Karnataka

StateCommission

A/403/2019

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Challappa - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.Prashanth.T.Pandit

24 Jan 2022

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 24^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. 403/2019

 

TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. Having Office at: 2nd Floor, J P & Devi Jambukeshwar Arcade No.69, Miller’s Road Bengaluru - 560052 Rep. by its Manager   (By Sri. Prashant T. Pandit) V/s	……Appellant
1.  Challappa S/o. Late Buggala Rangappa      R/o. Mahadevapura Village      Tq. Challakere Dist. Chitradurga 2.  The Branch Manager      Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank      Kyadigunte Village      Tq. Challakere Dist. Chitradurga	..…Respondents

O R D E R

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

This is an appeal filed by OP No.2 under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 21.12.2018 passed in C.C.No.58/2018 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chitradurga.

2. The brief facts of the case is that complainant availed weather based crop insurance policy for banana crop (tissue) with OP No.2 by paying premium amount of Rs.17,719/-.  It is further submitted that the Banana crop of the complainant failed and on 22.05.2017, the OP No. 2 has announced village vise crop insurance coverage statement in respect of farmers of P. Mahadevapura Village and as per the statement, the Op No.2 has paid the sum insured to the farmers of P. Mahadevapura Village.  As per the statement, the complainant is also beneficiary and entitled to the sum assured amount of Rs.2,33,677/-.  It is alleged that inspite repeated demands, OP No.2 has not paid the sum insured.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service lodged the complaint.  The District Forum allowed the complaint by directing OP No.2 to pay a sum of Rs.2,33,677/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 22.05.2018 till realization and also do pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order OP No. 2 is in appeal.
4. Heard the counsel for appellant.  It is the contention of 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.
5. 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 is 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.
6. The District Forum to dispose of the case within three months from the date of receipt of this order.
7. Amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for needful.

 

 

MEMBER                   JUDICIAL MEMBER          PRESIDENT

CV*