Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1683/2019

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ashokgouda Subhasgouda Patil - Opp.Party(s)

Prashanth.T.Pandit

14 Jan 2022

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH    : PRESIDENT

MR. K. B. SANGANNAVAR                                : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. DIVYASHREE M.                                     : MEMBER

 

Appeal No. 1683/2019

 

TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. Having Office at: 1st Floor, Brigade Magnum, Amruthalli Village, Bengaluru - 560092 Rep. by its Manager   (By Sri. Prashant T. Pandit) V/s	……Appellant
(R1 by Sri. N.H. Patil R3 by Sri. Veeresh Kumar Javali M.C.)	..…Respondents

O R D E R

BY HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH, PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed by OP No.4 under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 22.10.2019 passed in C.C.No.149/2018 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharwad.

2. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs in not settling the claim under PMBFY crop insurance complaint is filed.  It is the contention of OP No. 4 that it has already settled the claim as per direction of State Government on the basis of threshold yield data and therefore it is not liable to pay the compensation.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service. 
3. On the basis of pleadings and evidence led in by both parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint by directing OP No.4 to settle the insurance claim as per claim declaration and settlement and pay the insurance claim amount to the complainant with interest @ 8% from the date of legal notice dated 28.06.2018 till realisation and also directed OP Nos. 2 & 3 jointly and severally to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.4,000/- towards costs.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order OP No. 4 is in appeal.
5. Heard the counsel for appellant.  It is contention of the counsel for appellant that insurance company can only settle the claims as per the guidelines laid down by the Government under the Crop Insurance Scheme as per PMBFY.  The role of appellant is limited to cover all eligible farmers.  Further contended that the Government in particular Department of Agriculture or concerned department is not made as party, which is a necessary party.
6. Perused the appeal memo and the impugned order.   Government i.e., Department of Agriculture or concerned Department has not been made as a party in the complaint to enable to know yield loss and to assess the damages for loss of crop.  It is for the complainant to implead Government or Department of Agriculture or concerned Department as necessary party to decide the case on merits.  In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside.  The matter is remanded to the District Forum to decide the complaint afresh after affording opportunity to both parties.  The forum below is directed to allow the complainant to implead Government as party.
7. Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 18.03.2022.  The District Forum to dispose of the case within three months from the date of receipt of this order.
8. Amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for needful.

 

MEMBER                   JUDICIAL MEMBER          PRESIDENT

CV*