COMPLAINT FILED ON 29/07/2019

                                                                                            DISPOSED ON: 15/03/2023

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:427/2019

DATED: 15^th March 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       

:ORDER:

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

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 to pay the insured amount of Rs.91,057.50/- to the complainant for the loss of crops. For issue an order to compensation of Rs.0.50 lakhs with 12% interest per annum towards the deficiency in service, dereliction of duties and unfair trade practice from the date of complaint till the date of its realization. Also to direct the opponents to pay Rs.20,000/- towards the loss of earning, mental agony cost of the proceedings and such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Commission deems fit to grant in the interest of Justice. 

2. BRIEF FACTS OF CASE:

   The complainant states in his complaint that, the complainant is an agriculturist and she owns 2 acres of land in Sy.No.51/37-P2  situated at Hotaragondanahally Village, Mathodu Hobli, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District. Regularly the complainant is cultivating Horticulture Crops like Pomogranate, Coconut and Ragi Maize in her lands. The complainant has planted Pomogranate in her lands and for  that during 2016-17 the complainant paid Rs.4,552.88/- towards Agriculture Insurance premium amount for 2 acres vide application No.153222 from the complainant under Pradhan Manthri Fasal Bhima Yojane (PMFBY) scheme year 2016-17 for pomegranate crop from opponent No.1. Unfortunately, due to failure of rain, crops have not grown, completely failed. As such, the complainant has to receive Rs.91,057.50/- towards Samrakshane Crop Insurance from Bank/Insurance Company.

3. Complainant further submits that, the complainant approached to OPs several times, but the OPs did not give any further reply. The complainant submitted written request letter to OP Bank. The opponent Bank without paying the insurance amount, did not give adequate reply. The complainant is a poor farmer and is facing a lot of financial difficulties. Hence this complaint.

4. After registered the complaint, notice issued by this Hon’ble Commission was served to the opponents. OP No.1 and 2 appeared through its counsel. OP No.3 appeared as in person. Wherefore, opponent No.1 and 2 are filed their version.

5. The opponent No.1 stated in the version 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.

6. The opponent No.1 further submits that, OP No.1 is only collecting the insurance premium amount with application from the complainant and the same is sent to opposite party No.2 and it is a Govt. Policy to collect the insurance premium as per PMFBY Scheme.  OP No.1 Bank is not liable to pay compensation to the complainant for due to failure of crops and damages. OP No.2 is to pay compensation to the complainants for failure of crops/damages. OP No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation or any costs to the complainant and that the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the OP No.1 Bank with cost.

7. The OP No.2 stated in the version that, denying all the averments made in the complaint. However it is submitted that claim is payable subject to terms and condition of the policy and as per the procedure laid down by the government. As per the guidelines provided by the government claim of complainant was made non admissible for the reasons as stated in the supra para and not repeated here for the sake of brevity.  Further it is stated that,   this complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.

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

1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of OPs, on account of not settling the claim of complainant?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the complaint?

3. What order?

9. 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

:REASON:

10. Point No.1 & 2: We have gone through the pleading of complaint and documents submitted by complainant. The complainant examined as PW-1 and got marked documents as
Ex.P-1 to P-5. Ex.P-1 is Copy of Aadhar Card, Ex.P-2 is proposal insurance copy, Ex.P-3 is RTC copy, Ex.P-4 is Legal Notice & Ex.P-5 is Postal receipt. The opponent No.1 and 2 examined by way of affidavit but no documents has been filed. As per Ex.P.2 the complainant paid the insurance premium amount to OP-1. The OP No.1 sent on that premium amount to the OP No.2. Hence, the complainant is a consumer of OPs.

11. It is not in dispute that, the complainant is having agricultural lands at Hotaragondanahally Village, Mathodu Hobli, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District. The complainant is cultivating Horticulture Crops like Pomegranate, Coconut and Ragi Maize in her lands. The complainant has planted Pomegranate in her lands during year 2016-17 the complainant paid Rs.4,552.88/- towards Agriculture Insurance premium amount for 2 acres vide application No.153222 from the complainant under Pradhan Manthri Fasal Bhima Yojane (PMFBY) scheme year 2016-17 for pomegranate crop from opponent No.1. Unfortunately, due to failure of rain, crops have not grown, completely failed. Therefore, the complainant approached to OPs several times and also submitted written request letter to OP Bank. The opponent Bank without paying the insurance amount, did not give adequate reply.

12. The opponent No.1 submits that, OP No.1 is only collecting the insurance premium amount with application from the complainant and the same is sent to opposite party No.2 and it is a Govt. Policy to collect the insurance premium as per PMFBY Scheme.  OP No.1 Bank is not liable to pay compensation to the complainant for due to failure of crops and damages. OP No.2 is to pay compensation to the complainants for failure of crops/damages.

13. We perused all the documents and observed that, the advocate for OP No.3 filed memo dated 30/03/2021 along with one document of directorate of Horticulture, Lalbag, Bengaluru, dated 29/03/2021 in the said letter…..

“ªÀÄgÀÄ«£Áå¸ÀUÉƽ¸À¯ÁzÀ ºÀªÁªÀiÁ£À DzsÁjvÀ ¨É¼É «ªÉÄ AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄr
2016-17£Éà ¸Á°£À ªÀÄÄAUÁgÀÄ ºÀAUÁ«Ä£À°è Cfð ¸ÀA.153222UÉ ¯ÉPÀÌ ºÁPÀ¯ÁzÀ CºÀ𠫪ÀiÁ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß DzsÁgïeÉÆÃrvÀ ¨ÁåAPï SÁvÉUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ ¨É¼É «ªÉÄ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:22/10/2020gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÁªÀw¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ”.

14. The crux of the matter in the present case is whether the complainant has prove that, the OP-2 has not deposited the insured amount to the complainant?  And whether the complainant has made an effort to convince us to declare the village drought-prone by the appropriate authorities?  But the complainant has not submitted any document that the village has been declared as a drought affected village by the appropriate authorities. In view of the facts that no record is available in the complaint, Hence, we considered opinion that, as per memo the OP-2 has paid Rs.12,598/- to the complainant account on 22/10/2020. But, the complainant has failed to prove that complainant has not received the insurance compensation amount from the OP-2. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Therefore, the Point No.1 and 2 is answered in the Negative. 

15. 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^th March 2023.)

LADY MEMBER               MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witness examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:- Smt. Gowramma W/o Sanna Lingappa, by way of affidavit of

           evidence.

Witness examined on behalf of opponents:

OP-1: Sri Lokesh G S/o Govindappa, by way of affidavit of evidence.

OP-2: Sri Krishna Sheernalli S/o Sathyanarayan Bhat, by way of

          affidavit of evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

Documents marked on behalf of opponents:

Nil

LADY MEMBER               MEMBER                PRESIDENT