Farmers insured under government scheme are entitled to compensation for yield shortfalls due to natural calamities, with a responsibility on insurers to provide relevant data in claims.

The complainants/respondents in these revision petitions are farmers who had grown crops such as sunflower, groundnut and maize during rabi/khariff season in 2003-04. The crop was insured by the petitioner under a scheme of the government namely Rashtriya Krishi Bima Yojna. Under the scheme the farmers growing specifies crops were entitled to compensation in case there was shortfall due to natural calamities such as shortfall in rainfall. The scheme, inter alia, provided that if the actual yield per hectare of the crop in the defined area fell short of the specified threshold yield, the farmers growing that crop in the defined area shall be deemed to have suffered shortfall in their yield and would be entitled to compensation in terms of the said scheme.

2. The case of the complainants/respondents is that they had suffered shortage in yield on account of the rainfall being deficient in their area and, therefore, were entitled to be compensated under the scheme administered by the petitioner. Since no compensation was paid to them the respondents approached the concerned District Forum by way of separate consumer complaints seeking compensation.

3. The complaints were resisted by the petitioner which, inter alia, stated in its reply that as per the data provided by Director of Economics & Statistics, there was no shortfall in the yield of crop grown by the complainants.

4. The District Forum called for a report from the District Statistical Department and asked it to produce the statistical crop survey report. It is stated in the order of the District Forum that vide letter dated 10.07.2012 it was informed that the said Department had not conducted any data survey in respect of shortfall of Rabi/Khariff of sunflower, maize and groundnut in the year 2003-04.

5. The District Forum allowed the consumer complaints and directed payment of the sum insured to the complainants along-with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the complaint, compensation quantified at Rs. 3,000/- each and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs. 2,000/-.

6. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of separate appeals. The appeals having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission.

7. In three matters the petitioner has filed applications seeking permission to file additional document(s). The additional document(s) filed by the petitioner is the letter dated 28.06.2019 sent to it by the Joint Director, Group Insurance Division Government of Karnataka along with its annexures. The submission of the learned counsel is that as per the annexures enclosed to the letter, there was no shortfall in the relevant year except in maize crop in Hoobly, Kannur and Nargund units of Nargund Taluk. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision dated 21.01.2020 rendered by a Five Member Bench of this Commission in RP No. 533/2019 & other connected matters – Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Didwaniya Exim Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. where the Larger Bench held that either of the parties is entitled to produce additional evidence in the appeal and/or revision petition at any stage if it establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence such evidence was not in its knowledge and could not, even after exercise of due diligence be produced by it at the time when the consumer complaint was decided. In the present the petitioner has not even alleged in the application that the additional documents sought to be filed by it could not have