealed facts of so called Mohan Arya and with him this fact was concealed that when he was given the equipment who had gone to deliver it. All these are facts of record which the respondent should had told with clean hands but respondent did not tell with clean hands therefore NCMSL has itself written in its letter that they are not responsible nor this letter is certified and letter having relevance in law.
23. Besides that learned counsel from the side of respondent Alternative Weather Measurement Stations NCMSL and Alternative Weather Measurement Station both are written to be Indian Weather Department in this regard under the Weather based crop Scheme Rabi presented by the respondent the reference unit of Rabi 2007-08 alternative weather stations where our attention was taken towards Annexure 3 page 16 the facts mentioned in this goes against the respondent because for the Churu of the Churu District, Sardar Shaher and Indian Weather Department Churu was stated to be Alternative Weather Stations. From this it is clear that Alternative Weather Stations of Churu is Sardar Shaher. As per the data of Sardar Shaher then this data also goes against the respondent because on 1st January, 2008 -0.5, on 2nd January, 2008 -0.1, on 3rd January, 2008 -0.3. Hon'ble District Collector of Churu on his administrative letter No. F1(1)SPA/CCB/08/2780 dated 22.05.2008 has written that to Weather Department Indian Government, Indian Weather Science Department and the Director of Weather Jaipur on 19.06.2008 to Deputy Director Churu Central Cooperative Bank Limited about the supply of meteorological data in reply to his letter data of January, 2008 was sent and besides that getting of Bank Draft of 348/- Rupees for the data charge was also stated. The aforesaid letter is registered that means the Weather Department has clearly stated in the aforesaid period in Churu Tehsil temperature was zero or less than zero and if this is to be considered then respondent Insurance Company is responsible to give insurance amount.
24. It has been submitted in the letter dated 28.11.07 by Agriculture Insurance Company that on the basis of actual data of weather, claim for damages will be given straightly to cultivators and as such it has been mentioned. With regard to the weather control will be only by Agriculture Insurance Company. Insurance was made compulsory and premium was taken from insured farmers and after that they will not be heard nor they will be told that their weather stations is in which persons house then it will be injustice with the poor farmers. It is correct that company is N.C.M.L. but the conduct of that company does not seem to be right. As it has been in this case. No fact of person was stated nor any person came, nor Mohanlal Arya came. Affidavit of Shri Nang Shri Chandani has been placed although this affidavit is not attested as per law even then for arguments it may be considered as attested then also in that there no facts by which the respondent gets weightage. The reason is that the so called company N.C.M.L. itself has placed R-3 according to which they are also not responsible for these data and legally also they cannot be considered right. And have stated that nothing may be considered in law. It should had happened that any person of company comes and says that he has placed the equipment after coming here and this temperature has come in the equipment although as a matter of fact that it is the saying of respondent that once in 24 hours temperature is sent what time has been sent. This has been neither it was asserted nor has been stated they had doubt that in 24 hours at what time was the lowest temperature.
25. In this matter it is clear that the Indian Government has prepared this scheme for the benefit of farmers and normal farmers are less educated other than that in Churu the farmers are also illiterate and to protect their interest the Indian Government, the State Government and Agriculture Insurance Company also have the responsibility that only on the formalities respondents cannot save themselves from their responsibility because about the so called company as we have said that it is company possessing crores and new company has been formed and any list of them has also not been given where al in what all places such equipment was there or not that could record the temperature till 100 kilometers but respondent has not paid attention on this despite their responsibility and by making Insurance compulsory for farmers took money from them and when time came for paying the insurance amount then started making unnecessary ground for rejecting it. This fact is out of our understanding that in 4 tehsils of Churu in which 3 tehsils are adjoining to Churu in that temperature may have zero degree or below zero degree and after that after coming to Churu District the temperature may have increased. This fact can be considered that there is any difference in temperature within one half kilometers here in scientific way actions were not taken. Only the formalities were completed. The learned counsel for respondent has also submitted that they have given the insured amount to 4 tehsils also but only on their this statement rights of farmers of Churu cannot be finished. The legal precedents which was presented by the learned counsel of respondent that precedents are totally different from the above case and in finality no law has been fixed whereas legal precedents has been placed by the applicants. It is correct that facts are different from them but are little similar to present case.
26. From the above evaluation we consider that respondent number 1 has not paid the insured amount to the applicant. This is their deficiency in service and they have in one way denied to give the claim which is wrong. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be admitted against them. The respondent number -2 has submitted this that they have sent the amount by writing complainants Kisan Credit Card and name to respondent number -1 from the side of respondent number -1 in this regard much oppositions was not there. Therefore it is considered that after deducting complainants premium amount was sent to respondent number -1. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed against respondent number-3.
Therefore, the question is that how much insurance amount should be given to applicants. In this regard respondents have submitted that more than 4500/- rupees per hectare cannot be given but the applicant is demanding for total 25 percent for which 25 percent of 15,000/- Rupees is only 3,750/- Rupees. If maximum to maximum is not there hence the applicant is entitled to get insurance amount of 28,125/- rupees on 7.5 hectare as per 3750 per hectare. On this amount responsibility of levying 9 percent yearly interest from date 01.04.008 will be there for which applicant who is a cultivator of village to him mental agony and damage has occurred for that applicant shall be entitled to get 20,000/- Rupees and cost for case 3,000/- rupees from the respondent.
20. Whereas, the State Commission while disposing the appeals of the petitioners in its impugned order observed;
We have heard the learned counsels in detail and gone through the entire Scheme and other documents. The controversy revolves around the question whether credenence could be given to the datas recorded by NCMSL Sardarshahar and IMD in preference to the datas recorded by NCMSL, Churu.
The documents on record go to show that for Churu Tehsil, NCMSL was the Reference Weather Station and its first back-up station was NCMSL, Sardarshahar and the second Centre was IMD, Churu. The datas recorded by all the three Centres are as follows:
Date NCMSL Back-up Centre IMD Sardarshahar 1.1.2008 0.4 -0.5
-01.0 2.1.2008 0.3 -0.1 -00.9 3.1.2008 0.2 -0.3 -01.1
21.1.2008 -0.4 -0.1 -02.0 22.1.2008 0.7 0.1 -00.0 23.1.2008 0.2 -0.2
-01.0 24.1.2008 2.4 -0.4
-00.0 The margin between all the datas is very thin and therefore it has to be considered whether the approach adopted by the learned DCF should be accepted or not. It has also to be seen whether the datas supplied by NCMSL, Churu are such that there cannot be any doubt about their authenticity. We have considered all the material on record. Looking to the certificate Exhibit R-3 which was issued by NCMSL, Hyderabad, it appears that they themselves are not sure about its 100% correctness. They have very categorically stated in their certificate that NCMSL gives no warranty express or implied as to the accuracy, reliability, utility or completeness of the information.
This insurance was introduced under a Scheme known as PILOT WEATHER BASED CROP INSURANCE SCHEME. Clause 5(c) of the Scheme is important which runs as follows:
Reference Unit-AreaA is a geographical area around a Reference Weather Station, pre-notified by the State Level Coordination Committee on Crop Insurance i.e., SLCCCI, which is deemed to be reflective of the Reference Weather Station AU.Us Weather Data. To the extent practicable, such Reference Unit-Area shall be restricted to 25 km radius around the Reference Weather Station in case of Rainfall, and 100 km radius in case of other weather parameters like Frost, Heat (Temperature), Relative humidity, etc. Keeping in view the above factual aspects in the Scheme and margin of difference in datas, we feel that benefit of datas as recorded by NCMSL & IMD, Churu may be given to the cultivators. The main centre is located at Churu and the first back-up centre is located at Sardarshahar. They are located in such a way that the boundaries of both the Tehsils are adjacent. The Reference Unit Area may fall in 100 kms radius of Sardarshahar Tehsil and therefore the datas supplied by Sardarshahar Tehsil cannot be ignored. If there are two centres which cover each. Other's area giving datas which are at variance then the datas which are favourable to the consumer shall be given preference. The datas given by IMD further supports the version of the Complainants. It is a settled principle that in matters relating to consumers, if there are reports at variance, the report which goes in favour of the consumers may be accepted. Even the Collector of the District and the Chief Secretary of the State government had been writing to the Chairman & Managing Director of the Appellant Insurance Co. for making payments but the request was turned down on the ground that in view of the datas given by RWS datas of back-up agency cannot be used. The Scheme was introduced for the benefit of the cultivators of Churu where the complaint of frost and very high temperature are frequently received. During the aforesaid period, the Complainants also suffered damage to their crops on account of frost, under these circumstances, they should not be denied their rightful claims specially in view of the fact that the main weather station is still not sure about the correctness, authenticity and reliability of their information. The margin in datas is so thin that the datas given by back-up stations could be made use of to protect the interest of the cultivators. So far as the merit part is concerned, the appeals are devoid of force and liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the Appellant has also submitted that the order of compensation awarded to the cultivators should be quashed in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. In all the cases apart from the amount payable under the Scheme, interest @ 9% per annum + litigation expenses have been awarded and therefore in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the amount of compensation ordered to be paid towards mental agony.
The appeals stand disposed of with the above modification.
21. First and foremost question which arise for consideration is as to what are the primary objects of Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme (WBCIS) in Kharif and Rabi Season from 2007-08.
22. The Administrative Instructions issued by Govt. of India, Ministry of Agriculture with regard to implementation of pilot Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme during 2007-08 states as under;
The proposed scheme aims to mitigate the hardship of the insured farmers against the likelihood of financial loss on account of anticipated crop loss resulting from incidence of adverse conditions of weather parameters like unseasonal rainfall, frost, heat (temperature) etc. The main features of WBCIS to be implemented in Rabi 2007-08 season, are as under;
i) In Rabi season, weather parameters like un=seasonal rain, temperature, frost, humidity etc. are some of the important parameters which affect adversely the crops.
ii) The scheme aims to mitigate the hardship of the insured farmers against the likelihood of financial loss on account of anticipated loss in crop yield resulting from adverse incidence of high/low temperature, frost injury, un-seasonal rainfall etc.
iii) The scheme will be applicable to major cereals, millets, pulses, oilseeds and annual commercial/horticultural crops grown during Rabi season. Specifically, the crops propose to be recovered are; wheat, barley, gram, lentil, mustard, potato, onion, cumin, coriander, fenugreek, isabgol etc.
23. Further, Clause 15 of Notification dated 28.11.2007 issued by Govt. of Rajasthan and relied upon by ld. Petitioners Counsel read as under;
The processing of data could be done relating to Weather Insurance of Automatic Weather Stations or any acceptable Weather Stations. It would be the responsibility of Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. to ensure that the Reference Weather Stations are installed and properly administered by the National Collateral Management Services Limited (NCMSL) or any other designated Agency.
24. In this case, the District Collector, Churu wrote a letter dated 22.5.2008 to the Regional Manager of petitioners with regard to temperature for relevant period at Churu stating that;
Dated : 22 May, 2008 With reference to your letter AIC/ JPWBCIS/RABI/07-08/08 dated 15.05.08 received for the claim of the insured crops in Weather based crop insurance scheme under Rabi-2007 on the evaluation of the enclosed claim it was found that in Churu and Ratangarh Tehsils Gram and Mustard and in Sujangarh Tehsil crop of Cumin after being damaged due to frost also, the claim was not admitted by the Insurance Company, because of this reason there is lot of resentment in the farmers of these areas.
As it is known to you that Churu Headquarters alongwith complete Churu District because of the reason of minimum temperature in winter and in the weather of summer temperature being 50 degree is known in state level and National level. In this regard time to time news was being telecasted in National News channels.
With regard to the aforesaid I would like to mention that for the purpose of determination of the damage of affected crops of Mustard and Gram periods have been fixed, under the aforesaid fixed period as per the news published in local Newspapers following temperature continuously till three days was zero degree or less than that:-
PERIOD PERIOD From 1 January, 08 to 15 January, 08 From 16 January, 08 to 31 January, 08 Sl.
No. Date Temperature Sl.
No. Date Temperature
1. 1.1.2008
-1C
1. 21.1.2008 12C
2. 2.1.2008
-0.9C
2. 22.1.2008
-0C
3. 3.1.2008
-1.1C
3. 23.1.2008
-1.0C
4. 24.1.2008 0C With regard to the temperature of Churu District alongwith Churu Headquarter it is clear from the above mentioned data that in the both periods for month January, 08 continuously till three days the temperature was zero degree or was less than that, but even after the completion of the standards fixed by the Insurance Company also the insurance claim of the farmers of this area was not admitted.
In the aforesaid circumstances on the basis of the land records taken by the Agriculture Department and Revenue Department also in Churu, Ratangarh and Sujangarh Tehsils more than 70 percent of the Rabi crop has been destroyed. Whereas some farmers of Churu District were given compensation in lieu of the crops destroyed by Frost.
In keeping in mind the above stated facts I want to again notify that in the referred matter after reconsideration for the purpose of admission of claim of the affected farmers, the farmers of District Churu and Ratangarh for Gram and Mustard and the farmers of Sujangarh Tehsil for the crops of Cumin (illegible) steps may be taken. For the purpose of your information with regard to the temperature of Churu the photocopy of the cutting of news published on the aforesaid dates in local Newspaper is being sent as enclosure. Please peruse the complete case, admit the claim of the farmers as soon as possible steps may be taken to send the amount in the related Banks so that the affected farmers may get the amount of compensation.
Yours truly Sd/-
(Arjun Meghwal)
25. Now, coming to the Certification of Weather data provided by NCMSL to AIC of India, it would be relevant to quote this certification issued by NCMSL which read as under;
NCMSL Hyderabad.
Date : 16/09/2008 Certification of Weather data provided by NCMSL to AIC of India Ltd.
We hereby certify that the weather data collected and supplied by the Company to AIC of India Ltd. for 6 locations in Rajasthan state (viz. Churu, Sardarsahar, Ratagarh, Sujangarh, Rajgarh and Taranagar) through its network of automatic weather stations for the period from Dec 11, 2007 till March 31, 2008 is supplied in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement dated July 10, 2005 and the Company has taken sufficient care to ensure its authenticity. We further certify that the said data (certified copy of which is enclosed) is authentic to the best of our knowledge and belief.
Sd/-
On behalf of National Collateral Management Services Limited Weather Data Disclaimer Quality assurance of meteorological sensors is a high priority of National Collateral Management Services Ltd. (NCMSL) Automatic Weather station Network (NAWSN) staff Transference of data to other locations involves some level of risk, which increases as the distance from the observation site increases and with the spatial variability of the particular parameter of interest, in accordance with the scale of the weather event being measured. The data user assumes all responsibility for this risk. Nevertheless, all recorded data gathered from instrumentation operation by NAWSN standards are considered as providing factual information on the weather occurring at a particular instance and location. These data will not give precise information on what occurred at a desired location away from an NAWSN site, but they do represent a sample of what occurred locally during a particular time period or weather event.
The NCMSL shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described or information contained on these pages. These data, information and related graphics are not legal documents and are not intended to be used as such.
The NCMSL gives no warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, reliability, utility or completeness of this information. The user of this system assumes all responsibility and risk for the use of this server and the internet generally. The NCMSL disclaims all warranties, representations or endorsements, express or implied with regard to the information accessed from, or via, this server or the internet, including but not limited to, all implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose or non-infringement.
26. Thus, as per above Weather Data Disclaimer issued by NCMSL, this company has absolved itself completely of all responsibility with regard to the authenticity of weather data collected by it. So, no reliance can be placed on the weather data of NCMSL on which absolute reliance has been placed by the petitioners. Hence, in the absence of reliable weather data of the above company, we have to rely on the data of the designated Alternative Weather Stations, which are Sardar Shaher, Churu as well as weather data of Indian Meteorological Department, Churu for the relevant periods.
27. Thus, both the Fora below rightly rejected petitioners total reliance on the weather data of NCMSL and after taking an overall view with reference to the weather data of the designated Alternative Weather Station, accepted the weather data of the Alternative Weather Station at Churu for which detailed reasons have been given by both the Fora below which we have extensively quoted, herein above. Hence, we do not find any ground to disagree with their orders.
28. Various judgments cited by learned counsel for petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
29. Moreover, keeping in view the objectives of the Scheme as enumerated in earlier paras of our order, we hold that both the Fora below rightly allowed the complaints of respondent no.1 (being farmers) as the object is to mitigate the hardship of insured farmers against the likelihood of financial loss on account of anticipated crop loss resulting from incidence of adverse conditions of weather parameters like unseasonal rainfall, frost, heat (temperature) etc.
30. Present revision petitions have been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, Act). It is well settled that the powers of this Commission as a Revisional Court are very limited and have to be exercised only, if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error in the impugned order.
31. In Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta (Supra), Apex Court has observed ;
Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums.
The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.
32. In our view, the concurrent finding recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission that there was deficiency in service on the petitioners part is based on correct analysis of the facts and the evidence which cannot be termed as erroneous. Thus, no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of power under Section 21(b) of the Act and as such orders passed by the Fora below do not suffer from any infirmity or revisional exercise of jurisdiction.
33. Consequently, present petitions being meritless and having no legal basis are hereby dismissed.
34. Parties shall bear their own costs.
.J (V.B. GUPTA) PRESIDING MEMBER (REKHA GUPTA) Sg. MEMBER