Complaint filed on: 01-09-2021

                                                      Disposed on: 17-01-2023

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

DATED THIS THE 17^th DAY OF January, 2023

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.70/2021

Sri. Prashanth .C S/o Chandrashekara Shetty,

A/a 47 years, Chikkanayakanahalli Town,

Pete Beedi, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk,

Tumakuru District.

……………….Complainant/s

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

                                        V/s

1.      The Manager,

SBI General Insurance Co., Ltd.,

Ground & 1^st Floor,

No.3/1, Rukmini Tower,

Sheshadripuram, Bangalore-20.

2.      The Manager,

          Agriculture Insurance Co., Limited,

          3^rd Floor, C/o Karnataka Pradesh

          Krushi Samaja, No.18, Nrupatunga Road,

          Corporation Circle, Bangalore-560 001.

……………….Opposite Party/s

(OP1 By Sri. N.V.Naveen Kumar, Adv.,)

(OP2 By Sri. Mohamed Afroze Ahamed, 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, SBI General Insurance Co., Ltd., Ground and 1^st Floor, No.3/1, Rukmini Tower, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore-20, The Manager, Agriculture Insurance Co., Limited, 3^rd Floor, C/o Karnataka Pradesh Krushi Samaja, No.18, Nrupatunga Road, Corporation Circle, Bangalore-560 001. (hereinafter called as OP No.1 & 2 respectively).

3. It is the case of the complainant, that the complainant is an Agriculturist, having farming land of 04 acres, 02 guntas in Sy.No.32/2, situated at Thirthapura Village, Kandikere Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District and the OP No 1 / OP No 2, created the awareness on crop insurance by doing campaign, in turn as per the direction/ advise of the OP No 1 / OP No 2, i.e.  Insurance Company, the complainant obtained the crop insurance from the OP No 1/OP No2, for the Areca nut crop cultivated in his said land by paying crop insurance premium of Rs.5180=16 through the cyber shop (online).  The complainant further submitted that, due to weather failure sustained crop loss in the particular year i.e. 2019-20, the OP No 1/ OP No 2, i.e. insurance company representatives collected the data and information on the said crop loss, accordingly the OP No 1 / OP No 2, has to pay insured / sum assured amount of Rs.1,03,603=20 to the complainant,  but the OP No 1 /OP No 2, i.e.  Insurance Company has not paid the said amount, though the complainant approached the OP No 1/OP No 2, i.e. Insurance Company on several times.  The complainant issued the legal notice on 15-07-2021, through his counsel, asking the insurance company to pay the said crop insurance amount, but the insurance company did not turn up.  Hence, this complaint.  

4. The complaint registered and after the service of notice, the OP 1 counsel, on 12-10-2021 appeared and filed the IA under Rule 10(2) r/w section 151 of CPC to delete the OP No 1 from the record, on 24-11-2021 and 5-2-2022 the complainant counsel filed objections and IA under Rule 10(2) r/w section 151 of CPC to implead the OP No 2, as necessary party to the complaint. We heard the arguments and on 4-3-2022, this commission passed order on said IAs, which were allowed, and directed the complainant to implead Agriculture Insurance Co., Limited, 3^rd Floor, C/o Karnataka Pradesh Krushi Samaja, No.18, Nrupatunga Road, Corporation Circle, Bangalore-560 001 and the Bank, where complainant account maintained for the purpose as parties to the complainant, but the complainant impleaded the Agriculture Insurance Company, Bangalore as OP No 2, without deleting OP No 1 and not impleaded operating Bank as necessary party to the complaint.

5. The Notice to the OP No.2 served on 30-6-2022 and their counsel appeared on 2-8-2022 and filed the version contended that, the OP No.2 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.2/Insurance Company settled the eligible claim / crop insurance of amount of Rs.3069=24=00 in favour of the complainant through Aadhar Based Payment on 14-12-2020.  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.2 and prayed to dismiss the complaint against the OP No.2.

6.      The complainant and OP No 1, not filed affidavit evidence and the complainant produced some copies of documents, which were not marked. On 11-10-2022, the OP No.2, counsel filed affidavit evidence along with 8 documents which were marked as Ex.R1 to R8.

7.      On 18-10-2022, we heard the arguments from Opposite Party No.2.  In spite of sufficient opportunities the complainant and OP No 1 not advanced their arguments, hence their arguments taken as nill. 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 ?

8.      Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1:  in the Negative

Point No.2:   As per the final order.

:REASONS:

Point Nos.(1) & (2):

9. The OP No.2 counsel argued that, the OP No 2, received the crop insurance premium of Rs.5,180=16 from the complainant, and as per the assessment by the authority, for the period 2019-20, Dry day cover, there is no payout for Areca nut crop, in Theerthapura Grama Panchayat of Chikkanayakanahally taluk of Tumkur district during 01-07-2019 to 31-10-2019,(Ex R 4) and Deficit rainfall peril; payout is given only in respect of Phase 1 for Areca nut crop, since aggregate of rainfall during that particular period i.e. 01-07-2019 to 31-08-2019, was 222.6 mm, ( Ex R 5) (within strike 1 limit), accordingly  upon the decision and recommendation of the authority, the eligible crop insurance of Rs 3069=24 paid through Aadhar payment to the complainant on 14-12-2020 (Ex – R 6) . Further the OP No 2 counsel, in their affidavit has reiterated the averments of the version. To prove the case, the OP No 2, counsel produced Copy of the Operational guidelines,(Ex-R1), Department of Horticulture, Government of Karnataka, R-WBCIS , Govt order, (Ex-R2), Operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojan, (Ex R 3) and  relevant documents on weather, i.e. term sheet, Ex R4, Rainfall data from 1-7-2019 to 31-10-2019 (Ex R5) and statement of showing Rs 3069=24 transferred to the complainant account on 14-12-2020 (Ex R 6), and Ex.R7 and Ex.R8 were relevant citations.

10. The complainant counsel produced copy of legal notice dated 15-7-2021, postal receipts / acknowledgements, Copy of WBCIS  acknowledgement No CSC 001-64416 dated 2-8-2019 and Copy of RTC of Survey number 32/2. Copy of Adhar, which were not marked.
 

11. In this case the complainant not impleaded Bank as party to this complaint, even though this commission given such direction on 4-3-2022 and not produced any documents related to the complainant Bank account statement, or passbook of his SB Account Number, etc, but the OP No 2 document Ex R 6 proves that ,the complainant given Adhar linked SB Account of DCC Bank, Tumkur, SB Account Number 10078000292 to the OP No 2, accordingly eligible claim of Rs 3069=24 transferred (RTGS) to the said account on 14-12-2020 by the OP No2, but the complainant in his complaint not disclosed the same.

  12. By considering the above discussion in our view the complainant not proved any deficiency on the part of OP No 1 & 2, hence, we proceed to pass the following;

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

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