Aic Of India Ltd vs Banappagouda

THESE Revision Petitions arise out of 85 Complaints filed by farmers who had taken onion crop Insurance in Saundati Taluk, Belgaum district of Karnataka in 2003 -04. Their claims, arising from failure of the crop, were settled but only partially, by OP -1/Agriculture Insurance Corporation of India (AICI). Consumer Complaints, seeking award of the balance of their claims, were allowed by the District Forum, Belgaum. Appeals of OP -1/AICI against the same, have been dismissed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Petitioner is thus, before this Commission against concurrent orders of the fora below.

AT the outset, it needs to be noted that 17 out of these 85 petitions pertain to farmers whose individual claims for relief under the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme (NAIS) were under Rs.10,000/ -. In 34 cases the claims were between 10,000/ - to 25,000/ - and in the remaining 34 cases above Rs.25,000/ -. In this background, the counsel for the Petitioner was directed by the Commission to seek instructions whether the Petitioner was willing to accept the award of the fora below, without contest but without prejudice to the contentions of the Petitioner, in cases where the balance amount was less than Rs.10,000/ -. On 14.3.2014, learned counsel for the Petitioner informed that the requisite policy decision had been taken in this behalf and all claims less then Rs.10,000/ - shall be settled in terms of the order of the fora below. Time was also permitted for filing an amended memo of parties in this behalf. Later, on 17.7.2014 the Commission directed that notices should be issued to the Respondents/Complainants only in the cases where the compensation awarded by the fora below was Rs.25,000/ - or more. It was also informed that in all remaining cases the Revision Petitions, qua the Respondents/Complainants, stood dismissed.

DURING the course of hearing, learned counsel For the Respondents informed that three Respondents/Complainants had since expired. Therefore, counsel for the Petitioner/AICI was directed to file an amended memo of parties, which has since been done and LRs are taken on record. Further, considering the limited scope of revision jurisdiction, permission for filing of additional documents, sought by the counsel for the Respondents/Complainants, has been declined. We have carefully perused the records. Mr. Arvind Gaur, Advocate for the Revision Petitioner/AICI and Mr. C.M. Angadi, Advocate for the Respondents/Complainants have been heard in detail.

IN order to appreciate the contentions of the Revision Petitioner and in the background of concurrent orders of the fora below, we deem it imperative to reproduce the following paragraphs from the order of the District Forum: - "16. In the cases on hand, the 1st O.P. in the version in all the cases has stated that the Government of Karnataka has furnished yield data produced at Exhibit -2. But said documents are not produced with the version. Even subsequently, it is not produced. During the course of arguments we pointed out to the learned counsel for the 1st O.P. that said documents have not produced in any of the cases and the learned counsel verified the records and found that it was not produced. However, the learned counsel made a submission that, he will produce it. But thereafter, he has not turned up and the document is not produced.

At the same, it is important to note that the 1st O.P. has submitted yield data for the relevant period said to have been prepared on the basis of the yield data furnished by the Statistical Department of Karnataka State. Hence, the 1st O.P. admits the threshold yield of onion crop pertaining to Saundatti Hobli in which the lands of the complainants were situated. The threshold yields mentioned therein is 1998 K.Gs. The actual yield is mentioned 1335 K.Gs. Thus, short fall is worked out at 663 K.Gs. Accordingly, in respect of said short fall, admittedly, 1st O.P. has paid compensation to the respective complainants to the extent of the crop that they had raised in their respective lands. But here material point to be considered is, what is the evidence on record to substantiate the actual yield noted above. If, the official data issued by the Government of Karnataka was produced by the 1st O.P. then the actual yield shown in the said yield data furnished in the table by the 1st O.P. could have been relied upon. But, as noted above, inspite of our request and direction, the statement issued by the concerned department of Government of Karnataka has not been produced by the 1st O.P. Hence, though the 1st O.P. admit the threshold yield at 1998 K.Gs., to substantiate actual yield at 1335 K.G.s, there is no evidence.

The Forum, had issued summons to the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Crop Insurance Scheme Division, Bangalore to produce the scientific crop cutting experiments conducted for the period in question. Though, the person summoned did not produce the particulars of the data, it appears on the direction of the directorate of the department, the Belgaum district office through the Asst. Government pleader produced certain documents along with memo dated:26/4/2010. Amongst other documents, copy of certain crop cutting test reports in respect of onion in Saundatti Hobli with copy of mahajars drawn on the spot, are produced. In the said reports there is mention that on account of failure of the rain fall, entire crop has been lost. In the panachanamas drawn on the spot also there is mention that because of failure of the rain the onion crop has been completely failed. To get certain facts noted in the said report clarified, we had summoned an official from the District Office of Statistical department, who explained about the test reports and on our request, he has also produced duly attested copy of yield data issued by Directorate of Economics and Statistics for the year 2003 karif season. On the last page, actual yield in respect of un -irrigated land is shown as 27 k.gs. and in respect of irrigated land 3950 k.gs.

, 19. The main mistake we have noticed in determining the compensation by the 1st O.P. is that in the yield data furnished to the Forum which is signed by the Regional Manager, the actual yield is mentioned as 1335 k.gs. This figure also we found in the yield data furnished by the Directorate of Economics and Statistics copy of which is submitted to this Forum attested by the Asst. Director of the Belgaum District Statistical Department but that figure is in respect of pooled yield and not the actual yield in respect of un -irrigated land. At the cost of repetition, the actual yield from un -irrigated land is shown as 27 k.gs. In the case on hand, the lands of all the complainants are unirregated one. Hence, we have to take this 27 k.gs. as actual yield and not the pooled yield that the 1st O.P. has taken into consideration. The pooled yield covers average yield in respect of irrigated as well as unirrigated. Hence, the compensation worked out by the 1st O.P. taking the pooled yield is, incorrect.

Thus, as could be seen from the data furnished from the Department, actual yield of the crop in question per Hector is 27 K.Gs. only. We do consider that in the tests conducted by the Department in the report at the end it is stated that because of failure of the rain there was no yield but in the data per hector actual yield is shown as 27 K.Gs. Hardly it works out around 11 K.gs. per acre. Even according to the statement furnished by the 1st O.P. expected yield is 1998 Kgs. Hence, the actual yield as could be seen from the data furnished by the department at 11 K.g. per acre, under the circumstances, is negligible and considering the entire facts, we feel that same may be ignored. Thus, the actual yield shall have to be taken as zero. Consequently, the short fall of the yield that the 1st O.P has shown in the statement of data at 663 k.gs. is without any basis. In fact, as noted above, per acre actual yield itself is only 11 k.gs. and hence, considering the assured yield at 1998 k.gs., said actual yield has to be ignored. Thus, practically the short fall is 100% and hence, the 1st O.P. is liable to pay the entire assure amount."

FROM the above, it is clear that the fora below did not find any justification for resort to pooling of crop yield data for determination of actual yield and assessment of loss, based thereon. Figures of actual yield relied upon by the OP -1 were found to be average of yields from irrigated and un -irrigated fields. In this behalf, the revision Petition states in Para 2(k) that actual yield figure of 1335 Kgs per h.a. was given by the Directorate of Economics and Statistics which the District Forum did not accept as true and correct. The petitioner also states that the Forum "did not take this figure to be correct and true as it held that it showed the pooled yield of the entire District and not of the non -irrigated lands separately and thus held that this figure of 663 Kgs/Hectare (Shortfall) did not represent the correct picture of the Actual Yield for un -irrigated land." Evidently, this is the basis for the contention in Para 3 (Q) of the Revision Petition that the District Forum sat in Appeal over the NAIS, which jurisdiction is not vested in the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act.

LEARNED counsel for the Revision Petitioner vehemently argued that the figures of 1998 Kgs per hectares as threshold yield and 1335 Kgs per hectares as assessed yield for onion crop of the Respondents were the figures given to the Revision Petitioner by the concerned department Government of Karnataka. He argued that these figures were not invented by the Petitioner. In this behalf his attention was drawn to very categorical observation of the District Forum in para 16 of its order, cited above. It has observed that the relevant documents allegedly received from Government of Karnataka and claimed by OP -1/AICI as the basis for the accepted yield data, were not produced before the District Forum, despite specific opportunity. Therefore, learned counsel for the Petitioner was permitted to point out if any evidence to the contrary had actually been produced before the District Forum. He however, conceded that no such documents are referred to or relied upon in these Revision Petitions. It is thus clear that the case of the Petitioner is based on figures, which were unsubstantiated before the District Forum and have remained unsubstantiated even before this Commission. We therefore reject the contention that the District Forum had exceeded his jurisdiction and sat in Appeal over the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme. The arguments itself reflects a very convoluted logic. It is at best an attempt to escape the effect of the finding that no supporting evidence was led in justification of the figures of ''threshold yield'' and ''actual yield'' adopted by the Petitioner/OP -1.

ADMITTEDLY , the figures of threshold yield of 1998 Kgs and of actual yield of 1335 Kgs per hectare are figures representing average of figures from irrigated and rain -fed areas. The revision petition has even mentioned without challenging - - that the District Forum found them to be district level average. It has been repeatedly asserted on behalf of the Petitioner that the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme is meant to be implemented as an area scheme in relation to notified crops in each notified area. But ironically, the very fact that these figures represent pooled average of irrigated as well as un -irrigated areas, would itself show that they represent a much larger area. As already noted, the Revision Petitions mention it as district average. There is no explanation how such average figures would be permissible or justifiable under a scheme, which specifically prescribes a minimum of 16 crop cutting experiments for a Taluk/Tehsil/Block (NAIS -Operational Modality - Para 5 - estimation of crop yield). Therefore, in our view, determination of crop loss on the basis of pooled averages, admittedly from district level figures, would constitute a direct contravention of the NAIS itself.

IN view of the detailed consideration above, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the State Commission in the impugned order, which has confirmed the order of the District Forum. The Revision Petitions are held to be devoid of any merit and are dismissed for the same reason.