State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Chairman And Managing Director, ... vs Alipurduar Consumers' Protection ... on 4 October, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. FA/207/2012 ( Date of Filing : 07 May 2012 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 28/03/2012 in Case No. 18/2010 of District Alipurduar) 1. The Chairman and Managing Director, Agricultural Ins. Co. of India Ltd. 13th & 21st Floor, Ambadeep, 14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110 001. 2. The Regional Manager, Agricultural Insurance Co. of India Ltd. Kolkata Regional Office, OM Tower, 5th Floor, 32, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata - 700 071. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Alipurduar Consumers' Protection Society P.O. - Alipurduar Court, Dist. - Jalpaiguri. 2. The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India Merchant Road, Jalpaiguri. 3. The Zonal Manager, SBI Sky Star Building Sevoke Road, Siliguri. 4. The Manager, Central Bank of India Alipurduar, Jalpaiguri. 5. The Manager, SBI Alipurduar Bazar Branch, Alipurduar, Jalpaiguri. 6. The Agricultural Development Officer Alipurduar II Block, P.O. - Alipurduar Court, Jalpaiguri. 7. The Krishi Prayikti Sahayak (KPS) (Chaparerpar I GP) Alipurduar II Block, P.O. - Alipurduar Court, Jalpaiguri. 8. The Block Development Officer Alipurduar II Block, Jasodanga, Jalpaiguri. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. S. K. Das. Mr. Sayak Mazumder. , Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Sibaji Sankar Dhar., Advocate Mr. Biswambhar Jha, Advocate Mr. Biswambhar Jha, Advocate Gouranga Gupta Roy, Advocate Dated : 04 Oct 2018 Final Order / Judgement Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Appeal Nos. FA/207/2012 and FA/631/2012 since been arising out of the impugned order dated 28-03-2012, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Alipurduar in CC No. 18/2010, the same are disposed of through this common order.
The instant complaint case was filed by Alipurduar Consumers' Protection Society on behalf of 53 farmers who were not accorded insurance benefit under the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme in respect of the loss suffered by them following cultivation of potato owing to severe winter and some unknown diseases.
Following contested hearing, the Ld. District Forum allowed the case in favour of the Complainant.
By filing Appeal bearing no. FA/207/2012, it is contended by OP Nos. 1&2 that as per the Scheme, they do not deal with farmers by name. Nodal bank sends summary statement calls for declaration having brief consolidated information like number of farmers, cropped area, sum insured, premium subsidy, and premium remitted. Insurable interest of the farmers is subject to specific confirmation from Canara Bank and SBI. Further case of these Appellants is that the Complainant had not produced any documentary evidence/certificate in support of cause and extent of loss. Mere communiqué does not prove anything unless and until supported by crop loss certificate from competent authority. Estimation of yield rate is domain area of State Govt. which is conducted under General Crop Yield Estimation and survey necessitated by Govt. of India and State Govt. for agricultural policy, planning and other purposes. Use of those data for crop insurance is a matter of fact as per NAIS and cannot be mere eye wash.
Case of the OP Nos. 7&8, on the other hand, is that, as per the report of the Agricultural Insurance Co. Ltd. threshold yield and actual yield were 15,363.00 and 20,280.328 kgs./Hec., respectively, and the shortfall in yield was 0.00. Since estimated actual yield was much more than the specified threshold yield, there was no shortfall in yield and claim was not permissible to the Chaparerpar-I Gram Panchayat for Rabi 2008-2009 season as per the provisions of the subject scheme. It is claimed that Crop Cutting Experiments (CCE) were conducted as per the guideline of National Agricultural Insurance Scheme and the Evaluation Wing of the Directorate of Agriculture, Govt. of West Bengal. Initially CCE was done by the OP No. 8 and a report was prepared in S-3-8 (R) following standard guideline of the Agricultural Department of the Govt. of West Bengal. Thereafter, the said report was sent to the OP No. 7. Subsequently, the said OP submitted the report of yield of all the Gram Panchayats, including the Chaparerpar-I Gram Panchayat to the Additional Director of Agriculture (Evaluation) through the local office of the Evaluation wing of the Directorate. The Office of the Additional Director of Agriculture (Evaluation) is entirely responsible for submission of all the Gram Panchayat wise yield assessment report and communicate with the NAIS on behalf of the State Government. These OPs do not have any access to the information processed out of the generated data, which is sent to the NAIS and therefore, they cannot take any responsibility for the data furnished, after comparing the actual yield with the threshold yield, by the Agricultural Insurance Co. Ltd. It is submitted that, being the implementing agencies of CCE, they are solely responsible for cutting of crops, preparation of report of yield crops as per S-3-8 (R) following the standard guideline of the Agricultural Department, Govt. of West Bengal and submission of the said report to the Additional Director of Agriculture (Evaluation) through the local office of the Evaluation wing of the Directorate, but they cannot make any inference about the threshold and actual yield of corps, after being intimated about the agricultural situation with details of area wise weather situation, past incidence, state of crop failure separately, if any and/or going through a report, prepared to that effect by the District Level Monitoring Committee, as such they were not possessed with such kind of report apart from the weather report.
Decision with reasons Parties were heard at length and documents on record gone through carefully.
The case of the Complainant was that 53 farmers of Chaparerper I Gram Panchayat under the Alipurduar Block no. II, Dist. Jalpaiguri suffered huge loss in respect of potato cultivation to the extent of 95% of the total amount invested owing to severe winter and some unknown diseases. The farmers then collectively made representation before the Agricultural Development Officer, Alipurduar Block II on 16-02-2009. Subsequently, representation was also made before other competent authorities, but to no avail.
The National Agricultural Insurance Scheme envisages that the State Government will plan and conduct requisite number of Crop Cutting Experiments (CCE) for all notified crops in order to assess the crop yield. However, the OPs have not filed any Notification copy being issued by the State Government to prove that CCEs adhered to the benchmark set forth by the State Government.
It is claimed by the OP No. 8 that CCE was conducted in presence of the owner of the field and/or farmer, who observed the procedure of cutting of the yield crops and endorsed the same by putting their signature on the S-3-8 (R) report in the respective fields. However, no such document is placed before us to establish it.
From the papers placed on record, it transpires that the same are signed only by the KPS. The same were not counter signed either by the land-owners concerned, or the official of Bureau of Applied Economics & Statistics Staff or any other official of the Agriculture Department. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on such unproven piece of documents.
There is nothing to show that the District Level Monitoring Committee monitored implementation of the Scheme by providing fortnightly crop condition reports and periodical reports on seasonal weather conditions, extent of areas cultivated. There is also no clarity how the evaluation report was prepared after taking into consideration all relevant facts.
The Scheme also cast a duty upon the State Government to furnish final yield data in the standard format to the IA within the stipulated date. No cogent documentary proof in this regard is also forthcoming before us.
It appears that the benefit of insurance scheme was accorded to adjacent Gram Panchayat. May be potato yield depends on several factors and the same may vary from one Gram Panchayat to another; however, when the difference is so wide, it does raise eyebrows.
It is also inexplicable, when so many affected farmers drew the attention of the concerned authorities regarding their plight, why no one was deputed to the spot for necessary verification. If the district administration had slightest doubt in this regard, it was not at all difficult to find out the inherent truth by deputing concerned officials at the spot. The OP Nos. 7&8 though pointed out the absence of material proof regarding the allegation of the Complainant, fact of the matter remains that they themselves were at fault for the same. The affected farmers did approach them in time and despite this, if they did not step in to find out the veracity of the contention of the affected farmers, they themselves are answerable for the same.
Accordingly, we find severe lapses on the part of the State Government, more precisely, the Agriculture Department of the Government of West Bengal. In our considered opinion, therefore, the Agriculture Department as a whole cannot abdicate its responsibility for non-implementation of the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme in its true purport.
It appears that under the aforesaid Scheme, the responsibility of the IA is very limited. Since it largely depends on the data/information provided by the State Government, we do not think that it was justified to hold them liable for the misfortune of the affected farmers.
Accordingly, we deem it fit and proper to modify the impugned order to some extent.
Hence, O R D E R E D Appeal Nos. FA/207/2012 and FA/631/2012 are allowed and dismissed, respectively. The impugned order is modified to the extent that the OP Nos. 1 and 2 need not pay the cost amount as ordered by the Ld. District Forum. They also need not pay the litigation cost amount as directed by the Forum below. Otherwise, the impugned order shall remain unaltered. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER