ORDER

A.C. Raval, Member—The appellant/ original complainant has filed present appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the respondent/ original opponents before the State Commission, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Surendranagar dated 25.11.2021 in complaint Case No.831 of 2019.

2. Heard Ld. Advocate Mr. Rajendrasinh B. Roal for the appellant. This case is pertaining crop compensation under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna 2018-19 (hereinafter referred as PMFBY.) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and this case is one of the cases of group matter. Hence, this Commission has decided to hear and dispose of this appeal finally on merits at the admission stage.

2.1 The appellant is original complainant and respondent No.1 is original opponent No.1 and respondent No.2 is original opponent 2 before the District Commission. hereinafter the appellant and respondents will be referred as per their original status.

3. Facts of the case of the complainant:—

The complainants are farmers and they possess agriculture land in their respective villages. The complainant is possessing land in Village Sayla, Ta. Sayla, Dist. Surendranagar.

It is the case of the complainants that the Central Government has introduced PMFBY 2018 across the country. Under this scheme the farmers who get the loan from the financial institution are compulsorily covered under the insurance. The complainants have been granted the loan from the Bank and the Bank has deducted the premium at the time of disbursement of the loan. The said premium was deposited with the ins. co. The description of the loan and insurance premium are asunder:—

Sum insured was Rs.1,65,720. That the loanee farmers were mandatorily covered under the scheme and the premium was automatically deducted from their loan account.

Due to severe drought condition during the season. The crop for the year 2018-19 failed but the insurance company has not paid any compensation. Therefore, the complainant has given the application dated 24.05.2019 to the opponents for payment of crop compensation as stated in the application. The ins. co. has not provided the copy of policy to the complainants. The complainant filed consumer complaint before the ld. District Commission, Surendranagar for amount of Rs.6,40,000 with 12% cumulative interest and Rs.10,000 for the compensation towards mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation.

3.1 The complainant has produced following documents before this commission with D’ list at page no. 8.

(i) Revenue records to show the ownership of the land.

(ii) Bank loan verification application form under PMFBY scheme.

(iii) The resolution dated 21.11.2018 of agricultural department.

(iv) Details regarding indemnity level AY for Kharif 2018 TY for Kharif 2018.

(v) Details of co-payment.

(vi) Report of Mamlatdar sayla stating the five years rain condition,

3.2 Defence:

The Opponent Insurance company has stated in its written Statement filed before the Learned District Commission that as per the data of Actual Threshold Yield provided by government for the said crop the claim is not payable because 9116/- was already paid as a part of mid-season adversity.

It is further submitted that the mid-season adversity was declared by the Government in the particular district. Therefore claim was given to the insured farmers on the