Karnataka
Chitradurga
CC/342/2019
Sri. T.S. Nagendrareddy S/o Late Sanjeevareddy - Complainant(s)
Versus
Chief Executive/Secretary, Primary Agriculture Credit Co-Operative Society Niyamitha - Opp.Party(s)
Sri. S.G. Dileepkumar
28 Apr 2023
ORDER
COMPLAINT FILED ON 18/05/2019 DISPOSED ON: 28/04/2023
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.
CC.NO:342/2019
DATED: 28th April 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/S | Sri T.S. Nagendrareddy S/o Late Sanjeevareddy, Aged about 59 years, Agriculturist R/o Maradihally Village, Aimangala Hobli, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga Dist.
(Rep by Advocate Sri. S.G.Dileepkumar) | ||
V/S | |||
.….OPPOSITE PARTY/S |
| ||
:JUDGEMENT:
Delivered by Hon’ble President, Kum. H.N. MEENA.
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.10,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.
2. BRIEF FACTS OF CASE:
The complainant submits in his complaint that, the complainant having agriculture land bearing Sy.No. 168/1 totally measuring 20 acres, 30 guntas belong to the mother of the complainant namely Bheemakka W/o Late Sanjeevareddy. Belongs to the mother of the complainant partitioned among the mother of the complainant and her sons and daughters, through registered partition deed dated 07/11/2017, in the said partition schedule 5th as mentioned in the partition deed fallen to the share of the complainant, to the extent of 6 acres excluding kharab. The complainant paid the onion crop insurance to the 2nd opponent through 1st opponent, during the year 2017-18 and the said insurance amount was paid to the Insurance Co, i.e., 3rd Opponent. At that time, the land which was fallen to the share of the complainant in the registered partition deed, the katha, RTC and other revenue documents are standing in the name of his mother Bheemakka, the said land fallen to the share of the complainant is irrigated land having Borewell with motor pump set. Situated at Maradihally Village, Aimangala hobli Hiriyur taluk, The complainant growing onion crop to the extent of four acres. In the year 2017-18 he sowing the onion seeds to the above said land and invested huge amount of Rs.4 to 5 lakhs towards purchase of onion seeds, manure, and fertilizer and chemicals and labour charges cultivation to grow more onion crops and get more income from the above said crops. If he succeed in getting good onion crops the complainant getting more thanRs.10,00,000/from the above said onion crop.
3. The complainant had paid sum of Rs.10329.66/in the name of his mother Bheemakka towards crop insurance to the 1st opponent, and collected the amount from all the farmers and the same was paid to the 2nd opponent bank, the 2nd opponent bank tied with 3rd opponent Universal Sompo General Insurance Co, Ltd, under proposal number 298097. When the complainant sowing the said onion crop in good whether condition, and the same was growing very well, and the said onion crop is in 3 months old, and the said onion crop coming for harvest, due to heavy and excessive rain in the area, the rain water completely filled up and covered the onion crop growing by the complainant, and existing onion crop was completely destroy and waste, due to heavy excessive rain water, the onion crop was completely in the rain water, thereby the complainant suffered lot, put into great mental shock, agony and pain deep sorrow, he put into great financial loss, loss of earnings, he is facing very hard days All the expectations are completely spoiled due to fallen of the heavy rain.
4.That the complainant and his mother jointly submitted the requisition to concerned revenue authority like Tahasildar, Hiriyur, as per the said requisition, village accountant, RI, Grama panchayath PDO Maradihally, visited to the spot, and submit the report, and PDO submit the report to the Assistant Director of Horticulture and the said Horticulture department also collected the information, The mother of the complainant submitted the requisition to the 1st opponent stating that, we have paid the crop insurance, for that, requested advise and directed to 3rd opponent to pay the insurance amount, from the 3rd opponent even to this date the complainant mother have not received any compensation insurance amount nor they have not issued any reply notice, Then recently, the complainant mother died on 13/2/2018. After the death of complainant mother, the Katha, RTC and other revenue documents are mutated in the name of the complainant as Sy.No.168/4 and the said land was podded, to the extent of land Gacres excluding kharab is in the name of the complainant, in the said total extent of land, an extent of O4acres in which the complainant growing the onion crop in the year 2017-18. The necessary death of complainant mother, G.tree, other relevant documents, requisition submitted to the revenue authorities are herewith filed.
5.The complainant and his mother jointly orally requests and demands, to pay the crop insurance amount, but the opponents have not paid any crop insurance amount of compensation to the complainant even to this date, The opponents have not paid the insurance admissible amount, why the opponents have not paid the assured amount under the above said scheme to the complainant and others the Ops neglect to comply the request the Ops has deliberately fails to discharge their service than the desired service.
6. Further opponents have collected the more than cores of rupees from the farmers and assured them to pay the amount in case of failure of crops due to natural calamities but the opponent’s failure to pay the assured insurance amount to the complainant and other farmers even to this date this is against the principal of natural justice.
7. As per the policy terms and conditions, the opponents have bound to indemnifying the failure of crops due to natural calamities and pay the benefit claims to the complainant without delay even the matter immediately impact with them, the opponents never discharged their deliberate service by the deficiency of the service of the OPs the complainant sustained financial loss, and without reasonable grounds opponents has refused the claim hence, this complaint.
8. After registered the complaint, notice issued by this Hon’ble Commission was served to the opponents. OP No.1 appeared as in person, OP No.2 and 3 appeared through its counsels. OP No.4 placed ex-parte. Wherefore, opponent No.2 & 3 have filed their versions.
9. The opponent No.2 stated in the version that the opponent No 2 is also not a necessary party to the complaint. That this opponent had collected the amount of insurance from the complainant and it was sent in time to the Opponent No.3 universal Sampo General Insurance. Hence DCC Bank, Hiriyur, is not necessary party. That there is no. delay, deficiency on the part of the opponent no 2. The complaint against the present opponents No.2, is liable to be dismissed.
10. The opponent No.2 further stated that, it is true that the complainant is a resident of Maradihalli village of Hiriyur taluk. It’s true that he owns a land bearing survey No -168/1 measuring 20=30 acres situated at Maradihalli village of Hiriyur taluk. The complainant had insured the crop of ONION for the year 2017-18 and remitted Rs10,329.66/- That the averments stating that if she succeed she will be getting Rs 10,00,000/- is baseless, imaginary and fanciful. That this opponent No.1 is not aware of the fact that the complainant had opened a SB A/c that the opponent No.1 is not aware, crop is utterly failed due to the reason assigned is not specific, the complainant had stated crop failure due the failure of rainfall, natural calamities, or other reason. He had not given definite reason for the failure of crop. This fact has to be proved by the complainant. Opponent no 2 had collected the insured premium and it was sent with in time to the opponent no 3, therefore, there is no defect or deficiency in the services of the opponent no 2. The complaint against this opponent no 2 is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.
11. The opponent No.3 submits that, the petitioner had duly paid the premium to cover Onion crop (Rainfed) in S.No.168/1 measuring 6A land in Maradihalli Gram Panchayat, a sum of Rs.10,329.66/- through Saving Account, under a ACK. No.298097 to cover Onion crop (Rainfed) State Government in Samrakshne portal 2017 mentioned Chitradurga Dist, Maradihalli Gram Panchayat Threshold Yield is 10078.2 and CCE Actual yield is 20332 and shortfall is -101.742375. As per the data given by the Government, there was no losing of crops in the said Gram Panchayat in year 2017. As per the Application of complainant No.293097 this opposite party would like to inform to this Hon’ble court that the CCE Yield is higher than the threshold yield, hence there is no crop loss of crop of the farmer and therefore no claim is reflected in the said portal, based on the above date provided to us we are not liable to pay compensation. Further submitted by OP 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. The complaint is denied has false and pray for dismissal of the complaint against this OP-1.
12. The complainant No.1 has examined as PW-1 and the documents were got marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-20 and the opponent-2 has examined as DW-1 and the documents were marked as Ex
B-1. And opponent-3 has examined as DW-2 and the documents were marked as Ex B-1 to 3. Closed the evidence on both side parties. Heard the arguments.
13. Now, the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaint are that:
- Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency of service on the part of OPs, on account of not settling the claim of complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the complaint?
- What order?
14. 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:
15. 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 10 and Ex.A-11 to A-20, Ex.A-1 and 2 is RTC copy, Ex.A-3 is Partition deed dated 07/11/2017, Ex.A-4 is complainant letter to Thasildhar, Ex.A-5 is RI report submitted to Thasildhar, Ex.A-6 is Complainant letter to Director of Horticulture Dept, Ex.A-7 is PDO report submitted to Assistant Director, Horticulture Department, Ex.A-8 is Photo copies of said land, Ex.-A-9 is Death certificate of Bheemakka, Ex.A-10 is Xerox copy of E-stamp Family Tree. The opponent No.2 examined as DW-1 and got marked document Ex.B-1 is Copy of Karnataka Government Proceedings dated 29/08/2017, and The opponent No.3 examined as DW-2 and got marked documents Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-3. Ex.B-1 is PMFBY Shortfall percentage report, Ex.B-2 is Copy of Karnataka Government Proceedings dated 29/08/2017, Ex.B-3 is Government Notification dated 12/05/20017.
16. The crux of the matter in the present case is whether the complainant has been able to prove any deficiency of service on the part of OPs, on account of not settling the claim of complainant in complaint. In the present case, the complainant has sown onion crop in the above land in the year 2017-18 with a huge investment and under PMFBY the premium for the said crop is Rs. 10,329.66/- paid. The complainants have suffered huge loss in crop yield in their lands covering Hiriyur taluk area, they urged the OPs for insurance claim, which they are postponing despite getting legal notices in this regard.
17. The OPs contended that the complainant paid a premium of Rs.10,329.66/- for Onion crop Rs. 10,329.66/- in state government conservation portal 2017 Chitradurga District, Hiriyur Taluk Aimangala Hobli, Onion Crop (I) Limit Yield 10078.20 and CCE Actual Yield 20332.000 and Surplus/Deficit -101.742375. According to the information provided by the government, there was no crop loss in this village in 2017. On perusal of the complainant's application, the CCE shows that the yield is higher than the limit yield, hence there is no crop loss. Past and any claim is not reflected in the portal, accordingly, OPs are not liable to pay the compensation.
18. Under the scheme, the Actual yield of the notified crop in a notified area is less than the threshold yield fixed for that area whose crop have been insured will become eligible for compensation. The compensation is calculated as where, claims payable short fall in yield X sum insured threshold yield, the As per NAIS, while disbursing the short fall in yield actual yield, loan amount of former and consolidate the crop wise, month wise, notified area wise and submit the details to the nodal banks in a prescribed format. The claim under NAIS are payable basing on the final yield data, declared by DES State Govt. neither on the basis of Annawari certificate nor on the basis of declaration of insured former.
19. We perused all the documents and observed that, Proceedings of the Government of Karnataka, Government Order No. KRUEI/75/KRUKAIU/2017, Bengaluru, Dated 29/08/2017 in the said order as follows.
For reasons mentioned in the preamble, the provision for prevented/failed sowing and prevented planting/germination claims is hereby invoked for the Gram Panchayaths of Hiriyur and Challakere taluk for the “Groundnut (RF) crop”, Chitradurga taluk for the Maize (RF) crop and Hiriyur taluk for the Sunflower (RF) crop of Chitradurga District during Kharif 2017. That the Complainant’s Grama Panchayath area is coming under the said Guidelines for the crop of Ground nut, and not an onion and hence the complainant is not entitled for the crop Insurance.
20. 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”
21. Further the OP-3 clearly contended that the assessment for average yield is basing on the unit wise estimates. And as per the Govt., order, the claim under NAIS will be settled only on the basis of yield data, furnished by DES for notified crops, collected through regular crop estimation surveys, i.e., crop cutting experiments.
22. It is the case of the complainant that the claim was not settled till now. Admittedly, the complainant did not specifically mention the particulars regarding the yielding and the percentage of loss, which he had suffered. The OP said that as per data given by Govt. there is no losing of crops in the said village in the year 2017 and further stated that on verification of application of complainant, they found that, CCE yield is higher than the threshold yield, hence there is no crop loss of the former and no claim is reflected in the portal. In view of the above, and according to the guidelines of NAIS there is no liability in payment of crop insurance amount to complainant on the part of OPs as alleged. 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.
15. 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 28/04/2023)
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
-:ANNEXURES:-
Witness examined on behalf of Complainant:
PW-1:- Sri T.S. Nagendrareddy S/o Late Sanjeevareddy, by way of
affidavit of evidence.
Witness examined on behalf of opponents:
OP-2 DW-1: Smt. Pramila W/o Gurudevamma by way of affidavit of
evidence.
OP-3 DW-2: Ramesh.P.S/o Puttaramu by way of affidavit of evidence.
Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:
01 | Ex-A-1:- | RTC copy |
02 | Ex-A-2:- | RTC copy |
03 | Ex-A-3:- | Partition deed dated 07/11/2017 |
04 | Ex-A-4:- | Complainant letter to Thasildhar |
05 | Ex-A-5:- | RI report submitted to Thasildhar |
06 | Ex-A-6:- | Complainant letter to Director of Horticulture Dept. |
07 | Ex-A-7:- | PDO report submitted to Assistant Director, Horticulture Department |
08 | Ex-A-8:- | Photo copies of said land |
09 | Ex-A-9:- | Death certificate of Smt. Bheemakka |
10 | Ex-A-10:- | Xerox copy of E-stamp Family Tree. |
11 | Ex-A-11:- | RTC copy |
12 | Ex-A-12:- | RTC copy |
13 | Ex-A-13:- | Partition deed dated 07/11/2017 |
14 | Ex-A-14:- | Complainant letter to Thasildhar |
15 | Ex-A-15:- | RI report submitted to Thasildhar |
16 | Ex-A-16:- | Complainant letter to Director of Horticulture Dept. |
17 | Ex-A-17:- | PDO report submitted to Assistant Director Horticulture Department |
18 | Ex-A-18:- | Photo copies of said land |
19 | Ex-A-19:- | Death certificate of Smt. Bheemakka |
20 | Ex-A-20:- | Xerox copy of E-stamp Family Tree |
Documents marked on behalf of opponent No.2 & 3:
01 | Ex-B-1:- | Copy of Karnataka Government Proceedings dated 29/08/2017 |
02 | Ex-B-1:- | Shortfall percentage report PMFBY |
03 | Ex-B-2:- | Copy of Karnataka Government Proceedings dated 29/08/2017 |
04 | Ex.B-3:- | Copy of Government Notification dated 12/05/20017. |
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
**GM
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.