BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF MARCH 2023
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 1020/2019
1. | TATA AIG General Insurance Co., Ltd., Having Office at 1st Floor, Brigade Magnum, Amruthalli Village, Bengaluru 560 092, Rep. by its Manager. | ……Appellant/s |
2. | The Branch Manager Claims, Rural Agriculture Insurance, Tata AIG General Insurance Co., Ltd., A- 501, 5th Floor, Building No.4, Infinity IT Park, Dindoshi, Mumbai 400 097. (By Sri Prashant.T.Pandit) | |
V/s
1. | Smt. U. Sharanamma, W/o Late Umapathi, Aged about 40 years, R/o Bukkambudi Village, D.R. Halli Post, Thaluk Hobli - Chalikere, Dist : Chitradurga. (Notice Served) | ..…Respondent/s |
2. | The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Jayalakshmi Complex, Bangalore – Bellary Road, Challakere, Chitradurga District. (By Sri V. Haridas Bhat) | |
ORDER
BY MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER
1. The appellants/Opposite Parties have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.12.04.2019 passed in CC.No.141/2018 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chitradurga.
2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that she is an agriculturist by profession owning 3 acres of land in Sy.No.37/P3 situated at Bukkambudi Village, Taluk Hobli Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District. The complainant is cultivating caster/maize in the said land and the same was insured under PMFBY during 2016-2017. The Opposite Party No.1 has collected Rs.607=05 on 01.08.2016 vide proposal No.870110 under PMFBY. Due to failure of rainfall, the crop has been completely failed as such the complainant has to receive insurance amount under the said scheme. The complainant has approached the Opposite Party No.1 and Agricultural Department several times personally and also through letter correspondences, but, the claim of the complainant has not been settled which is a deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice, but, they failed reply to the same. Hence, the complaint.
3. After service of notice, the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 appeared through their counsels and filed version. Opposite Party No.1 in its version contended that he has collected crop insurance of Rs.607=05 for caster seeds for 3 acres under PMFBY Scheme vide proposal No.870110 and sent the same to the insurance company and acknowledged the same. Such being the case, the question of dereliction of duties and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 does not arise. The Opposite Party No.1 sent the amount to the authorities through Universal Sompo General Insurance Co., Ltd., and the same is the necessary party to the complaint and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, hence, liable to be dismissed.
4. The Opposite Party No.2 in its version denied all the averments made in the complaint. The proposal of the complainant was accepted by the Opposite Party No.1, but, the same was not forwarded to the Opposite Party No.2 and they are still pending at the bank’s end, hence, the Opposite Party No.2 has failed to submit the proposals even on the extended date i.e. 12.12.2016, not only that the proposal was not forwarded by the Opposite Party No.1 to the Opposite Party No.2, but, also stated that the application of the complainant was not shared by the Opposite Party No.1 to the Opposite Party No.2, the said application was still pending with the Opposite Party No.1. Therefore, non-submission of the application form and premium amount in favour of the complainant, the Opposite Party No.2 is not liable for any payment or compensation to the complainant. The Opposite Party No.2 has not made any deficiency in service to the complainant, hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3 to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant with interest along with compensation and costs.
6. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellants/ Opposite Parties are in appeal. Heard the arguments.
7. Perused the appeal memo and Order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that the insurance company has denied all the allegations of the Respondent No.1 and also contended that they were unaware of the facts such as the Respondent No.1 is the owner of the land and the Respondent No.2 has collected the premium of the crop insurance by the Respondent no.1 and the same was sent to the appellant’s insurance company. Also contended that they were unaware of that there was a drought in the region on a particular year and the Respondent No.1 suffered loss. The insurance company also denied that the legal notice sent by the Respondent No.1 which was served on the appellants. The appellants also contended that the proposal of the Respondent No.1 was accepted by the Respondent No.2 bank, but, the same was not forwarded to the insurance company/appellants and still it is pending at bank’s end, hence, the insurance company is not liable. All these contentions of the appellants are contrary to each other. However, it is evident that the Respondent No.2 bank has sent the premium amount to the appellant insurance company. It is also evident that the appellant insurance company has collected the premium amount from Respondent No.2 bank. Such being the case, the defence of the appellants that the Respondent No.2 bank was not forwarded the proposal form of Respondent No.1 within the prescribed period are not accepted. If the insurance company has collected the amount from the Respondent No.1 bank, it is its bounden duty to settle the claim of the Respondent No.1. After receiving the insurance premium for crops, the insurance company cannot discharge its liability. The PMFBY Scheme clearly provides that the insurance company/ appellants are liable to pay compensation to the Respondent No.1 when there is a loss due to shortfall of rain. Moreover, the Respondent No.1 has produced certain documents to show that she is an agriculturists and owning three acres of land in Survey no.37/P3 situated at Bukkambudi Village, Talku Hobli Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District and she has insured the crop under PMFBY Scheme during 2016-2017 by paying premium of Rs.607=05 on 01.08.2016 vide Proposal No.870110. Hence, considering the facts discussion made here, we are of the opinion that the Order passed by the District Commission is just and proper. No interference is required. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission for disbursement of the same to the complainant.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
