AGRICULTURAL INSURANCE CO. OF INDIA LTD. SAMGHI UPASANA TOWER, 4TH FLOOR, C098 C SCHEME, SUBHASH MARG, NEAR AHINSA CIRCLE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN Vs. HEM SHANKAR AND ANOTHER S/O KACHRULAL JOSHI R/O TALORE AASPUR DUNGRAPUR RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These 9 revision petitions have been filed against the impugned order dated 15.05.2012, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in FAs No. 494 to 502/2012 filed by the present petitioner, vide which, while dismissing the said appeals, the orders dated 31.01.2012 passed by the District Forum Dungarpur, Rajasthan in Consumer Complaints No. 34 to 41/2011 and 52/2011 were ordered to be confirmed.

(2.) This single order shall dispose of all nine revision petitions and a copy of the same be placed on each file.

(3.) Since the issue involved in all these revision petitions is the same/common, the facts in RP No. 2971/2012 are taken for adjudicating the matter. The brief facts are that the complainants in question, are farmers in Mauza Talora, Tehsil Aaspur, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan and they had grown maize crop on their lands after raising loan of Rs. 35,000.00 under Kisan Credit Scheme from the Bank of Baroda. The said crop was covered under compulsory insurance provided by the petitioner, Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited, under the scheme known as National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS), also known as the 'Rashtriya Krishi Bima Yojana'. The said scheme NAIS was the joint venture of the Central and State Governments/Union Territories and the farmers growing notified crops and availing Seasonal Agricultural Operations (SAO) loans from the financial institutions, known as 'Loanee Farmers' were covered under the scheme. For other farmers who had not taken the loans, the scheme was optional. A 50% subsidy in the premium was also allowed to small and marginal farmers under the scheme to be shared equally by the Government of India/respective State Governments. The scheme was operated on the basis of area approach, i.e., for defined areas for each notified crop for widespread calamities, and on individual basis for localised calamities such as hailstorm, landslide, cyclone and flood etc. At the beginning of each crop season, each State Government/UT notified the crops and the defined areas. It has been stated by the complainants that the insured crop sown in July 2009 got damaged due to less rains and insects etc. The damaged crop was surveyed by the concerned revenue officials in consultation with the local Sarpanchs of the Gram Panchayats and as per the survey, there was 71% damage to the crop. The complainant demanded compensation under the insurance cover from the petitioner. However, when the compensation was not given, they filed the consumer complaints in question, seeking directions to the petitioner/OP to pay a sum of Rs. 35,000.00 towards shortfall in the crop yield due to the damage to crop and also certain compensation on various other grounds.