A.P. Sahi, President

1. This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the order of the SCDRC, Uttar Pradesh dated 30.11.2021 in FA/906/2011.

2. The Petitioner is a farmer who had cultivated potato crops in 2005-2006 over his own agricultural land for which he took a loan of Rs. 1,60,000/- from the Respondent No.2 Canara Bank. The crop was insured under a scheme. According to the Petitioner, the crops suffered losses due to winter frost and consequently, a claim was made through the Bank from the Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. that had had insured the crops under the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme.

3. Inspite of efforts and the intimation about the loss having been verified, the Petitioner did not receive any compensation for the loss as a result whereof, he filed CC/101/2008 before the DCDRC, Agra. The Complaint was contested by the Insurance Company and the Bank also filed its reply. The District Collector, Agra had also been made an Opposite Party No.3 but no reply had been filed on his behalf. The Bank took a stand that they are only the implementing agency and according to their response, that has been noted by the District Commission, the Bank had taken a stand that a letter dated 16.06.2008 was received from the Insurance Company calling for RP/393/2022 . _ 2 information about the claim raised by the Complainant and information regarding the loss of crop or otherwise. Information was also sought about the premium having been paid. The Bank accordingly, responded vide its letters dated 12.07.2008 and 31.07.2008 that the Complainant for the agricultural Rabi season 2005-2006, had taken a loan for sowing potato crops and his land falls within the Nyay Panchayat, Kundaul, Barauli, Ahir. The Nodal Bank had paid the premium for the crop loans of that locality falling within the Nyay Panchayat, Kundaul which also included the premium contributed by the Complainant.

4. However, the Government agency namely Agricultural Statistics and Crop Insurance, Krishi Bhawan, Lucknow informed that the yield of crops in the said Nyay Panchayat was higher than the average crops grown in the area. Accordingly, there was no loss suffered and hence, no claim of loss was disbursable within the Nyay Panchayat of Kundaul, Barauli, Ahir.

5. The Insurance Company filed its response, which is in detail explaining the scheme and the manner of disbursement stating therein that all crops and their loss are assessed upon a calculation, the formula whereof is as follows:

                          Shortfall in yield "Sum Insured X Threshold yield Shortfall in yield = (Threshold yield minus Actual yield)"

                          The reply also states in para-7 that information and verification had been sought from the Canara Bank and the information received was provided in respect whereof the following averment has been made:

                          "Nodal Bank vide their letters dated 12th July, 2008 and 31 July, 2008 has informed us that the petitioner has taken loan from their Kundol Branch for Rabi-2005-06 for Potato Crop and belongs to Kadhol (Kundol) Nayapanchayat of Baroli Ahir Block of Agra District. Nodal Bank also confirmed that Digner Branch (the then Nodal Branch for RKBY) had sent D/D Nos. 831182 and 831183 dated 29.03.06 for Rs. 900000/- and Rs. 241812/ as the premium for Rabi- 2005-06 which also includes the premium of petitioner.

                          This Opposite party had received (Actual yield) data from the Dept of Agriculture Statistics and Crop insurance, Krishi Bhawan, Lucknow, Govt, of UP for Rabi-2005-06 season, based on minimum 10 number of Crop Cutting Experiments (CCE) for ail notified crops and notified nayapanchayat for the whole state as per the provision of the NAIS scheme. A copy of Crop Cutting Manual is also enclosed.

                          The Actual yield data for Potato crop for Kadhol nayapanchayat of Baroli Ahir block is recorded to be 25177 kgs per hectare whereas the Threshold yield of Kadhol nayapanchayat of Baroli Ahir block is 23413 kgs per hectare. Since Actual yield is higher than the Threshold yields, therefore no shortfall in yield was reported in Kadhol nayapanchayat of Baroli Ahir block for Potato crop in Rabi-2005-06 season. Hence no claim was paid to Kadhol nayapanchayat of Baroli Ahir block of Agra district for Potato crop in Rabi-2005-06 season, (certificate enclosed).

                          As per the claim calculation formula of the RKBY scheme claim have been calculated and payment of Rs.42976429.19 have been made to Canara Bank, Digner Branch vide Cheque No. 130487 dated 07.11.06 as payment of claim for Rabi-2005-06 season for eligible crops and nayapanchayats of Agra District."

6. A perusal of the said averment categorically states that insofar as the area of the Complainant is concerned, since the actual yield was higher than the threshold yield, therefore, there was no shortfall reported and therefore, no claim was paid to the farmers of the said area.

7. This was also supported by a certificate issued by the Insurance Company which is extracted herein under:

                          "TO WHOM SO EVER IT MAY CONCERN CERTIFICATE Name of the Crop Potato Name of the Season Rabi-2005-06 Name of the District Agra Name of the Block Baroli Ahir Name of the Nayapanchayat Kadhol Year Actual Yield in kgs per hect 2000 29431 2001 35217 2002 33264 2003 25468 2004 22953 TOTAL 146333 Average Yield = 146333 kgs per hect/5 = 29267 kg. per hect.

                          Level of Indemnity - 80% Threshold Yield (TY) = 29267* 80% = 23413 kg. per hect for Rabi-2005-06 Actual Yield (AY) = 25177 kg. per hect. for Rabi-2005-06 as provided by Dept, of Agriculture Statistic and Crop Insurance Krishi Bhawan, Lucknow.

                          Since the Actual yield for Rabi-2005-06 season is 25177 kg. per hect. is more than the Threshold yield i.e. 23413 kg. per hect for Kadhol nayapanchayat of Baroli Ahir block of Agra district therefore, no claim becomes payable for Kadhol nayapanchayat of Baroli Ahir block of Agra district for Potato crop as per NAIS scheme provision.

                          Dr. M. Duttagupta (Regional Manager)"

8. The District Commission, without assessing the aforesaid aspects, inspite of the said information being on record, recorded its conclusion that since the Complainant had invested a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- and the loss had occurred, therefore he was entitled at least to double of the amount to the tune of Rs.3,20,000/-. This calculation was made on the own opinion formed by the District Commission and in addition thereto, Rs.2,000/- as cost was also awarded.

9. Aggrieved, the Insurance Corporation went up in Appeal No.906 of 2011 and the order of the District Commission has been reversed vide order dated 30.11.2021 holding that the District Commission has based its conclusion on surmises and conjectures bereft of the actual methodology to be deployed under the scheme for award of any claim.

10. The State Commission also noted that the District Commission had gone by the protest and the letters of demand raised by the farmers in the area without examining and noting the formula which was applicable and without even considering the stand as taken by the Insurance Company.

11. Mr. Nikhil Jain appearing for the Petitioner has urged that the Petitioner is a farmer and therefore, sympathy should be shown towards him as he has suffered a loss. He submits that the order of the State Commission is unjust and the Complainant's assessment of loss was not carried out at all. He submits that no inspection was carried out nor any enquiry was made with regard to the loss of crops and the Insurance Company as well as the Bank did not Act in accordance with the scheme as a result whereof, without any factual analysis and assessment, the Complainant was denied his legitimate claim of loss.

12. Mr. Bhatt, appearing for the Insurance Company, has urged that the District Commission had proceeded on surmises and conjectures without any analysis on the basis of the terms and conditions of the scheme or the facts on record. The State Commission erroneously presumed that the claim was indemnifiable on the ground that a large protest had been held by the farmers complaining of the losses suffered by them. He further submits that this assumption was without any basis inasmuch as the Insurance Company would be liable only if the loss has occurred in terms as specified under the scheme. In the instant case, the data provided by the Government itself indicated that a higher yield of crop had been harvested in the area which was over and above the threshold as calculated according to the formula under the scheme. This has nowhere been successfully challenged by the Complainant nor has the District Commission recorded any finding on that count. The District Commission has simply made a self¬ assessment on the basis of the amount of loan taken by the Complainant which cannot be the foundation of any such assessment. The order of the District Commission was therefore, perverse and has been rightly set aside by the State Commission.

13. Having considered the submissions raised, we find that the arguments raised by Mr. Bhat deserve to be accepted as we find that the District Commission failed to advert to the method of calculation in order to arrive at any conclusion regarding indemnity for a loss of the crops as claimed by the Complainant. Once the threshold had been crossed and there was a higher crop yield, the claim was not indemnifiable. We made an enquiry from the learned counsel for the Bank Mr. Dwivedi, who was present online as to whether any such claim was paid to any farmer in the area in question. He submits on instructions that so far as the said area is concerned, about which the reference has been made, had been clearly enquired into and upon receipt of the information from the Government, regarding the yield of crops in the said area of Kudhaul, the claim could not be indemnified as according to the formula applied, no loss had been suffered.

14. In the above circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to contradict the Government data that has been relied on by the Respondents, the Complainant cannot succeed and therefore, we do not find any error in the order of the State Commission impugned herein. The Revision Petition therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed.