The court ruled that claim settlements under the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme must adhere strictly to established provisions, ensuring proper yield assessments and compensations based on threshold yields.

State Commission has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay as well as on merits. Delay is mentioned to be 784 days in the body of the order. Mr.Vishnu Mehra, counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the State Commission wrongly mentioned the delay to be 784 days, as the order of the District Forum is dated 23.12.2008 and the appeal was filed on 16.4.2009. That the delay was only of 84 days, as recorded at the time of admission by the State Commission on the fist page of its order. Delay condoned.

All these Revision Petitions involve a 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. Basic facts in these Revision Petitions are common, hence, we go on to dispose of these Revision Petitions through a common order.

It is not in dispute that the respondents/complainants had obtained an insurance cover from the petitioner in respect of their respective crops. But, when on account of natural calamity, like, shortage of rainfall or drought, the crops did not give the desired yield, claims were preferred before the insurance company, which were not allowed. It is in this background that separate complaints were filed by the respondents before the District Forum, which were allowed granting compensation in each case.

Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission, in some cases with delay, which have been dismissed by the impugned orders. Hence, these Revision Petitions before us.

Since, in all these Revision Petitions, the issue involved is same, we go on to dispose of these Revision Petitions through a common order.

As far as limitation is concerned, this Commission had an occasion to deal with this issue in Revision Petitions No.963/2009 and others, in which we had condoned the delay but after putting the petitioner to certain terms. We had held that “in cases where the delay is of only 30 days, they are condoned. In those cases where the delay is between 93-133 days the petitioner shall pay Rs.5000/- to each of the respondents/complainants independent of the outcome of the proceedings before the District Forum and in those cases, where the delay is more than 200 days, the petitioner shall pay Rs.10,000/- each to the respondents/complainant which will be independent of the outcome of the proceedings before the District Forum”.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our Notice that where the delay is less than 100 days, it should be condoned. We are not inclined to do so. However, where the delay is between 30-90 days, the petitioner shall pay Rs.3,000/- to each of the respondent/complainant and where the delay is 100-200 days, the petitioner shall pay Rs.5,000/- to each of the respondent/complainant and where the delay is more than 200 days, the petitioner shall pay Rs.10,000/- to each of the respondent/complainant.

As far as the merits of the Revision Petitions are concerned, we had an occasion to pass orders in similar circumstances on 22.4.2009, which reads as under :

“Since all these revision petitions involve a common question of law and interpretation of the Scheme and Guidelines of National Agriculture Insurance (N.A.I.), issued to that effect by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, we go on to dispose of these revision petitions through a common order.

Basic facts in all these revision petitions are common that the respondents/complainants owned a certain agricultural plot, where different crops were taken up for sowing by the complainants in their respective plots, for which they had taken up an insurance with the petitioner insurance company, as per Scheme of Things contained in the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme and when on account of natural calamity like shortage of rainfall or drought, the crops did not give the desired yield, claims were preferred before the petitioner insurance company, which were not allowed. It is in this b