AGRICULTURE INSURANCE CO OF INDIA LTD THROUGH ITS REGIONAL MANAGER Vs. SUBHASH DEORAO BHOSALE & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this batch of five Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by the Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited (for short "the Insurance Company"), Opposite Party No.1 in the Complaints, is to a common order dated 04.05.2017, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeals No.85 to 90 of 2016. By the impugned order, while affirming the finding returned by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nanded (for short "the District Forum") in Complaints No.220, 205, 204, 343, 247 and 222 of 2015, to the effect that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in failing to pay full amount of compensation due to the Complainants under the National Crop Insurance Programme (NCIP) launched by the Government of India through the Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operation, vide letter dated 01.11.2013, the State Commission has partly modified the quantum of compensation as awarded by the District Forum. The State Commission has directed that instead of compensation @ Rs. 22,000/- per hectare, as directed by the District Forum, the Complainants would be entitled to compensation at the rates, ranging between Rs. 160/- per hectare to Rs. 2760/- per hectare, for the loss of cotton and soyabean crops, in different circles, as stated in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order.

(2.) Having heard Mr. Nandrajog, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company at some length, I am of the view that regard being had to the fact that based on the weather data placed before them, both the Forums below have returned a concurrent finding of fact that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in not paying the full amount of compensation, to which the Complainants were entitled to under the said Scheme. Since the said finding has not been specifically challenged as being perverse, there is hardly any scope for this Commission to interfere with the same in a limited Revisional Jurisdiction. Moreover, even the quantum of amount of compensation awarded in favour of each of the Complainants, would not, admittedly, be more than Rs. 15,000/- per Complainant. Under the stated circumstances, I am of the view that these are not fit cases warranting interference with the orders impugned in these Petitions. Nevertheless, the question as to whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation, as directed in the impugned order, is left open for being decided in an appropriate case, as it is strenuously urged by the learned Senior Counsel that since the Insurance Company had determined the claims of the Complainants on the basis of the data furnished by the Weather Data Provider, in terms of Clause 25.6 of the National Crop Insurance Programme Operational Guidelines, no deficiency could be attributed to it. According to the learned Counsel, if at all any additional compensation was payable to the Complainants, the same should have been fastened on the concerned Weather Data Providers. In my opinion, since the Weather Data providers were not impleaded as a party in the Complaint either by the Complainant or the Insurance Company, no such direction can be issued at this juncture. However, it is clarified that if at some stage the Insurance Company decides to recover the amount(s), being directed to be paid to the Complainants, the final decision in such proceedings shall be taken by the concerned court on their own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made in the order passed by the State Commission and the dismissal of these Revision Petitions. The question of liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation on the basis of the alleged faulty information about the weather conditions, provided by the Data Provider, is also kept open.

(3.) Resultantly, all these Revision Petitions fail and are dismissed in limine.