In the High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1 ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY Writ Petition No. 63094/2010 (GM-RES) Connected with Writ Petition Nos.63378/2009, 63145/2010 and 66194/2009 W.P. No.63094/2010 : Between: 1. Smt. Nagavva W/o. Shankrappa Pujar Age. 71 years, Occupation Household R/o. Amminabhavi village, Taluk and District Dharwad. 2. Kallappa S/o. Shankrappa Pujar Age. 43 years, Occupation Agriculturist R/o. Amminabhavi village, Taluk and District Dharwad. 3. Smt. Kasturevva W/o. Mallappa Angadi Age. 48 years, Occupation Agriculture R/o. Amminabhavi village, Taluk and District Dharwad. : 2 : 4. Basappa S/o. Shekappa Angadi Age. 41 years, Occupation Household R/o. Amminabhavi village, Taluk and District Dharwad. 5. Smt. Iravva W/o. Bharamappa Angadi Age. 35 years, Occupation Household R/o. Amminabhavi village, Taluk and District Dharwad. 6. Smt. Neelavva W/o. Basavaraj Ghanti Age. 31 years, Occupation Household R/o. Amminabhavi village, Taluk and District Dharwad. … Petitioners (By Shri Gangadhar S. Hosakeri, Advocate) And : 1. The Managing Director Agricultural Insurance Corporation Of India Limited, Regional Office, 25, I Floor, Shankar Narayana Building, M.G. Road, Bangalore-1. 2. UCO Bank Amminabhavi Branch Amminabhavi, Taluk and District Dharwad. … Respondents (By Shri N.P. Vivekmehta, Advocate for respondent No.1; Shri R.V. Bellakki, Advocate for respondent No.2) : 3 : This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the award dated 29.10.2009 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Dharwad, in P.L.A. Petition No.1040/2009 vide Annexure-A. W.P. No.63378/2009: Between: Bhoomappa S/o. Gadaigeppa Roogi Age 78 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o. Byahatti, District Dharwad. … Petitioner (By Shri P.G. Chikkanaragund, Advocate) And : 1. The Managing Director Agricultural Insurance Corporation Of India Limited, Regional Office, (Karnataka), I Floor, Shankar Narayana Building, M.G. Road, Bangalore-560001. 2. The Manager Syndicate Bank, Byahatti, District Dharwad. … Respondents (By Shri N.P. Vivekmehta, Advocate for respondent No.1; Shri Mallikarjun B. Hiremath, Advocate for respondent No.2) : 4 : This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 15.05.2009 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Dharwad, in P.L.A. Petition No.206/2009 vide Annexure-E. W.P. No.63145/2010 : Between: Smt. Gadigevva W/o. Basappa Itagi Age. 59 years, Occupation Agriculture R/o. Amminabhavi village, Taluk and District Dharwad. … Petitioner (By Shri P.G. Chikkanaragund, Advocate) And : 1. The Managing Director Agricultural Insurance Corporation Of India Limited, Regional Office, 25, I Floor, Shankar Narayana Building, M.G. Road, Bangalore-1. 2. UCO Bank Amminabhavi Branch Amminabhavi, Taluk and District Dharwad. … Respondents (By Shri N.P. Vivekmehta, Advocate for respondent No.1; Shri Mallikarjun B. Hiremath, Advocate for respondent No.2) : 5 : This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the award dated 29.10.2009 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Dharwad, in P.L.A. Petition No.1039/2009 vide Annexure-A. W.P. No.66194/2009 : Between: Smt. Munnabi W/o. Maktumsaheb Nadaf Age. 65 years, Occupation Household R/o. Kavalgeri, At present Shirastedar Galli, Madihal, Dharwad. … Petitioner (By Shri P.G. Chikkanaragund, Advocate) And : 1. The Managing Director Agricultural Insurance Corporation Of India Limited, Regional Office, (Karnataka), I Floor, Shankar Narayana Building, M.G. Road, Bangalore-560001. 2. The Manager Vevasaya Seva Sahakari Bank Limited, Govanakoppa, Taluk and District Dharwad. …Respondents (By Shri N.P. Vivekmehta, Advocate for respondent No.1; Respondent No.2 is served) : 6 : This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 22.10.2009 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Dharwad, in P.L.A. Petition No.971/2009 vide Annexure-G. These writ petitions coming on for hearing, this day, the Court has made the following: ORDER These petitions are disposed of by this common order, having regard to the common issue that arises for consideration. 2. The petitioners herein had filed a petition before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Dharwad, against the respondents under Section 22A(b)(vi) read with Section 22C(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for brevity) claiming certain crop insurance amount with interest and also seeking compensation for mental agony suffered by them. The claim was uniformly in respect of the year 2003-04 khariff season. The petitioners had sought for award of costs as well. The petitioners are said to be the owners of respective agricultural lands situate at Amminabhavi : 7 : and surrounding villages. They had raised crops such as groundnut, onion, jowar and toordal during the said season. 3. The petitioners are said to have insured the crops with the Agricultural Insurance Corporation of India Limited through Financial Institutions and had paid the insurance premium along with the Declaration Forms and other necessary documents. They had complied with all formalities in that regard. 4. It transpires that the petitioners uniformly suffered losses, and therefore, sought the crop insurance. They were paid certain amounts, which the Insurance Company claimed was in full satisfaction of the claims, in terms of the Insurance Policy. However, the petitioners being aggrieved of a shortfall in the said amounts paid, had raised the claim before the Lok Adalat. There was a delay in filing the application and they had also sought for condonation of delay before the Lok Adalat. They were not aware of the part payment of the crop insurance amount and it is only in retrospect they had realised that they : 8 : had been short changed in the settlement of their claims. This aberration had occurred since the insurance amount had been directly transferred to the loan accounts of the respective petitioners and it had gone unnoticed that they were not provided the entire amount to which they were entitled and it is only on realising the injustice that they had approached the Lok Adalat. 5. The second reason for the delay was that normally any claim for insurance is invariably settled after two or three years from the date of claim, and therefore, it was not unusual for the petitioners to have overlooked the fact that the respondents had, in fact, paid certain amount, which was not the entire amount to which they were entitled and the third reason was that the petitioners were mostly illiterate persons and unaware of the legal proceedings especially the law of limitation, and hence, there was a delay. 6. It is their further grievance that the Lok Adalat without addressing the circumstances of the case, having : 9 : summarily dismissed the claim petitions on the ground of Limitation without addressing the merits, the present petitions are filed. 7. It is the case of the petitioners that they are all claiming under the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme, which is introduced by the Central Government through the Agricultural Insurance Company of India Limited and, in terms of the Scheme, the sum insured would cover the entire amount of loss and not merely the basis on which the respondents sought to claim, namely that there is a formula prescribed under the Scheme that a threshold yield which is specified for an Insurance Unit based on the three years’ average yield in case of rice and wheat and five years’ average yield in case of other crops, multiplied by the level of Indemnity. This threshold yield is applied against the actual yield, when the actual yield is less than the threshold yield, the extent to which it falls short of the threshold yield is taken as the shortfall and the shortfall yield divided by the threshold yield. The sum of insurance is the amount payable and this according to the petitioners has : 10 : been taken into account by the Lok Adalat in earlier matters for the year 2003-04 in several matters. It is seen that the entire sum assured has been paid in respect of claims for losses of that year in respect of other farmers and the petitioners being denied their due, is therefore, unfair and unjust. The summary manner in which the Lok Adalat has rejected the petition on the ground of limitation was also misplaced. 8. It is pointed out that the law of limitation would only take away the right to a remedy and not the right itself and since the Lok Adalat is an extraordinary dispute resolution mechanism intended to expedite disposal of claims especially such as the ones now before this Court. The strict application of the Limitation Act was unfair and unjust in denying the claim of the petitioners. 9. The learned counsel for the claimants would contend that from a reading of the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, it is evident that the Lok Adalat while for the purposes of determining any matter under the Act is vested with : 11 : the powers of a Civil Court, it is also found that it shall have the requisite powers to specify its own procedure for the determination of every dispute coming before it and the question of limitation should have been the last of the impediments in the Lok Adalat taking a proactive approach in addressing the grievance of the petitioners, who are poor farmers, who have suffered serious losses and which the insurance coverage was required to come to their aid and the same being denied only on the ground of limitation is a denial of a right of the petitioners which results in serious mis-carriage of justice, and hence, would seek the intervention of this Court in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.