Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/194/2018

Sri,Mallaiah s/o Thippeswamy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Naseer S/o Ismail - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.Thippeswamy.N

15 Jun 2023

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:04/10/2018

DISPOSED ON:15/06/2023

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

 

C.C.NO:194/2018

 

DATED: 15^th June 2023

 

PRESENT: Kum. H.N. MEENA, B.A., LL.B., PRESIDENT

                  Smt. B.H. YASHODA, B.A., LL.B., LADY MEMBER                       

                  Sri. H.JANARDHAN, B.A.L., LL.B., MEMBER

COMPLAINANT	Sri Mallaiah K.T     S/o Thippeswamy,     Aged about 48 years,     Agriculturist,     Madanayakanahalli,     Chitradurga Taluk,     Chitradurga District.    (Rep by Sri N. Thippeswamy, Advocate,)
V/S
OPPOSITE PARTIES	Sri Naseer     S/o Ismail, Aged about 30 years,     Computer Operator, Tippu Circle,     Agsanakallu, Chitradurga.   Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Sailvesthra Arcade East Park Road,       The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, DRM Office, Holalkere Road,     (Rep by OP-2 & 3: B.M. Ravichandra, Advocate,)

 

:JUDGEMENT:

 

 

Order Delivered by Hon’ble President, Kum. H.N. MEENA.

 

 

The complainant filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opponents. The complainant has prayed to direct the opponents and ordered to receive the application from the complainant's proposal number, get the insurance money and give an acknowledgment and if failed, to give compensation of 27 acres of crop to the complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the loss and mental anguish suffered so far and such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Commission deems fit to grant in the interest of Justice. 

 

2. Advocate for complainant filed an application U/o 13 R/w Section 151 of CPC. The Hon’ble District commission after hearing the matter on merits the IA-1 was allowed on 28/04/2018. Thereafter the OP-1 against the order preferred  before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bengaluru in Revision Petition No: 264/2018, in the said Revision Petition after hearing the matter, as on order dated 17/03/2023 Hon’ble State Commission opinion that, the Order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with law which requires to be set aside.  Hence, the Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently set aside the IA-1 Order dated: 09/10/2018, for consumer complaint No.194/2018 by District consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Chitradurga.

 

3. BRIEF FACTS OF CASE:

 

   The complainant states in his complaint that, the complainant is an agriculturist and he owns 27 acres of land above address and he has planted commercial crops like onion, groundnut, sunflower, cotton, banana etc. Complainant alleged that on 31/01/2018, the OP-1 received money from 288 peoples including the complainant and put it online and received a proposal from the OP-2 and OP-3 which is a hockey insurance company. Accordingly, the counterpersons have informed the company that they will pay the money on 27th, 28th, 29th September 2018. On the date: 27th, 28th, 29th, every day, the OP-1 will fill the money from all the other customers who have given the proposal. On the same day, when the complainant also went to pay online, the complainant's application was rejected online. When the complainant inquired about the OP-1 as 29/09/2018 was the last day to deposit the money, they said that the server of the OP-2 and OP-3 was busy and they would inquire about their technical problem. Later on the same day, when the OP-1 was asked to pay the money to the proposal number, the OP-2 and OP-3 replied that they are not accepting payment for your proposal number due to technical problem.

 

4. Complainant further submits that, when the complainant went to the branch office of the OP-3 and inquired, they said to complainant that, this is not a matter addressed to us, but to inquire at the head office. But since the same day was the last day, no matter how much effort was made, the complainant's application was not accepted. Complainant is entitled to get compensation but this kind of act done by the opponent is illegal so the complainant has to suffer irreparable loss. Complainant has dealt with the same land last year and has also paid money to the insurance company, the applications are accepted. But when filing this year's application, it is impossible for the complainant to file the application due to the technical problem of the opponent. Hence this complaint.

 

5. After registered the complaint, notice issued by this Hon’ble Commission was duly served to the opponents. OP No.1 placed
ex-parte. OP No.2 and 3 appeared through its counsel. Wherefore, opponent No.2 and 3 have filed their version.

 

6. The opponent No.1 stated in the version that the allegations of the complaint para No.1 to 10 are which are not specifically admitted in this version all hereby denied as false.  Opponent No.2 and 3 is merely acting as an “implementing agency” of the Govt. of Karnataka for the purpose of administering the weather based crop insurance scheme. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., collects premium from the Nodal banks or other financial institutions in terms of provisions of scheme. In view of above facts and circumstances, the instant complaint is improper, void-ab-initio without bonafides and filed with an ulterior motive and deserves to be dismissed against answering respondent with cost and compensatory cost.

 

7. That the complainant has not made the state / central Govt. as Respondents, hence the complaint cannot be adjudicated properly. The present application as well as the complaint is false, frivolous and is filed by the complainant to gain undue publicity at the cost of opposite party and to extort money from the opposite party by misusing the process of law.

 

8. That the opponent No.2 and 3 are not aware of the fact that, the complainant has approached opponent No.1 CSE Center on 29/09/2018, his application / proposal No.772695 was not accepted owing / server problem and this averments of the complaint are denied and complainant are put to strict proof of the same and also the above said complaint is not maintainable.

 

9. That as such the complainant has appealed through this complaint for acceptance of his crop insurance proposal with premium failing which he should be indemnified with Rs.5,00,000/-being the crop failure compensation for 27 acres of cultivated land, while allowing the complaint the Forum has ordered to receive insurance amount under proposal No.772695 is not clear and also it is not acceptance, since the complainant’s complaint is itself is not maintainable and the same has to be dismissed in limine.

 

10. That the opponent No.2 has not made any deficiency in service to the complainant and complainant has not approached the Hon’ble Forum with clean hands, since the opponent No.1 as per the guidelines of Pradhanamanthi Fasal Bheema Yojana, Karnataka State Monsoon Crop for the year 2018-19 and as per the said PMFBY for the year 2018-19 from Karnataka Government Monsoon Crop insurance scheme an notification No.AD:42:APD:2018 Bengaluru dated 26/05/2018 towards Chitradurga District i.e. Crop insurance facilities are available as per the pamphlets made out by the opponent No.2 and 3 and also the last dates for the said schemes are also mentioned in the pamphlets as shown.

 

11. The crop insurance scheme for Khariff 2018 is having final date of enrollment as 16/07/2018 / 31/07/2018 for crops mentioned by complainant. As such his complaint regarding non acceptance of premium by opponent No.1 is not tenable as himself or opponent No.2 and 3 have no authority to accept any premium on 29/09/2018 as per Prime Minister’s Fasal Bheema Yojana 2018 a scheme administered by Central / State Govt. as such the application of the complainant is itself is not maintainable as per contention taken by the complainant in his complaint itself, since he has approached opponent No.1 after the date has been closed and the same will not come into help of complainant, since there is no authority to accept any premium on the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The allegation made against the opponent is highly imaginary and thus the above complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine.

 

12. Complainant and opponent filed their evidence by way of Affidavit, complainant marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-5 and the documents produced by Opponent marked as Ex.B-1. Both complainant and OP filed their written arguments. The Hon’ble commission given an opportunity to both the parties for oral arguments. But there is no representation from both the parties, hence the oral arguments of both the parties are deemed to have been heard.

 

13. Now, the points that arise for our consideration for                   decision of above complaint are that:

1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency of service on the part of OPs?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the complaint?
3. What order?

 

14. On perusal of pleadings and the evidence of the complainant and our findings on the above points are as below:

Point No. (1 & 2)  In the Negative

Point No. (3) As per the final order

 

:REASONS:

 

15. We have gone through the pleading of complaint and documents submitted by the both parties. The complainant examined as PW-1 and got marked documents as Ex.A-1 to A-4. Ex.A-1 is Proposal form list, Ex.A-2 is Aadhar Card, A-3 is Saving Bank account Xerox copy front page, Ex. A-4 is RTC Xerox copy. The opponent No.2 and 3 examined as DW-1 and no documents were marked.

 

16. That on 31/01/2018, the OP-1 received money from 288 peoples including the complainant and put it online and received a proposal from the OP-2 and OP-3. On the date: 27th, 28th, 29th, every day, the OP-1 will fill the money from all the other customers who have given the proposal. On the same day, when the complainant also went to pay online, the complainant's application was rejected online. When the complainant inquired about the OP-1 as 29/09/2018 was the last day to deposit the money, they said that the server of the OP-2 and OP-3 was busy and they would inquire about their technical problem. Later on the same day, when the OP-1 was asked to pay the money to the proposal number, the OP-2 and OP-3 replied that they are not accepting payment for your proposal number due to technical problem.

 

17. OP-2 and 3 contended that the crop insurance scheme for Khariff 2018 is having final date of enrollment as 16/07/2018 / 31/07/2018 for crops mentioned by complainant. As such his complaint regarding non acceptance of premium by opponent No.1 is not tenable as himself or opponent No.2 and 3 have no authority to accept any premium on 29/09/2018 as per Prime Minister’s Fasal Bheema Yojana 2018 a scheme administered by Central / State Govt. as such the application of the complainant is itself is not maintainable as per contention taken by the complainant in his complaint itself.

 

18. The crux of the matter in the present case is whether the complainant has been able to prove there is any deficiency in service of part of the OPs. We perused all the documents produced by both the parties and also observed in Revision Petition No. 264/2018 the Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission opinion that…..

 

 “ The PMFBY Scheme announced by the Government of Karnataka dt.26.05.2018. It is Government specified Insurance Scheme which was for the certain period.  Moreover, it is online registration not a manual or physical form.  Complainant himself in his affidavit stated that the last date to pay the premium was 29.09.2018 and he approached the OP-1 on the last date.  If the scheme is online, there could be chances of server down or error.  There are several challenges of online payment that affects the success of transaction such as low internet, technical integration etc., hence, the complainant could not able to pay insurance amount in time.  It is not the mistake of the OPs Sometimes this type of problems happened if there is online filing of application or payment we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

19. We perused pleading of complaint and documents submitted by the both parties. Hence, we are opinion that the PMFBY is a scheme involving the Central and State Governments. It is an insurance plan fixed by the government for a specific period. Further, it is online registration and not manual or physical form so, if there is low internet or other technical issues in the website, sometimes these types of issues occur if there is online application or payment filing. At that time the State-Central Government shall be obliged to advance the registration-payment date. It is the duty of the OPs to receive the applications and receive the amount from the applicants within the stipulated date. Hence, there is no deficiency in the service of the opposite parties which the complainant has made a parties in this case. The complaint is devoid of merits and needs to be rejected. Hence, we considered as Point No.1 and 2 in the negative.   

 

20. Point No.3:  Hence, in the light of above discussion we proceed to pass the following.

 

::ORDER::

       The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.

 

       Communicate the order to both the parties.

 

(Typed directly on the computer to the dictation given to stenographer, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced by us on 15/06/2023)

 

 

 

       Sd/-                                        Sd/-                             Sd/-

LADY MEMBER               MEMBER                PRESIDENT

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

 

Witness examined on behalf of Complainant:

 

PW-1:- Sri Mallaiah K.T S/o Thippeswamy, by way of affidavit of

            evidence.

 

Witness examined on behalf of opponent No.1:

 

DW-1: Sri T. Nagalingachari, by way of affidavit of evidence.

 

 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

 

01	Ex-A-1:-	Copy of PMFBY Proposal list
02	Ex-A-2:-	Copy of Aadhar Card
03	Ex-A-3:-	Bank pass book copy 1st page.
04	Ex-A-4:-	Copy of RTC

 

 

Documents marked on behalf of opponent No.1:

 

01

Ex-B-1:-

Pamphlet PMFBY 2018-19

 

 

 

       Sd/-                                        Sd/-                             Sd/-

LADY MEMBER               MEMBER                PRESIDENT

 

 

 

**GM