Decided on May 30,2014



R.N. Biswal, J. - (1.)THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 28.6.2012 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malkangiri (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in CC. No. 254 of 2011 directing the appellant to consider the claim of respondent No. 1 afresh by taking recourse to the guidelines laid down in the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme on merit within two months of receipt of the order. Appellant was opposite party No. 1, respondent No. 1, was complainant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were opposite party, Nos. 2 and 3 respectively before the District Forum. Bereft of unnecessary details, the fact giving rise to filing of this appeal is that respondent No. 1 as complainant before the District Forum filed the above Consumer Complaint on the ground that he is a poor marginal fanner and member of Podia tamps having Kissan Credit Card loan bearing Pass -Book identity No. 5431. He took agricultural Kharif loan from respondent No. 2 and got it insured with appellant being sponsored by respondent No. 3 on payment of premium at the rate of 2.25% under National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (in short Scheme) in the year 2009. There was failure of crops due to lack of rain and Government declared Podia Block under which his village situates as draught affected area, but the appellant did not take any step to indemnify the loss sustained by him. So he filed the Consumer Complaint with prayer to direct the opposite parties to close his Loan Account with allied relief.
It is an admitted fact that the Government of Odisha in Kharif 2009 notified Block as Insurance Unit for paddy, Groundnut, Niger, Maize, Ginger, Redgram (Arhar) and Turmeric pursuant to the Scheme. The Scheme is a sort of social measure. All the farmers including sharecroppers and tenant farmers growing the notified crops in the notified area are eligible for insurance coverage. In the event of any loss appellant arranges compensation on the basis of area approach and disburses the amount to the concerned financing institutions, i.e., Nodal Bank (here in this appeal respondent No. 3), advising them to credit the same to the accounts of the farmers as per their declarations.

(2.)IN every season, the AIC (herein this appeal the appellant) works out the Threshold Yield, i.e., Guaranteed Yield for each unit and for each crop considering the past yield data (as per the scheme) furnished by the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, through Cooperation Department, Government of Odisha for the same unit. The actual yield date would be furnished by conducting specified numbers of Crop Cutting Experiments per unit per crop (minimum 16 for Block) after the close of the crop season. If there is shortfall in the yield, i.e., if the Actual Yield is less than the Guaranteed Yield, then AIC - appellant arranges to pay the loss thus occasioned with reference to the Sum Insured and the claim amount as per provision of the Scheme is disbursed to the Nodal Bank -respondent No. 3 on the basis of "Area Approach" and the bank in turn adjusts the amount to the accounts of insured farmers. It is also an admitted fact that the Government of Odisha in Revenue and Disaster Management Department vide its Notification dated 26.11.2009 declared the Block of the petitioner as drought affected area, but appellant as well as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 declined to take any action for waiving of the loans.
Appellant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed written version separately along with documents almost in this light refuting deficiency of service on their part. Respondent No. 1 (complainant) also filed documents before the District Forum.

(3.)AFTER hearing the Counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum held that the crop cutting was not made in presence of the farmers so it cannot be said that the report of the Directorate of Economics and Statistics was genuine and accordingly, passed the impugned order.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.