COMPLAINT FILED ON 06/12/2019

                                                                                            DISPOSED ON: 31/01/2023

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:653/2019

DATED: 31^st January 2023

PRESENT: Kum. H.N. MEENA, B.A., LL.B., PRESIDENT

                  Smt. B.H. YASHODA, B.A., LL.B., LADY MEMBER                     

                  Sri. H.JANARDHAN, B.A.L., LL.B., MEMBER       

:ORDER:

Kum. H.N. MEENA, B.A., LL.B., PRESIDENT.

The complainant filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opponents. The complainant has prayed for issue an order to compensation the crop loss from the opposite parties in respect of the crop loss due to weather extremes in the year 2017-18 with an insurance amount of Rs.51,804/- along with  interest at the rate of 18% p.a.

3. BRIEF FACTS OF CASE:

   The complainant submits in his complaint that, the complainant paid premium of Rs.2,079/- in their  account number: 37792166801 in K.R. Halli, Survey No. 35/1, S.B.I. Bank, Hiriyur Branch, Hiriyur Taluk, in respect of the said Sunflower and Cotton crop loss compensation 2017-18. The complainant in this complaint said that, the above crop loss was caused due to weather abnormality during the year, and the compensation insurance amount of Rs. 51,804/- OP should be paid in respect of the said crop loss.

4. The complainant further submits that, the complainant approached to OPs several times, but the OPs did not give any further reply. The complainant submitted written request letter to OP Bank. The opponent Bank without paying the insurance amount, did not give adequate reply. The complainant is a poor farmer and is facing a lot of financial difficulties, hence this complaint.

5. After registered the complaint, notice issued by this Hon’ble Commission was served to the opponents. OP No.1 appeared through its counsel. OP No.2 appeared as a Party in person. Wherefore, opponent No.1 have filed their version.

6. The opponent No.1 stated in the version the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The allegation made against the opponent is highly imaginary and thus the above complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine.

7. The opponent No.1 further submits that, during PMFBY Kharif 2017-18 season, Chitradurga District was not allotted to our company i.e., Agriculture Insurance company during the said season. Further, it is pertinent to note that universal Sompo General Insurance Company, has implemented PMFBY Kharif 2017-2018 season. Thus under these circumstances, OP No.1 has nowhere committed any deficiency of service and are not liable to pay any compensation or any costs to the complainant and that the complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensation cost.

8. Now, the points that arise for our consideration for                   decision of above complaint are that:

1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency of service on the part of OPs, on account of not settling the claim of complainant?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the complaint?
3. What order?

9. On perusal of pleadings and the evidence of the complainant and our findings on the above points are as below:

Point No. (1 & 2)  In the Negative

Point No. (3) As per the final order

:REASON:

10. We have gone through the pleading of complaint and documents submitted by the both parties. The complainant examined as PW-1 and got marked documents as Ex.A-1 to A-4. Ex.A-1 is proposal insurance copy, Ex.A-2 is RTC copy, Ex.A-3 is Bank pass book copy front page, and Ex. A-4 is Copy of Aadhar Card. The opponent No.1 examined as DW-1 and got marked documents
 Ex.B-1 is Copy of Karnataka Government Proceedings, Ex.B-2 is Copy of Kharif 2017 L1 premium rates and Insurance Companies dated 03/06/2017.

11. The crux of the matter in the present case is whether the complainant has been able to prove in complaint and whether the complainant has made an effort to convince us to declare the village drought-prone by the appropriate authorities? But the complainant has not submitted any document that the village has been declared as a drought affected village by the appropriate authorities. In view of the facts that no record is available in the complaint.

12. As per the available citation of the Hon’ble State Commission, Karnataka in the matter of …..

Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited Vs C. Venkataramana and others Appeal Nos.1863 to 1870 of 2018 reported in 2022 (1) CPR 1 (Karnataka)

    “Complainants were covered under the Crop Insurance Scheme, on failure of rain &  other related natural calamities, complainants have suffered loss- Amount unsettled – Complaint filed – OP’s were directed to pay Insured Amounts to the Farmers/Complainants-OP’s filed appeals against orders of District Commission.

       “Whether the Complainant/Farmers have furnished the required details with regard to the loss of their Insured Crop in their respective lands “Forum has not made efforts to get the Report with regard to the alleged loss of the Insured Crops assessed by the OPs. On examination of the records, we could not find any Report with regard to the loss of Crop submitted by the Government. In the absence of such particulars, awarding compensation by the District Commission/Forum on hypothetical basis cannot survive.  In order to award compensation on the basis of assessment of loss of crop suffered by each one of the Farmer/Complainant, some evidence is required – Therefore, remanded to the District Commission to re-consider afresh”

13. In view of the authority referred to above, we are of the considered opinion that, we perused all the documents produced by both the parties. The complainant has failed to prove declare the village drought-prone by the appropriate authorities. Hence the Point No.1 and 2 is answered in the Negative.  The complaint is devoid of merits and needs to be rejected. Hence the following.

14. Point No.3:  Hence, in the light of above discussion we proceed to pass the following.

::ORDER::

        The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.

        Communicate the order to both the parties.

(Typed directly on the computer to the dictation given to stenographer, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced by us on 31^st January 2023.)

LADY MEMBER               MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witness examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:- Sri Srinivas S/o Thimmanna, by way of affidavit of

           evidence.

Witness examined on behalf of opponent No.1:

DW-1: Praveen Kumar B.R. Deputy Manager, Agriculture Insurance  

           Company by way of affidavit of evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

Documents marked on behalf of opponent No.1:

LADY MEMBER               MEMBER                PRESIDENT

**GM