AIC OF INDIA LTD Vs. BANAPPAGOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.