3 CX.R. 1988October'26 [PIKIS, J.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE 146OFCONSTITUTION' NICOSTZIAKOURIS, Applicant, v. 1.THE AGRICULTURAL INSURANCE ORGANIZATION, 2. THE DIRECTOR OF.THE AGRICULTURAL INSURANCE ORGANIZATION, Respondents. (CaseNo. 169/87). Agricultural insurance Organization—Assessment of damage tocropsdue to hail—Amatterrequiring specialknowledge—Applicantfailed to persuade theCourtthattherespondentsexercisedtheirdiscretion inadefectivemanner. . . . . The facts of this case appear sufficiently from ihe judgment of the Court Recoursedismissed. Recourse. Recourseagainstthedecisionoftherespondentswherebythe damagecausedtoapplicant'sgrainasaresultbyahailstormwas assessedasnotexceeding10%. A. Papacharalambous,fortheapplicant. •, Ch. Kyriakides, Senior Counsel of theRepublic,,for therespondents. Cur. adv. vult. 1975 Tziakouris v. Agr. InsuranceOrganization
(1988)PIKIS J. read the following judgment. NicosTziakouris; the applicant, is a grain grower. In the agricultural season 19851986, he planted an area of 270 donums with hard grain of the Arona variety at Lefkara. On 21st May, 1986, Lefkara were struck by a hail storm thatdamaged crops andplantationsin the 5 vicinity. Shortly afterwards theapplicantsubmitted anapplication to theAgricultural InsuranceOrganization (established underthe Agricultural InsuranceLaw 1987,andRegulations made thereun der), for compensationfor damage caused to his crops.He sub mitted that his plantation had been devastated by hail reducing ,Q considerably theanticipatedyieldfrom anareaof 200 donums af fected by the storm.Inan affidavit sworn toin support of hisap plication healleged thatwhereas theanticipatedgrain yieldshould be in the region of 32,000 bushels, the quantity harvested was only about 10,000 bushels. Consequently, he suffered damage equivalent tothevalue of 22,000bushels of grain. The agricultural inspectors who carried out a local inspection with aview ascertaining thesustenanceof damage andits assess ment,concludedthatthecrops of the applicantwere little affected by thehail storm. Inoneof thethreeareas where damage had al- 20 legedly been suffered it was virtually impossible tocarry out ef fective inquiry for the reason that the crop had been harvested; whereas in the other two localities damage from hail was very limited. Birds had done more damage to thecrops than hail.In their assessment the damage occasioned to the applicant by hail 25 did notexceed 10%of theanticipated yield. Applicant objected totheassessment, whereupon asecondin spection was carried out by anotherteam of two agricultural in spectors as provided by the Regulations*. The inquiry had the same outcomeas thefirst,confirming thatdamage did notexceed 30 10% of the anticipated yield. Inanaffidavit sworn toby Sawas Ioannides, an Agricultural Inspector, details are given of the quantity of seeds planted and thequantity of grain ultimatelyde livered by theapplicant. * Agricultural InsuranceRegulationsΚH A 67/77,Reg.5 et.seq. 1976 13'C.L.R. Tziakouris v. Agr. Insurance Organization Pikis J. Itmust be appreciatedthattheascertainmentandassessment of damage tocrops by a naturaldisaster is afieldrequiring speciali zed knowledge andadegree of experience. Theonly material be fore us tending to controvert the findings of the inspectors, de5 rives from the applicant andprimarily rests on his impressions of theextentof thedamage caused andhis expectations about the an ticipated yield. Nothingplaced before me persuades-me thatthe inquiry carried out was defective or thedecision invalid for any reason. 10 I, therefore, conclude that the sub judice decision is notvul nerable to be aside on any valid ground. It is, therefore, con firmed pursuant to'theprovisions'of para:4(a) of Art. 146 of the Constitution. ' » · . . · . *' *< '•• * •' -1 Recoursedismissed. .rt< " •r .;/ , ι \ , j -, . . , . ι. . ι .f/,1 -;.'. ., " .'. • · ' ι ι · .'• >ι - . • • .κ. - . Λ . ' • . -, I' . ·., r" •'· ίι - .,""t , , 1977 l '" ' · ' ^ ·. ' ':>·»". J ' '.",'. '' · ' . ' " *' ' , .1.