Complaint filed on: 27-07-2021
Disposed on: 28-11-2022
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU
CC.No.116/2022
DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022
PRESENT
SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT
SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LLB., MBA., MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., LLB. (Spl)., LADY MEMBER
Complainant: -
Smt.Sarvamangalamma
W/o Late Thriyambakaiah,
Madihalli, Near Hassan Circle,
Kasaba Hobli, Tiptur Taluk,
Tumakuru District.
((By Deleep – S.P.A. Holder)
V/s
Opposite parties:-
Future Generali India Insurance Co., Ltd., Unit 801 & 802, 8th Floor, Tower C, Embassy 247 Park, LBS Marg,
Vihroli (W), Mumbai-400 083.
(By Sri. M.S. Advocate)
:ORDER:
BY SRI.KUMARA.N., MEMBER
This complaint was filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, with a prayer to direct the OP to pay compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and trauma and such other reliefs as this Commission deems fit to grant.
- This is a case of complainant, that the complainant was a senior citizen and widow farmer and sowed green-gram crop in her 3 acres 30 guntas of farm in Survey No.159 of Madihalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur Dist and the said crop was insured under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana by paying Rs.879.92 as premium and proposal No.72333 was allotted to the complainant. The complainant further submitted that, the OP is authorised to collect premium amount and insure the crops in Tumkur District under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, accordingly, the complainant registered a complaint on 12.06.2022 with Opposite Party regarding Post Harvest losses caused due to unseasonal rains and the complaint numbered was 1005118563 and despite registration of complaint, the OP does not appoint a surveyor to calculate loss incurred by the complainant in her insured crop. The OP shall appoint a surveyor within 14 working days from the date of complaint, but the OP failed to appoint surveyor and thereby caused loss to the complainant without paying sum assured. Hence, this complaint.
3. Mr Dileep DS, SPA holder (son of the complainant) produced affidavit from the complainant stating that, Mr Dileep ,will appear on behalf of the complainant for her complaint in this commission.
4. After the service of notice, the OP appeared through its, Counsel Mr. M.S., Advocate. But subsequently, OP did not appear before this Commission to file the version and affidavit evidence.
5. The SPA holder of complainant filed affidavit evidence and marked the documents as Ex.C1 to C5. We heard the arguments of the SPA holder of the complainant. In spite of several opportunities, the OP did not appear to address the arguments. Hence, posted for orders.
6. On perusal of the complaint copy and documents produced by the complainant, the points that would arise for determination are as here under:
1) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service of OP?
2) Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for?
3) What order ?
7. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1: partly affirmative
Point No.2: As per the final order
:REASONS:
8. SPA holder argued that, the complainant insured the crop with the OP by paying premium amount of Rs 879=92 and sum assured was Rs 43995=90. The complainant registered the complainant with the OP, since crop loss due to post harvest, even after the 15 days after the complaint & several calls, the OP not appointed the surveyor to assess the crop loss, and made the complainant to suffer, which leads to deficiency on the part of OP. The complainant SPA holder further submitted that that the OP not appeared in spite of the commission notice and filed objections, and the complainant in her affidavit evidence has reiterated the averments of the complaint and prayed to allow the complaint and grant relief.
9. To prove the case, the complainant produced EX C1, the copy of the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) acknowledgement No 72333 dated 08-06-2022, where in, the complainant paid premium of Rs 879=92 and the sum assured was Rs 43995=90, for Green gram crop in survey Number 159, measuring 3 acres 30 guntas. Ex C2 Email copy of the complainant dated 02-07-2022, sent to the OP regarding crop destroyed due to heavy rainfall (Post harvest loss), EX C 3, copy of the Email reply by the OP to the complainant dated 19-07-2022. EX C 4 copy of SAMRAKSHANE, checks status dated 16-06-2022, where in application acknowledged by the OP, EX C5 claim process details. On 22-09-2022 the complainant produced RTC of Survey No 159 of Madihalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District, where in crop recorded was Coconut and Ragi with extent of 3 acre 30 guntas, valid from dated 18-05-2022 to till date.
10. Green gram (Phaseolus aureus Roxb) is important pulse crops. This crop is generally grown as main crop or inter / mixed crop in plantation gardens like coconut, as cover crop / green manure crop, since it’s a leguminous crop, which enriches the soil and prevent moisture loss. The green gram as a main crop and inter / mixed crop with plantations / perennials like coconut, citrus etc, the cost of cultivation per acre worked out to be around Rs 7500=00 and Rs 3500=00 with the yield of 4 – 5 quintals and 2-3 quintals per acre, with net income of Rs 6000=00 to Rs 7500=00 and Rs 2500=00 to Rs 3500=00 per acre respectively.
11. In this case the complainant in her complaint stated as, she sown / cultivated green gram crop and insured the said crop with OP, in her land bearing Survey No 159 of Madihalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District, on contrary the RTC produced by the complainant reflect that the crop were Coconut and Ragi in the said land for that particular period, i.e. which, valid from dated 18-05-2022 to till date. The complainant on 12.06.2022 registered the complaint with the OP regarding crop destroyed due to heavy rainfall (post harvest loss) and requested the OP to appoint surveyor, but the OP not appointed surveyor, further on 02.07.2022 the complainant sent e-mail (Ex.C2) in this regard.
12. The OP relied to the complainant, in its e-mail dated 19th July 2022(Ex.C3) at 12.18 PM. as Dear Dilip DS, Thank you for writing back to us, we wish to inform you that the enrolment was not started at that time due to which we have rejected the below case. We request you to kindly contact the CSC agent / bank for any further clarification. We regret any inconvenience.
13. Revised Guidelines of the government of India states that, the roles of insurance companies includes, State Government would set up a call centre for the purpose of crop insurance. The call centre would be a 5 seater capacity and the cost shall be paid by the concerned ICs on pro rata basis. Redressal of all public Grievances should be attended within the time fixed by IRDA. This call centre with a toll free number other than grievance Redressals will also be used by the farmers for initiating the claims in case of localized calamity, post harvest losses, mid – season adversity, seek information on coverage, etc.
14. The complainant produced Ex.C1 which was the copy of the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) acknowledgement No 72333 dated 08-06-2022, where in, the complainant paid premium of Rs 879=92 and the sum assured was Rs 43995=90 and Ex.C4 – a copy of SAMRAKSHANE, checks status dated: 16.06.2022, wherein application acknowledged by the OP, which proves that OP received the said premium for the crop insurance. It’s the bound duty of the OP to address the complainant grievances related to the insured crop. The complainant as per para 12 of the above, informed and lodged the complaint with the OP to appoint surveyor to assess post harvest losses, but the OP not appointed, which leads to deficiency of service on the part of the OP and made the complainant to suffer and forced to approach this Commission. The complainant prayed to award Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony, but the complainant in her complaint not specifically mentioned the insured crop grown as main crop or inter / mixed crop, accordingly the yield loss and not produced any believable documents to prove the same. Hence, this Commission by giving benefit of doubt in favour of the complainant, is in the opinion of award Rs.13,125 /- towards compensation by considering the discussion in para 10 of the above and Rs.5,000/- towards cost. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
The complaint is allowed in part with cost.
The OP is directed to pay Rs.13,125/- to the complainant towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards costs.
The OP is further directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of this order.
Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite parties at free of cost.
(
