2. The adverse incidence was the equivalent of the deviation between 'Trigger Weather' and 'Actual Weather' date recorded at a 'Reference Weather Station' during the specified time- period. In case of an adverse weather incidence for at least 5 days all the insured cultivators growing the notified crop in the reference units area were entitled to pay out the under scheme.

3. The Government of Uttarakhand, while implementing the said scheme in the State, directed that though reference unit area will be treated as the basis to accept a risk and analyzing the compensation, if the estimates by reference weather stations are not available the estimates for those days by fixed Backup Weather Centres will be used. It was further stipulated that it related figures of even the Backup Weather Stations are not available then the estimates for those days from nearby weather stations will be used with the consent of the horticulture department of Uttarakhand.

4. The complainants who are covered under the insurance scheme of the petitioner company, lodged claims alleging excess rainfall in the area where apple crop was grown by them. The claims having not being paid they approach the concerned District Forum by way of separate consumer complaints.

5. The complaints were resisted by the petitioner company, which inter alia, stated in its reply that there was no excess rainfall at least for five rainy days during the covered period i.e. from 16.03.2014 to 30.04.2014.

6. The District Forum relying upon the data obtained by the complainant from HARC (Himalaya Action Research Centre), which is situated air distance of 200 meters and road distance of only about 1.5 km allowed the consumer complaints.

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

8. As noted earlier, the scheme framed by Government of India and implemented by Government of Uttarakhand envisaged pay out towards the compensation only if the adverse weather condition was recorded by the Reference Weather Station (RWS) of data for the relevant period was available from the RWS, the data from any other weather stations could not have been used for the purpose of claiming or making the payout. Even the data from the Backup Weather Station could be used only in case the data for the relevant period was not available from the RWS.

9. In the present cases the data from the RWS was actual available. A perusal of said data would show that during the period from 16.03.2014 to 30.04.2014 there was no excess rainfall for at least 5 days. Therefore, relying upon the aforesaid data no compensation to the complainants became payable.

10. The submission of the learned counsel for the complainant is that since the HARC is situated much nearer as compared to the RWS, the data provided by the HARC is bound to more reliable and should be used for the purpose of compensating the farmers particular when the object of the scheme is to compensate the farmers whose crops is affected on account of bad weather condition, including excess rainfall. The submission, though attractive, cannot be

6

accepted since it runs contrary to the specific terms of the insurance scheme under which the crop of the complainant was insured. The said scheme envisaged payout towards the compensation only if the data provided by RWS indicated excess rainfall, in case such a data was actually available for the relevant period. The data of a weather station, other than the RWS cannot be used for claiming compensation in terms of the scheme even if the said weather station happens to be nearer then the RWS.

11. This Commission is bound to decide the consumer complaint on the basis of the terms and condition of the insurance policy. Since the said terms and conditions do not permit to use of data from a nearby weather station other than the RWS, unless neither the data from the RWS nor the data from Backup Weather Station is available, the fora below in my opinion could not have used of data of HARC for the purpose of compensating the complainants.

12. In fact the issue involved in this petition is no more res integra in view of the decision of this Commission in Tirath Ram Thakur vs. Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd. & Anr.

Revision Petition No.3282-3283 of 2014 decided on 11.07.2017 which to the extent it is relevant reads as under:

"14. COMPENSATION (PAYOUT)

(I) AIC shall be responsible for all Payouts arising out of "Adverse Weather Incidence" strictly in terms of the Scheme terms & conditions read with the relevant Premium & Payout tables. However, this responsibility of AIC shall attach only when the 'Risk has incepted', that is, AIC has duly received the FULL PREMIUM, directly from the Insured his own part, AND ALSO the corresponding Premium Subsidy part from the Governments.

(II) Pay-out shall arise ONLY in case of Adverse Weather Incidence. Adverse Weather Incidence is equivalent to the deviation between "Trigger Weather" and "Actual Weather" Data recorded at a "Reference Weather Station" during the specified time-period. Trigger Weather is a pre-defined Weather Parameter applicable to a Notified Crop in a notified Reference Unit Area.

In case of Adverse Weather Incidence (AWI), all the insured cultivators growing the Notified Crop in the Reference Unit Area shall be deemed to have suffered the same level of AWI and the same proportion of crop-loss, and become eligible for the same rate of Payouts." (Emphasis added)

It is manifest from the highlighted portion of the Scheme, in para (II), that the Payout in case of Adverse Weather Incidence has to be determined on the basis of the data recorded at a

"Reference Weather Station" during the specified time period. On a pointed query, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner candidly admits that insofar as the Complainant's

7

Orchard is concerned, the relevant "Reference Weather Station" was Naggar and not Bahang. That being so, we are unable to read any material irregularity or illegality in the impugned order, wherein the compensation payable to the Complainant has been determined on the basis of the weather data recorded at the said "Reference Weather Station". We are also unable to agree with the learned Counsel that the afore-noted stipulation in the Scheme is unfair to the Agriculturists. The vires of the terms and conditions of a public policy cannot be examined in a Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986."

13. The decision of this Commission in Revision Petition No.1654/2016 in Agriculture Insurance Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Badri Singh Bisht & Anr. decided on 24.10.2016 also deals with this issue and to the extent it is relevant reads as under:

"2. It would thus be seen that the scheme was to be implemented on area approach basis wherein reference unit areas were to be notified for the purpose of insurance of the crop. The reference unit areas were ordinarily to cover a radius of about 25 kms in case of rainfall and 100 kms in case of other weather parameters such as frost, heat, relative humidity etc. Reference Weather Stations were also designated under the scheme for the purpose of providing weather data applicable to the area covered by a concerned reference unit area, for the purpose of calculation of compensation. It is also evident that the compensation was to be paid strictly in terms of the aforesaid scheme and the computation of the compensation was dependent upon the weather in the reference unit area as per the data provided by the concerned Reference Weather Station. The actual loss if any suffered by the farmers had no bearing on the quantum of compensation payable under the scheme, and in case of abnormal weather, uniform compensation was payable to all the farmers in the affected area irrespective of the extent of their loss.

7. As noted earlier, the computation of compensation in terms of the scheme was to be made on the basis of the data of the adverse weather provided by the concerned Reference Weather Station. The case of the petitioner is that Kashipur was the Reference Weather Station notified by the Government for Kotabag. There is absolutely no evidence or even an allegation that a Reference Weather Station other than Kashipur had been notified by the State Commission for the area of Kotabag. Therefore, there is reason to reject the case of the petitioner company that Kashmir was the concerned Reference Weather Station. As far as Pantnagar is concerned, that was only a back-up station and the data at Pantnagar was to be considered only in the event of data not being available at Kashipur which was the designated Reference Weather Station for areas including Kotabag. Therefore, the petitioner company was fully justified in computing the compensation on the basis of the data collected and provided by Kashipur Reference Weather Station.

8. A perusal of the computation sheets filed by the petitioner company shows that the compensation was calculated as per the weather data provided by the Reference Weather Station at Kashipur. Since the scheme envisaged payment of compensation computed solely on the basis of the data provided by the Reference Weather Station, the computation made and the compensation paid by the petitioner company to the complainants cannot be faulted with, even if the actual loss suffered by the complainant was substantially higher. It can hardly be denied that the compensation paid to the complainants was very meagre and more or less nominal but, the scheme as framed by the Government, does not envisage payment of a higher

8

compensation or a compensation based upon the actual loss suffered by the farmers. Therefore, the direction for payment of compensation awarded by the District Forum cannot be sustained."

14. For the reasons stated above, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and same are hereby set aside. The consumer complaints are consequently with no order as to costs.

15. The amount which the petitioner company had deposited with this commission be refunded to it along with interest may have accrued on it.

......................J

V.K. JAIN

PRESIDING MEMBER

9