IMPORTANT POINT
When there are no irregularities in the orders of the lower fora, the same cannot be interfered with in the revision.

Delay in filing the Revision Petitions is condoned.

We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 22.12.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (for short “the State Commission”), whereby the order passed by the District Forum has been affirmed and the claims of the Complainants/Respondents have been upheld on the ground that the Complainants have suffered loss and damages due to failure of the banana crop on account of adverse parameters of weather.

Brief facts of the case are that the Complainants are the farmers and had become members of the Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme as introduced by Agriculture Department, Government of India and made applicable by Government of Maharashtra to the extent of Banana crop and have also paid required amount of insurance premium to the Petitioner Insurance Company through the Bank (Respondent No.2). The crop was insured for the period from 1.11.2014 to 31.7.2015 against adverse weather parameters. A third party had installed automatic weather stations and the data recorded by these stations was to be used for assessing the insurance amount to be paid to the Complainants. Since the weather stations were not properly installed by the third party as per the guidelines issued by the Indian Metrological Department, the data collected by them was incorrect, due to which the Insurance Company denied payment of the insured amount to the Complainants, which led to the filing of the Complaints before the District Forum.

District Forum partly allowed the Complaints and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.18,750/- per hectare to the Complainants within 30 days. Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses to each of the Complainants.

State Commission, while concurring with the finding of the District Forum, observed as follows:

“12. We do support the findings given by the learned Dist. Consumer Forum as the weather data recorded at Automatic Weather Station itself provides adverse weather incidence pertaining to minimum temperature. The learned counsel Shri Mene at the time of argument submitted copy of the weather data as recorded at automatic weather station Bared by NCMSL which pertain to the period from 01.11.2014 to 31.07.2015. On perusal of said data we find that temperature recorded on 10.01.2015, 11.01.2015 and 12.01.2015 is at 6.7,8.1 and 7.1 degree Celsius which is also observed by the ld. District Forum. It is only on 12.01.2015 the temperature exceeds by 0.1 degree Celsius than the norms of 8.00 degree Celsius . However, the excess reading of 0.1 is almost negligible. Because, it is one hundredth part. However on 10.01.2015 also the temperature is below 8.00 degree C i.e. 6.6d.c. Thus the temperature was continuously below 8 degree for these four days and it must have affected the banana crop adversely. It was therefore obligatory on the part of opponent insurance company to pay the complainant an insurance sum as is payable for the parameter of minimum temperature which is Rs.18,750/- per hector. The learned counsel Shri Mene has referred to the case laws pertaining to the Agriculture ….Vs. Baishk and another, 2016 STPL- 15647 NC, wherein it is held that, the payment of compensation has to be made solely on the basis of weather data provided by weather station.

13. In the present case the Dist. Consumer forum has computed the amount of insurance payable to the complainants only on the basis of data provided by reference weather station, as stated above. Therefore this citation does not come to the help of opponent insurance company. It is also brought to the notice of this Commission by Ld. Counsel Shri Kolapkar for the complainant that, the opponent insurance company has paid amount of insurance in respect consumer complaint No.101 and 102/2017 which is also mentioned by ld. Dist. Consumer forum in its impugn