Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member and Rekha Gupta, Member
AGRICULTURE INSURANCE CO. OF INDIA LTD. AND ANR. - Appellants
Versus
PRAHLAD SINGH AND ORS., IJPAL SINGH AND ANR., LEELA AND ORS., KHEMCHAND AND ANR., REWANT SINGH AND ANR., HARIRAM AND ANR., PANNARAM AND ANR., SURENDRA SINGH AND ANR., HANUMANARAM AND ORS., INDRAJRAM AND ORS., ONKARMAL AND ANR., TEJ KANWAR AND ANR., KIRAN KANWAR AND ANR., BHAWANI SINGH AND ORS., MANGAL SINGH AND ORS., JHABAR GURJAR AND ANR., MAHAVEER SINGH AND ANR., BHURARAM AND ORS., KHANGARAM AND ANR., GHISARAM AND ANR., BHAWARILAL AND ANR., SAMUNDRA SINGH AND ANR., MAGAN SINGH AND ANR., RAMESHWARLAL AND ANR., MOHANLAL AND ANR., KANARAM AND ANR., SITA DEVI AND ORS., ISHRI SINGH AND ORS., GULABN KANAR AND ANR., NIRANARAM @ NARAINRAM AND ORS., DATAR SINGH AND ANR., SHRAWAN KUMAR AND ANR., MOHAR SINGH AND ANR., GIRDHARI SINGH AND ANR., PANNARAM AND ANR., HANUMANARAM AND ANR., RAMLAL AND ANR., PEMARAM AND ANR., SHANTI AND ANR., BHAGWANARAM AND ORS., ASMAN KANAR AND ORS., SUSHEELA KANWAR AND ORS., PRATAP SINGH AND ANR., MAHIPAL SINGH AND ANR., CHANDRAWALI AND ORS., MANGAL SINGH AND ORS., BHANWAR SINGH AND ORS., DANARAM AND ANR., MOHAR SINGH AND ORS., PURNARAM AND ANR., BHANWAR SINGH AND ANR., NANDARAM AND ANR., HANUMANARAM AND ORS., SAJJAN SINGH AND ANR., RAMESHWARLAL AND ANR., DHANNEY SINGH AND ANR., SBHANWAR SINGH AND ANR., BALLU KHAN AND ANR., MADANLAL AND ANR., GANPATRAM AND ANR., HANUMANARAM AND ANR., MOHANLAL AND ANR., BHANWARLAL AND ANR., SHRAWAN DEVI AND ANR., KANARAM AND ANR., AMILAL AND ANR., SURAJ KANWAR AND ORS., HANSRAJ AND ANR., MANAWATI AND ANR., GANGAJAI AND ANR., ASGAR KHAN AND ANR. - Respondents
Revision Petition Nos. 464-534 of 2011 against Order dated 16.11.2010 in F.A. Nos. 553-599, 631-645, 682-690 of 2010 of State Commission, Rajasthan
Decided on : 16-08-2013
Mr. Sanjiv Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Verma, Advocate, for the Respondent
Headnote:
WEATHER BASED CROP INSURANCE SCHEME - INTERPRETATION - [ACT SECTION LIST: SECTION 21(B) OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986] - The National Commission held that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners/opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 in their reply stated that under weather based crop Insurance Scheme in the month of Rabi 2007-08 on the basis of cultivator's accepted credit limit the insurance crop shown in the loan application by the complainant and cultivated area's insurance and making premium was compulsory, the collective insurance premium only is sent by bank to the Insurance Company. The fact of complainant's cultivation may be proved by himself from state records of this year's revenue accounts and land dues.
Finding of the Court:
The National Commission held that the concurrent finding recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission that there was deficiency in service on the petitioners' part is based on correct analysis of the facts and the evidence which cannot be termed as erroneous. Thus, no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of power under Section 21(b) of the Act and as such orders passed by the Fora below do not suffer from any infirmity or revisional exercise of jurisdiction.
Issues: None
Ratio Decidendi: The National Commission held that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked.
Final Decision: Consequently, present petitions being meritless and having no legal basis are hereby dismissed.
ORDER
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member - Since in the above noted revision petitions, common question of law and interpretation of the Scheme and guidelines of National Agriculture Insurance (NAI) issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India is involved the same are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Case of Prahlad Singh v. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. and Others, Complaint No. 324 of 2008, is taken as a lead case.
3. Prahlad Singh filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Churu, Rajasthan (for short, District Forum ) on allegations, which read as under:
"1. That the complainant is rural farmer of Village Kotvad Taal Tehsil and District Churu. Applicant's farming land is situated in Field Survey of Common Khasra in Rohi Village Kotvad Taal Tehsil and District Churu.
2. That the applicant had made Kisan Credit Card of his farming land from the Respondent No. 3 whose Account Number is 51055175717. In which the insurance of the complainant's cultivated crop by respondent No. 4 as per Public Welfare State and Insurance Rules the respondents 1 and 2 sent the insurance premium of insured crop after deducting from the Loan Account of applicant (Kisan Credit Card) to Insurance Company and the amount of Insurance Premium is marked in loan account of the applicant.
3. That applicant's crop gram which was cultivated in month of November, the insurance of crop by the respondent Bank and Insurance Company in weather based insurance scheme after taking applicant's gram crop insurance premium Rupees 337 per hectare the insurance of Rupees 15,000 per hectare of insurance amount was done and the amount of insurance premium being deducted by the respondent bank sent to respondent Insurance Company. On date 31.12.2007 total Rupees 2528 insurance premium was deducted from the applicant.
4. That in weather based insurance scheme in Rabi crop 2007 insurance was done. Insurance claim for crop on weather (Temperature, frost, unseasonal rainfall, extreme winter, etc. and on being temperature below zero for continuously for three days) variations insurance is payable as per rules. Churu District is nation-wide known for weather variations. The going on variations in weather in Churu District and Churu Tehsil with occurrence of frost, etc. temperature many times was below zero and in the month January 2008 which is important time for Rabi crop the temperature was twice continuously below zero from date 1 to 3 January, 2008 and from 21 to 24 January, 2008 on which the applicant and the cultivators who cultivated Rabi crop/gram crop in Churu District insurance claim as per insurance rules is payable, when at one time temperature is below zero for continuously three days is 10 percent insured amount and for two times 15 percent addition to total 25 percent of insured amount.
5. That due to the variations in weather and temperature being below zero the Rabi/Gram crop of Churu District and Churu Village and cultivators of applicant's village was destroyed, on which request for giving the insurance claim by the applicant along with other cultivators to the Insurance Company, weather based crop insurance scheme Rabi 2007 stating to be automatic procedure of insurance and shortly deposit of claim amount in applicant's loan account/Kisan Credit Card which is situated at respondent No. 3 and gave assurance to deposit claim amount shortly till now not paying the claim amount is a serious deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
6. That for indemnity of damage of crops due to the weather variations for this reason the insurance was done from Respondent by the applicant and as per the insurance rules even after Churu District being unfavourable weather claim payment not being done by the Respondent Insurance Company to the applicant and other than the tehsil of applicant, payment of claim amount to cultivators of districts other tehsil is serious deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The Resp
