Complaint filed on: 16-02-2022

                                                      Disposed on: 12-12-2022

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

DATED THIS THE 12^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 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

CC.No.51/2022

Sri.Dinesh Kumar S/o Nanjundaiah,

A/a 49 years, Ramanahalli Village,

Kandikere Hobli,

Chikkanayakanahally Taluk,

Tumakuru District.

……………….Complainant/s

(By Smt/Sri. D.H.Sanjeev, Adv.)

                                        V/s                        

1.      The Manager,

Agriculture Insurance Company

Of India Limited,

3^rd Floor, C/o Karnataka

Pradesh Krishi Samaj, No.18,

Nrupatunga Road,

Corporation Circle,

Bangaluru-560 001.

2.      The Manager, Vijaya Bank/

          Bank of Baroda, Chikkanayakanahalli

          Branch, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk,

          Tumakuru District.

……………….Opposite Party/s

(OP1 By Sri. Mohamed Afroze Ahamed, Adv.,)

(OP2 By Sri. C.N.Krishnamurthy, Adv.,)

: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 OPs to pay the total crop insurance amount of Rs.1, 03,603=20 along with interest @ 18% from the date of legal notice issued by the complainant till the realization.

2. The Opposite Parties were, The Manager, Agriculture Insurance Company

Of India Limited, 3rd Floor, C/o Karnataka Pradesh Krishi Samaj, No.18, Nrupatunga Road  Corporation Circle  Bangaluru-560 001, and  The Manager Vijaya Bank / Bank of Baroda, Chikkanayakanahalli Branch, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumakuru District. (hereinafter called as OP Nos. 1 and OP No 2 respectively).

3. It is the case of the complainant, that the complainant is an Agriculturist, having farming land of 02 acres, 05 guntas in Sy.No.26/2 at Hanumanthanahally Village, Kandikere Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District and the OP No 1 created the awareness on crop insurance by doing campaign in turn as per the direction/ advise of the OP No 1 / Insurance Company, the complainant  obtained  the crop insurance from the OP No 1 for the Arecanut crop grown in his said land by paying crop insurance premium of Rs.5,180=16 through the complainant SB Bank Account  No 6741010000572, which was maintained at the OP No 2.  The complainant further submitted that, due to crop loss in the particular year i.e. 2020-21, the OP No 1/insurance company representatives collected the data and information on said crop loss, accordingly the OP No 1 has to pay insured / sum assured amount of Rs.1,03,603=20 to the complainant,  but the OP No 1 / Insurance Company has not paid the said amount, though the complainant approached the OP No 1 on several times.  The complainant issued the legal notice on 31-12-2021,through his counsel, asking the OP No 1 to pay the said crop insurance amount, but the OP No 1 did not turn up.  Hence, this complaint.  

4.      After the service of the notice, the OP Nos. 1 & 2 appeared through their respective counsels.  But subsequently the OP No.2 did not filed version and affidavit evidence. 

4(a).  The OP No.1 in his version contended that, the OP No.1 is Implementing RWBCIS (Restructured Weather based crop insurance) scheme, which was formulated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, aims to mitigate the hardship of the insured farmers against the likelihood of financial loss on account of anticipated crop loss resulting from adverse weather conditions relating to rainfall, temperature, wind humidity etc. The state government, notify the particular crops in respective areas to cover under the scheme, and later conduct the crop cutting experiments to assess the crop loss. The roles and responsibilities of the implementing agency were, as per the scheme guidelines.  It is further submitted that the claims (Sum assured / insurance amount) of the farmers were initiated by the Government of Karnataka, after the crop cutting experiments conducted by the authorities, by collecting different weather parameters. The OP No 1 / Insurance Company settled the claim / crop insurance of amount of Rs.13,902=00 in favour of the complainant through Aadhar Based Payment.  After considering the procedure and settled the claim of the complainant and as there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and prayed to dismiss the complaint against the OP No 1.

5.      The complainant filed his affidavit evidence. One Mr.Praveen Kumar B.R. Deputy Manager of OP No 1 filed affidavit evidence. The OP No.2 not filed the version and affidavit evidence.  Complainant and OP No 1 counsels, produced some copies of documents, but not marked the same.

6.      We have heard the arguments from counsel for Opposite Party No.1.  In spite of sufficient opportunities and imposed cost of Rs 500-00, the complainant and the OP No.2 not advanced their arguments, hence, posted for orders. The points that would arise for determination are as here under:

1. Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OPs?

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:  in the negative

Point No.2:  in the negative

Point No.3: As per the final order

:REASONS:

8. The OP No.1 counsel argued that, the OP No 1 received the premium of Rs.5,180=16 from the complainant, and as per the assessment by the authority, for the period 2020-21, Dry day cover, Maximum temperature were not exceeded any of the strike limits and there was no payout in any other strikes in respect of deficit rainfall, accordingly the eligible crop insurance of Rs 13,902=00 paid through Aadhar payment to the complainant. Further the OP No 1 counsel, in their affidavit has reiterated the averments of version. The OP No 1, counsel produced Copy of the Operational guidelines, relevant documents and statement of showing Rs 13902=25 transferred to the complainant account on 30-04-2022.

9. The complainant counsel produced copy of legal notice dated 31-12-2021, postal receipts / acknowledgements, copy of OP No 2 reply to legal notice dated 03-01-2022, Copy of PMFBY proposal, and Copy of RTC of Survey number 26/2. Copy of Adhar.

10. In this case the complainant not produced any documents related to OP No 2. I.e. Bank statement, passbook of his SB Account Number 6741010000572,etc on contrary, the complainant given Adhar linked SB Account of DCC Bank, Tumkur, SB Account Number 10078008706 to the OP No 1, accordingly eligible claim of Rs 13902=25 transferred to the said account on 30-04-2022 by the OP No1, but the complainant in his complaint not disclosed the same, which was proved by the relevant documents submitted by the OP No 1.

  11. By considering the above discussion in our view the complainant not proved any deficiency on the part of OPs, Hence, we proceed to pass the following;

                   The complaint against OPs (OP No.1 &  2) is dismissed with no costs

 Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite parties at free of cost.