clr/1988/1988_3_625.pdf

(2)—Effect—Assessor notfree tooverlook it—Organisation not bound to inviteownertobepresentduringtheassessmentofthedamage. Theapplicant istheownerof plots of landofanextent of 94donums. The plot is situated in an area which on 5.5.84 wasdeclared as "drought stricken''areabytheBoardofthe"Agricultural InsuranceOrganisation". TherelevantpartofReg.8

(2)of theaforesaid Regulationsreadsas follows:- 10 15 «In case the assessment has not been carried out till the usual timeof harvesting,the insured person hastoreap theproduce,buthe is,however, obliged toleavepartof theproduce unreaped,asa witness of thedamage caused tothesaidcultivation,as follows: (a) Forcereals and potatoes a portion of 10sq.m. in thecentreand in eachoneofthefouredgesofeachplotof land." Theassessmentof theareainquestionbeganon 24.5.84.Astheareaof a plot of 75 donums had been "reaped and grazed without witnesses" no damagewas assessed. 20 Hence thisrecourse.Theapplicant does notdispute that on the day of assessmenttherewereno "witnesses",butsubmittedthat- 625 Kazamias v. Agr.Insurance Organization

(1988)(a)Therespondentsdelayedincarryingouttheassessmentandbyreasonofsuchadelaythe"witnesses"leftweregrazedbyflocksfromadjacentTurkishoccupiedarea, (b)Therespondentsfailed,inbreachoftheregulations,toinvitehimto bepresentattheassessment,and 5 (c)Theassessmentwouldbemadebyanalogytothedamageassessed inrespectoftheplotscomprisingtheremaining19donums. Held,dismissingtherecourse:

(1)Theareawasdeclaredstrickenon5.5.84;applicationsoughttohave beensubmittedupto15.5.84; theassessmentintheareabeganon24.5.84 10 anditwascompletedon28.5.84. Inthecircumstancestherehasbeennodelay.

(2)Therespondent hasnoobligation to notify the applicant tobe presentattheassessment

(3)TheassessorhasnotafreehandtooverlooktheprovisionsofReg- 15 ulation 8

(2).Theapplicantis'obliged'toleavepartof theproduceunreaped,as "witness"of thedamage.Theassessorcould notgo beyond suchregulations. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. 20 Recourse. Recourse agaisnt the assesment of the sum of £147.49 cent compensation awarded to applicant in respect of the damage causedbydrought tothelandcultivated byapplicantwith barley. E.Efstathiou, for theapplicant. 25 S. Matsasyfor the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. LORISJ.read thefollowing judgment.TheBoardof the "AgriculturalInsuranceOrganisation"established byvirtueoftheAg626 3 C.L.R. . Kazamias v. Agr. Insurance Organization 5 Loris J. ricultural Insurance Law 1977 (Law No. 19/77, amended by Laws: 1/78,11/80,26/80, 12/85 and 35/87) declared (pursuantto theprovisions of Regulation 6of theAgricultural InsuranceReg­ ulations 1977 - Κ.Δ.ΙΪ. 167/77 of 29.7.77—as amended) as 'drought' stricken area,amongst otherproperties: . (A) On8.4.84anareaof Potamiou village set outin paragraph (

1. e)of Appendix 1(attachedto thewritten address of therespon­ dent). . . . 10 15 20 25 30 (B) On.5.5.84,theremaining area of Potamiou-Village (vide Appendix 2). , The applicantin thepresentrecourse submitted applicationsas, and within thetime,envisaged.by Regulation 7(l)(
2. b)of the Reg­ ulationsaforesaid, for properties cultivated by him with barley in both theabove declared 'drought'stricken areas; thefirst application was referring toseveral plots of land covering a total extent of 192 donumswithin area under(A) above (Appendix 3),whilst the secondapplication was referring toplots of 94 donumssituat­ ed within (B)area. .f The assessment of the damage in the area under (A) above, was effected between the24th April and9th May 1984; as therel­ evant properties of the applicant totalling 192 donumsinextent, .were notreaped at all theassessment of thedamage was carried out according totheRegulations andcompensation was awardedtothe applicant. ,k The assessment of the damage.in the area under (B) above, was effected between the24th May and28th May 1984; therele­ vant properties of the applicant in this area totalling 94donums, (with theexception of 4 donumsinrespect of oneplot -where the provisions of Regulation 8

(2)were moreor lesscomplied withand an area of 15 donums in respect of 3 plots, which were not reaped at all) were either reaped or grazed tosuchan extent that no "witnesses" were left, according tothe provisions.of Regula­ tion 8

(2).As aresult thegovernment agriculturist whocarriedout 627 LorisJ. Kazamias v. Agr. InsuranceOrganization

(1988)the assessment in this areapursuanttotheprovisions of regula­ tions 9and 10,accompaniedby theruralconstableof thevillage, was unabletoassessthedamageinrespectof75donumsofland cultivated by theapplicantwithbarley (outof the94inrespectof which thesecond applicationfor "B"areawas filed by theappli- 5 cant)as "witnesses" envisaged by Regulation8

(2)enabling an as­ sessment were notretained(vide Appendices 5(a)and 5(b)). As already stated above,inaplotof4donums(outof the94) some"witnesses" were left, whilst in3orderplotsof atotalex­ tent of 15 donums the barley was notreaped; for these 19 do- JQ numstheassessment was carriedoutandtheamountof £147.49 centwas awarded ascompensationtothe applicant Thefindingsof the assessor were published on28.6.84; the applicant lodged anobjection on 3.7.84pursuant toRegulation 11

(1)against the findings of the assessor in thefirst instance 15 (Vide Appendices 6(a)6(b)and6(c)). Following theobjection re-assessments were carried out pur­ suanttoRegulation 11

(9)&

(10), by 2other agriculturistsre-assessors on9.7.84(vide Appendix 7). Theapplicantwas presentduring thereassessment andsigned 20 before thereassessors therelevant form (videAppendix 6(c) and the affidavit of re-assessors dated 10.3.87) totheeffect thathe "couldnotdiscern 'witnesses' inhisproperties." Thefindings of there-assessors confirming thefindingsofthe initial assessment were communicated to the applicant on 25 19.7.84. Therelevant partof Regulation 8

(2)of theAgricultural Insu­ ranceRegulationsreadsas follows: "8-

(2)Εις περίπτωσιν κατά τηνοποία δεν έχειδιενεργηθήη εκτίμησιςμέχριτουσυνήθους χρόνουσυγκομιδής, 30 το ασφαλιζόμενονπρόσωπον οφείλει να συγκομίση το 628 3 C.L.R. Kazamias v. Agr. Insurance Organization Loris J. προϊόν,υποχρεούται όμωςνααφήσημέρος τηςπαραγω­ γήςασυγκόμιστον,ως μάρτυρατηςπροξενηθείσηςεπίτης περίηςολόγοςκαλλιεργείας,ζημίαςωςακολούθως: 5 (α)Διατασιτηράκαιταςπατάτας ανάεντμήμα 10τ.μ. εις το κέντρον και τα τέσσερα άκρα εκάστου αγροτεμα­ χίου. (β) (γ) ; : " (English translation) "8-

(2)Incase theassessment has not been carried out till theusual timeof harvesting, theinsured person hastoreap the produce,but heis, however, obliged toleavepartof the pro­ duce unreaped,as awitness of thedamage caused tothesaid cultivation,as follows: (a)Forcereals and potatoes a portion of 10.sq. m.-inthe centreandineachoneof thefour edgesof eachplotofland. (

1. b)(
2. c): , ' :........." Thefindingintheinitial assessment, which was confirmed by 20 · thereassessors inrespect of the75 donums in area "B",(where theapplicantcultivated several plots totalling 94 donumsoutof which 15donumscultivation was notreaped atall andin another 4donumswhere moreorlesssufficient witnesseswere retained) is totheeffect thattheaforesaid areawas "reaped,grazed,"with2 5 out witnesses." Theapplicantdoesnotchallenge theaforesaidfinding: Thecomplaintsoftheapplicantareconfined tothefollowing: 629 Loris J. Kazamias v. Agr. InsuranceOrganization

(1988)1.Alleged delay by therespondentOrganisation in carrying out theassessment inconsequenceof which the"witnesses" left by himweregrazed byflocksfrom adjacentTurkishoccupiedar­ eas. 2.Alleged breachof therelevant Regulations by respondent, 5 in noninviting applicanttobepresentduring theassessment of damage. 3.Failureof therespondenttocarry outanassessment of the damage caused tothe75 donumsof applicant'scultivated lands by analogy tothedamage found by therespondenttohave been 10 caused by the 'drought' totheremaining 19 donumsfor which £147.49centcompensationwas awarded tothe applicant. Nowasregards thefirstcomplaint: As already stated area under "B"above was declared bythe Boardas"drought" strickenon5.5.84;applicationsoughttohave 15 beensubmitted for thispurpose upto 15.5.84; theassessment in the area began on24.5.84 and it was completed on 28.5.84. In thecircumstancesI really fail toseeanydelay onbehalf of there­ spondentOrganisation. With regard to the second complaintI am inclined toagree 20 withthesubmission of learnedcounsel appearing for the respon­ dent,tothe effect thattherespondenthasnoobligation to notify theapplicanttobepresentattheassessment. According toRegu­ lation 10

(5)"οησφαλισμένοςήοαντιπρόσωποςτουδύναται να παρίσταται κατά την εκτίμησιν και να εκθέτη τας 25 αντιλήψεις του επί της ζημίας." Thatis theapplicantmay be presentduring theassessment, if heso wishesandif hechooses to attendhehas therighttoexpress his views inrespect of the damagecaused. Thisisincontradistinction toparagraph6of Regulation 10in- 30 vokedbylearnedcounselfor applicant;inthelattercasethe appli­ canthas tobe present "whenever this is asked by theassessor", 630 3 C.L.R. Kazamias v. Agr. Insurance Organization Loris J. whichisnotthepresentcase. - 5 10 Theapplicanthadsufficient noticefrompublicationsinthelocalpress(videAppendices8and9)ofthematterinquestion;and byexercisingreasonablediligencehecouldascertainthedateand eventhetime when theassessment wastobecarried out.Inthe circumstancesitwasuptohimtochooseeithertobepresentduringtheassessmentornot.Itisobviousthattheapplicantchose nottoattendduringthefirstassessment;becauseatthereassessmenthewaspresentaccordingtothematerialbeforeme. Inanyeventthefirstassessmentwascarriedoutbytheassessoraccompanied bytheruralconstableofthearea asenvisaged byparagraph

(3)ofRegulation10. Comingnowtothelastcomplaintoftheapplicant:Itmustal• waysbeborneinmindthattheAgriculturalInsuranceregulations 15 1977,asamended,provideinpartIVthereof,theproceduretobe followed for ascertaining and assessing thedamage; it isquite clearthatanassessorcannot gooutside theseprovisionsenvisagedbytheaforesaid Regulations. 20 25 30 Theassessorhasnotafree hand,forinstance,tooverlookthe provisions of Regulations 8

(2)set out earlier on in thepresent judgment. In virtueof the aforesaid regulation the applicant is "obliged"toleavepartof theproduceunreaped,as "witness" of thedamage.The assessor could not gobeyond such regulation whichordainsthepresenceof "witnesses"andgoeseven further tofixtheextentofthepropertyaffected tobeleft unreapedforthe purpose. Havingcarefully gonethrough thematerial before meIhold theviewthattheassessoractedwithinthelimitsenvisagedbythe LawandtherelevantRegulations.Inthecaseofpropertiescultivated bythe applicant in the area under "A"above,of 192 donumsinextent,aproperassessment wascarriedout;inthecase ofpropertiesinareaunder "B"aboveof94donumsinextent,an assessment wascarried outfor 19donumsoutof the94,asthe 631 Loris J. Kazamias v. Agr. Insurance Organization

(1988)requisities of theLaw and theRegulations werepresent: inrespectof4donums"witnesses"wereretained,andtheremaining 15donumswerenotreapedatallbytheapplicant;andtheproper assessment wasfollowed bythepaymentoftherespectivecompensation.Unfortunately therequisites oftheLawand Regula- 5 tionswerenotfulfilled for theremaining75donums;inthecircumstancesIholdtheviewthattheassessorcould notassessthe damagefor these75donumsapplyingbyanalogy,assubmitted, thepercentageofthedamageascertainedbyhiminrespectofthe remaining 19donums;thatwouldineffect meanthattheassessor ,. wouldbeactingcontrary toLawandtheRegulations andinexcessofhispowers. Foralltheabovereasonspresentrecoursefails andisaccordinglydismissed.Lettherebenoorderastocosts. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. 632 j