Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/359/2019

Sri K.L. Venkatesh Reddy, S/o Lakshamana Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief Executive Officer, Guddadarangavvanahalli Primary Agriculture Pattina Sahakara Sanga Niyamitha - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. P.H. Shivakumar

15 Jun 2023

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:17/06/2019

DISPOSED ON:15/06/2023

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

 

C.C.NO:359/2019

 

DATED: 15^th June 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

COMPLAINANT	Sri K.L.Venkatesh Reddy S/o Lakshamana Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Agriculturist, R/o Guddadarangavvanahally Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk.    (Rep by Sri P.H. Shivakumar, Advocate)
V/S
OPPOSITE PARTIES	Chief Executive Officer, Guddadarangavvanahally, Primary Agriculture Pattina Sahakara Sanga Niyamitha, Guddadarangavvanahally, Chitradurga Taluk, Chitradurga District.   (Ex-parte)   The Manager, Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.,     Kasturi Nagar,     (Rep by  Sri K. Mohan Bhat, Advocate)

 

 

:JUDGEMENT:

 

Delivered by Hon’ble President, Kum. H.N. MEENA.

 

 

The complainant has filed this complaint against the OPs for issued direction to pay the insurance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- + 48,045=50/- per acre and also Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental shock, agony and deep sorrow towards great financial loss incurred by the complainant to get the good crops along with 18% interest p.a. and grant such other relief as the Hon’ble Commission deems fit and proper in the circumstance of the case as prayed for in the interest of justice by allowing the complainant.

 

       

2. Brief facts of present case:-

The complainant is permanent resident of Guddadarangavwanahalli, village, Kasaba Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk, and doing Agriculture and the main source of the complainant is Agriculture having owned Agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 1) 21/2P2 measuring 1 acre 06 guntas 2) 21/10 measuring 2 acres 10 guntas 3) 21/9 measuring 1 acre 06 guntas situated at Guddadarangavwanahalli, Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk and 4) Sy. No. 32/4 measuring 2 acers 15 guntas situated at Thamtakal village, Kasaba Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk and the complainant use to grow commercial crop such as Ragi, Cotton, Ground nuts, Maize and others crops. In the year 2017-2018 the complainant has sown the Maize in SY no.21/2P2, 21/10 and 21/10 and 32/4 in the above said land and invested huge amount of Rs. 30,000/- per acre towards the purchase of seeds, fertilizers, chemical and labour charges, cultivation to grow more crops and get more income from the above said crops and if succeed in getting good crops, getting more than Rs. 8,00,000/- from these crops. The complainant has opened a S.B A/c No. 10601100002967 at PKG Bank, Guddadarangavwanahalli, Guddadaragavwanahalli, Branch and he insured his crops under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bheema Yojane for sum of  Rs. 2,00,000/- and premium of Rs. 1,877=00 paid by way of cash dated; 27.07.2017 and Rs. 48,045=00 and premium of Rs. 960=90 paid by way of cash dated : 30.07.2017. the same was send to the addressee No. 2 through address No. 1, The address No. 2 has agreed to pay the insured amount in case croups is destroyed due to failure of rainfall or nature calamities and other reasons.

 

3. The complainant further submits that, the concerned authorities have declared that various Districts, Taluks in Karnataka State are fallen under draught including the area of Chitradurga Taluk. Due to draught complainant has also suffered heavy loss due to improper yielding of crops in his lands. That in this regard complainant contacted and demanded to pay the insurance amount but you the addressees are postponing the same in one or the other pretext. Bus as per policy conditions you are liable to pay the insured amount to the complainant.

 

4. The complainant orally requested and demanded the opponent on several times to pay admissible amount of compensation, due to non-payment of the insurance amount and give necessary particulars about the non-payment of the sum assured, inspite of the same the opponents neither pay the assured amount to the complainant not give proper replay to his well within time. the complainant have bound to indemnify the failure of crops due to natural calamities and to pay the benefit claims to the complainant without delay even matter immediately impact with them. The opponents have never discharged their deliberate service by the deficiency of service of the opponents. The complainant sustained financial loss and without reasonable grounds, the opponents have refused the claim. Hence, this complaint.

 

 

5. After issue of notice to the OPs,  OP-1 placed ex-parte and Sri KM Mohan Bhatt, filed Vakalath on behalf of OP-2. According to the version filed by the OP-2 that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or facts since there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent on the following grounds, which are without prejudice to one another. The petition is bad for necessary parties of Joint Director of Agriculture, Panchayat Development Officer, hence this petition is not maintainable in law. It is submitted that this petitioner had paid premium of Rs.960.90/- to cover Maiza (makka) crop in S.No.32/*/4 measuring 2A 15G land in Kasaba Hobli, a sum of Rs.48,045/-through Saving Account, under a ACK. No.1104130 to cover Maiza crop.

 

6. OP-2 further submitted that, the Agriculture Department, Government of Karnataka should be made the first respondent as the above scheme is implemented Government of Karnataka, and we are only facilitating the implementation of the above scheme as per the directives of Government of Karnataka and state Govt. in some of the districts notified and chosen by them. It is submitted that there is no direct contract subsisting between the farmer and the insurance company, and that State Government and Karnataka State Govt. is implementing the PMFBY scheme by means of a software platform created by them called Samrakshane Portal. It is submitted that all the data relating to the farmers, viz., Area covered, crops grown, yield loss, amount of loss payable are worked out by Government of Karnataka and the details of beneficiaries to whom the amounts are required to be paid are furnished by the Government through the Samrakshane Portal, and that the determination of the beneficiaries and the amounts to be paid is made by the Government of Karnataka and the same is furnished by them in the Samrakshane Portal, and that we are payments are made by us only in respect of the beneficiaries identified by Government of Karnataka in the Samrakshane Portal for the amounts mentioned therein.

 

7. OP-2 further submitted that, threshold yield and actual yield is to be entered by State Government in Samrakshane Portal and this OP have only access to download the same and based on the entry in the said portal if a claim has been registered in that case it would be treated as admissible or inadmissible. As per the Application No.1104130 of complainant, However, the State Government in Samrakshane portal 2017 has not provided any claim details nor any data found in the said portal i.e. Samrakshane Portal.  Based on the non-availability of data which is the mandatory duty of state government to upload the same in the samrakshane portal, we are unable to comment on the same. Under the above circumstances, this OP is not liable for any compensation as sought by the alleged complainant/farmer in the present claim petition against us.  The petitioner not produced any documents before the Hon’ble Commission that the concerned authorizes declared that draught area of Kasaba, Grama Panchayat, and petitioner not produced any documents to show that he was cultivated his land and he was scuffed heavy loss due to improper yielding of crops in his lands.  The allegation stated in para 5 to 9 are not admitted, and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the each one of the said averments and pray for dismissal of the complaint against this OP-2.

 

 

8. The complainant has examined as PW-1 and the documents were got marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-5 and the opponent-2 has examined as DW-1 and the documents were marked as Ex
B-1 to Ex.B-3. Closed the evidence on both side parties. Heard the arguments.

 

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

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on

    the part of OPs?

 

2. Whether the complainant proves he has obtained and

     produced survey report for the loss incurred from the   

     concerned department?

 

3. Whether the complainant proves that he is entitled for 

     the relief sought?

 

4. What Order?

 

     10. Our findings on the above points are as under:

 

Point No.1 :-  In the negative

Point No.2 :-  In the negative   

Point No.3 :-  In the negative

Point No.4 :-  As per final order

 

         REASONS

 

 

        11. Point No.1 & 2: There is no dispute that the complainant being the owner and insured his Maize crops in bearing Sy. No. 1) 21/2P2 measuring 1 acre 06 guntas 2) 21/10 measuring 2 acres 10 guntas 3) 21/9 measuring 1 acre 06 guntas situated at Guddadarangavwanahalli, Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk and 4) Sy. No. 32/4 measuring 2 acers 15 guntas situated at Thamtakal village, Kasaba Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk and the complainant use to grow commercial crop such as Ragi, Cotton, Ground nuts, Maize and others crops. In the year 2017-2018 the complainant has sown the Maize in Sy No.21/2P2, 21/10 and 21/10 and 32/4 in the above said land and invested huge amount of Rs. 30,000/- per acre towards the purchase of seeds, fertilizers, chemical and labour charges, and he insured his crops under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bheema Yojane for sum of  Rs. 2,00,000/- and premium of Rs. 1,877=00 paid by way of cash dated; 27.07.2017 and Rs. 48,045=00 and premium of Rs. 960=90 paid by way of cash dated : 30.07.2017. Due to loss of the maize crop, the complainant has approached the OPs claiming compensation amount. But the OPs are neglect to comply the request. The complainant got marked documents Ex.A-1 to A-5, Ex.A-1 is the RTC copies, Ex.A2 is Insurance premium paid receipt of Thamatakallu Village, Sy.No.2-A 15-B, Rs.960.90/- Ex.A-3 is Legal Notice Ex.A-4 Acknowledgements and A-5 is Postal receipt. The OP No.2 has produced Ex.R-1 is PMFBY Shortfall Percentage Report, Ex.R-2 is Govt. of Karnataka Notification dated 12/05/2017, Ex.R-3 is proceedings of Govt. of Karnataka dated 29/08/2017.

 

 

 

12. Version filed by the OP No.1, it is admitted that petitioner had paid premium of Rs.960.90/- to cover Maiza (makka) crop in S.No.32/*/4 measuring 2A 15G land in Kasaba Hobli, a sum of Rs.48,045/-through Saving Account, under a ACK. No.1104130 to cover Maiza crop. The State Government in Samrakshne portal 2017 has not provided any claim details nor any data found in the said portal i.e. SAMRAKSHANE PORTAL. Based on the non-availability of data which is the mandatory duty of state government to upload the same in the samrakshane portal, we are unable to comment on the same. Under the above circumstances, this opposite party is not liable for any compensation as sought by the alleged complainant / farmer in the present claim petition against us.

 

13. The crux of the present case is, whether the complainant has tried to convince us that the village has been declared drought prone by the appropriate authorities? And has the complainant proved that the maize crop grown in his land is a rain dependent crop? But the complainant has not submitted any document that the appropriate authorities have declared the village as a
drought-prone village. As no record is available in the complaint. The complainant has failed to convince the Hon’ble Commission to prove that the said village has been declared drought prone by the appropriate authorities and that the maize crop grown on their land is a rain dependent crop, also as mentioned in the complaint, complainant has paid payment of premium amount
Rs.1,877=00/- by cash on date: 27.07.2017, in this regard, the complainant has failed to submit proper record of payment of premium amount receipt or his debited bank statement to the Hon'ble Commission. And also the complainant has not produced any supporting documents of area survey report, crop failure report and short rain fall report from the concerned departments in support of his claim. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Therefore, the Point No.1 and 2 is answered in the Negative. 

 

        14. Point No.3 :- The Hon’ble commission perused that the complainant and OP No.2 Chief affidavits, written arguments and supporting all documents, that the complainant has not made party of agriculture department and not  produced the survey report nor crop inspection report by the concerned department. We observed Ex.B-3 produced by the OP-2 it is clearly shows that Proceedings of the Government of Karnataka, Government Order No. KRUEI/75/KRUKAIU/2017, Bengaluru, Dated 29/08/2017 in the said order annexure, Chitradurga Taluk, Tamatakallu Gram Panchayat is not in the said list.

 

As per the citation of 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.

 

15. In view of the authority referred to above, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove that point No.3 in complainant favour. Hence complainant is not entitled the reliefs prayed in the complaint. We considered as Point No.3 are answered in the Negative.

 

 

16. Point No.4: In view of the facts discussed Point No.1 to 3 and for the reasons stated therein 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 15/06/2023)

 

 

 

     

        Sd/-                                             Sd/-                               Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                      MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

 

 

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

 

Witness examined on behalf of Complainant:

 

PW-1: Sri K.L.Venkatesh Reddy S/o Lakshamana Reddy, by way of

           affidavit evidence.

 

 

 

 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:-

 

01	Ex. A-1	RTC copies
02	Ex. A-2	Insurance premium paid receipt of Thamatakallu Village, Sy.No.2-A 15-B, Rs.960.90/-
03	Ex. A-3	Legal Notice
04	Ex. A-4	Acknowledgements
05	Ex. A-5	Postal receipt

 

Witness examined on behalf of Opponent No.2 :

 

DW-1: Sri Ramesh.P. S/o Puttaramu, by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Documents marked on behalf of OP No.2:

 

01	Ex. R-1	PMFBY Shortfall Percentage report
02	Ex. R-2	Government of Karnataka Notification dated 12/05/2017
03	Ex. R-3	Proceedings of Government of Karnataka  dated 29/08/2017

 

 

        Sd/-                                             Sd/-                               Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                      MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

 

 

GM*