1. The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 assailing the Judgment and Final Order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh at Raipur in First Appeal No. 341 of 2024, whereby the State Commission dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioners and affirmed the Order dated 14.02.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajnandgaon in Complaint Case No. 69 of 2023.

2. Heard Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners.

3. The case of the Respondent/Complainant is that he is the owner of agricultural land admeasuring 2.958 hectares situated in Village - Mohad, Tehsil and District - Rajnandgaon. The Respondent had purchased gram seeds for the Rabi season and had also obtained crop insurance coverage under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY), for which the prescribed premium was deducted from his account. According to the Respondent, the standing gram crop suffered extensive damage on account of excessive rainfall and hailstorm. The Respondent informed the concerned revenue and agricultural authorities regarding the crop loss, pursuant to which an inquiry was conducted and reports were prepared recommending compensation under the PMFBY. However, the claim was not entertained by the Petitioners-Insurance Company, leading to the filing of the Consumer Complaint.

4. The Petitioners resisted the Complaint contending that the claim did not satisfy the requirements of the PMFBY Operational Guidelines. It was argued that the alleged loss was attributable to excessive rainfall, which according to the Petitioners was not a notified peril for localized claim assessment under the applicable State Government notification. It was further contended that the Respondent had not furnished intimation of crop loss within the stipulated period of 72 hours and, therefore, was not entitled to compensation under the localized calamity provisions of the scheme. The Petitioners also questioned the reliance placed upon the Patwari report and other communications issued by the agricultural authorities, contending that loss assessment could only be undertaken by the committee contemplated under the scheme guidelines.

5. The District Commission, upon appreciation of the documentary evidence on record, held that the Respondent had obtained valid insurance coverage under the PMFBY and that the crop loss had been duly reported to the competent authorities. The District Commission further found that the crop damage had been verified by the concerned revenue authorities and that the Insurance Company had declined the claim on technical grounds despite the existence of material evidencing substantial crop loss. Accordingly, the District Commission partly allowed the Complaint and directed payment of Rs.1,05,749/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from 15.07.2022 till actual realisation towards the insured loss together with compensation and litigation expenses.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Order of the District Commission, the Insurance Company filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company was dismissed by the State Commission. The State Commission observed that the material on record, including the report prepared by the revenue authorities and the communications of the agricultural department, established the occurrence of crop loss. The State Commission further held that the Insurance Company could not deny the claim merely on the basis of technical objections regarding the description of the peril or the dates mentioned in different communications, particularly when the crop damage stood substantiated by official records.

7. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners and perused the material placed on record.

8. The principal contention of the Petitioners is that the Respondent failed to comply with the requirement of furnishing intimation within 72 hours and that the loss was caused by excessive rainfall, which was allegedly not a notified peril under the scheme. However, the record reveals that the Respondent had approached the competent government authorities regarding the crop loss and that the matter was subjected to verification by the concerned revenue machinery. The Patwari, after spot inspection, reported that the gram crop had suffered substantial damage due to unseasonal rains and that compensation under the PMFBY was warranted. The recommendation was thereafter forwarded by the concerned agricultural authorities for appropriate action.

9. The State Commission has recorded a categorical finding that the Respondent had consistently attributed the crop loss to rainfall and hailstorm and that the materials on record established destruction of the crop due to natural calamity. The State Commission further noticed that the communication dated 13.05.2022 issued by the agricultural authorities specifically referred to crop damage caused by rain and hailstorm. It also took note of the relevant notification governing the scheme and concluded that hailstorm was one of the covered localized calamities as recorded in para no. 11 of the Impugned Order. The argument of the Ld. Counsel of the Petitioners that rain is not covered under the notification quoted in para 11 of the Impugned Order is not tenable because 'cloud bursting' also causes excessive downpour of water.

10. The contention of the Petitioners that the Patwari report could not be relied upon because it was not prepared by a joint committee, as contemplated under the scheme, does not persuade us to exercise revisional jurisdiction. The scope of a Revision Petition under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is limited. Interference is warranted only where there exists a jurisdictional error, material irregularity or patent illegality in the orders passed by the fora below. The revisional authority is not expected to reassess evidence merely because another view may be possible as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. M/s. united India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269' and 'Rajesh Kumar v. National insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal Nos. 14615- 14616 of 2024'.

11. In the present case, both the District Commission and the State Commission have concurrently held, on the basis of the evidence on record, that the Respondent suffered crop loss covered under the Insurance scheme and that denial of compensation by the Petitioners amounted to deficiency in service. The findings recorded are based upon documentary evidence and cannot be said to be perverse, arbitrary or unsupported by the record.

12. The Judgments relied upon by the Petitioners, namely , Ajitsinh Malubhai Ghummad v. General Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. RP/.No. 1519/2008' and 'Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. v. Hem Shankar & AnrRP/2971-2979/2012.' reiterates the settled proposition that claims under crop insurance schemes are to be considered in accordance with the terms of the scheme. There can be no disagreement with the said proposition. However, the facts of the present case are distinguishable inasmuch as the authorities below have returned concurrent findings, based on the material available on record, that the Respondent had suffered compensable crop loss and was entitled to the Insured amount. The aforesaid decisions do not assist the Petitioners in dislodging the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the fora below.

13. We are, therefore, of the considered view that no jurisdictional error, material irregularity or illegality has been shown in the Impugned Order warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The Order passed by the State Commission affirming the Order of the District Commission is well reasoned and does not call for any interference.

14. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

15. Pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.

16. Ordered accordingly.