Complaint filed on: 07-12-2020

                                                      Disposed on: 27-10-2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

CC.No.79/2020

DATED THIS THE 27^th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

PRESENT

SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, B.Com, L.L.M, PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc., L.L.B, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B, LADY MEMBER

Complainant: -

K.C.Channabasappa

S/o Late Channaiah,

R/o Honnaiahnapalya,

Kenkere at post,

Huliyar Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk

Tumakuru

 (In person)

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

1. Managing Director,

Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd, 3^rd floor, C/o. Karnataka Pradesh Krishi Samaj, No.18, Nrupathunga Road,

Corporation Circle, Bengaluru,

Karnataka-560 001

2. The Manager,

State Bank of India, Huliyar branch, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumakuru

(OP No.1-Sri.Mohamed Afroze Ahmed, Advocate)

(OP No.2- Exparte)

       ORDER

SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to direct the OP Nos.1 and 2 to pay Rs.2,33,807-00 along with interest @ 18% p.a. for crop failure during the year 2019-2020.

2. The OP No.1 is Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited (hereinafter called as insurer) and the OP No.2 State Bank of India, Huliyar Branch, Chikkanayakanahalli taluk, Tumakuru district (hereinafter called as bank) for brevity and convenience.

3. The complainant is the owner of land Sy.No.478 measuring 4 acres 22 guntas situated at Kenkere village, Huliyar hobli, Chikkanayakana halli taluk and he has insured Pomegranate crop by paying premium of Rs.11,690-00 through the OP No.2 bank on 26-6-2019 for the year 2019-2020. The insured amount is Rs.2,33,807-00. It is further case of complainant that the crop was failed due to “hailstone rain” even then the insured amount has not been credited by the OP No.1 insurer despite of his request hence, this complaint.

4. The insurer in response to the notice appeared through its learned counsel and filed written version admitting that the complainant has demanded for claim settlement in respect of Pomegranate crop pertaining to Kenkere Grama Panchayath, Huliyar hobli, Chikkanayakana halli taluk under Kharif season. The application No.93706 pertains to the complainant. The crop insured by complainant under application no.93706 is Pomegranate whereas the crop grown is coconut as per crop survey. The insurer has not yet received the crop confirmation from the State Government hence, the proposal of the complainant is pending for crop reverification. It is further case of the insurer that only after confirmation by the State Government it would initiate the claim and eligible claims if any as per the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (hereinafter called as PMFBY).  The insurer is implementing the scheme as an agent jointly for Government of India and Karnataka on no profit basis. On the above grounds, the OP No.1 insurer asked to dismiss the complaint.      

          5. The OP No.2 bank inspite of the service of notice proceeded exparte.

6. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.P1 to P19 documents. On behalf of OP No.1 insurer one Sri.Praveen Kumar.B.R, Deputy Manager has filed his affidavit and got marked Exs.R1 to R4 documents.

7. We have heard the oral arguments of both parties in addition to written brief submitted by the complainant and the points that would arise for determination are as under:

1)      Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service of OPs?

2)      Is complainant entitled to reliefs sought for?  

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

Point No.1: In the negative   

Point No.2: In the negative for the below  

REASONS

          9. Point No.1 and 2: The complainant has submitted that though the OP No.1 has not disputed the insuring pomegranate crop for the Kharif season 2019-2020 it has failed to pay the insured amount. The complainant in the affidavit evidence reiterated the averments of complaint. Ex.P8 is the acknowledgement issued by the bank for insuring the Pomegranate crop raised in Sy.No.478 of Kenkere village under Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme during the year 2019-2020 on 26-6-2019 vide acknowledgment no.CSC001-93706. The complainant has insured the said crop for Rs,2,33,80 by paying premium amount of Rs.11,690-00. The learned counsel for OP No.1 insurer submitted that there is mismatch with regard to the insured crop Pomegranate contrary to the crop survey which indicates Coconut.

          10. The complainant has produced Exs.P10 to P14 record of rights of land Sy.No.478 measuring 4 acres 22 guntas of Kenkere village which stood in the name of complainant for the year 2019-20. The complainant has produced record of rights for the year 2019-20 and in all record of rights produced by the complainant at the time of admission of complaint indicates that the crop raised in the entire land is Coconut. The OP insurer has produced Ex.R3 (a) select survey details of Sy.No.478 measuring 04 acres 22 guntas stood in the name of complainant and under the crop information heading crop shown as coconut to the extent of 04 acres 22 guntas. The OP No.1 insurer further produced Ex.R3 (b) crop details which covered photo of coconut trees grown raised in the land Sy.No.478 04 acres 22 guntas. On the photo Exs.R3(b) date and time of taking photograph shown as 10^th Oct.2018 6.13.43 p.m. Ex.R4 is material document i.e. copy of Samrakshane portal maintained by NIC, Bengaluru and under heading check status application no.93706 for the year 2019-20. The name of proposer mentioned as K.C.Channabasappa-Complainant and status verification kept pending. Ex.R4 shows that due to mismatch of the crop insured by complainant and crop survey along with record of rights coconut for the year 2019-20 still the claim of complainant is pending before the State Government. Exs.P10 to P14 record of rights of the complainant pertaining to relevant period 2019-2020 indicates that crop raised in Sy.No.478 as coconut. In view of the above circumstances, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs. If the State Government approves the proposal of complainant then the insurer will pay the claim as per Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana guidelines. In the result, we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed without costs.

The complainant is at liberty to approach the OP No.1 insurer if his application is cleared by the Government of Karnataka in respect of mismatch of the crop.