Complaint filed on: 15 & 16-11-2017

                                                      Disposed on: 28-05-2018

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101

CC.No.109/2017, 111/2017 AND 113/2017 TO 116/2017

DATED THIS THE 28^th DAY OF MAY 2018

PRESENT

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT

SRI.BALAKRISHNA V.MASALI, MEMBER

Complainant: -

1. CC.No.109/2017

R.S.Shivashankar

S/o. R.M.Nanjundaiah,

Aged about 61 years,

            R/at Ramanahalli,

Kondikere hobli,

Cikkanayakanahalli Taluk,

Tumakuru District

2. CC.No.111/2017

Shivanna S/o. Thimmaiah,

Aged about 65 years,

R/at Abojihalli village, Handanakere hobli,

Cikkanayakanahalli Taluk,

Tumakuru District

3. CC.No.113/2017

Shivamma W/o. Marulaiah,

Aged about 70 years,

R/at Kuppuru village, Shettikere hobli,

Cikkanayakanahalli Taluk,

Tumakuru District

4. CC.No.114/2017

Mahalingaiah S/o. Siddappa, aged about 55 years, R/at Anakatte village,

Kasaba hobli,

Cikkanayakanahalli Taluk,

Tumakuru District

5. CC.No.115/2017

Chandrappa S/o. Basappa,

Aged about 55 years,

R/at Anakatte village,

Kasaba hobli,

Cikkanayakanahalli Taluk,

Tumakuru District

6. CC.No.116/2017

K.L.Veshweshwaraiah S/o. Lingappa, 73 years,

R/at Kodalagara village,

Cikkanayakanahalli Taluk,

Tumakuru District

(All the complainants appeared- In Person)

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

1. The Branch Manage, Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd,

No.127/A, 4^th Floor,

KVV Smart Outer Ring Road, Kasturi Nagar, Bengaluru – 43

(In all the cases- OP No.1 Reptd. by advocate Sri.H.K.Ramamurthy)

                                                In CC.No.109/2017 and 116/2017

2. The Manager,

State Bank of India,

Thimmanahalli branch,

Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk

Tumakuru district

(OP No.2-Repted. by Advocate

Sri.G.S.Channabasappa)

In CC.No.111/2017, 113/2017  to 115/2017

2. The Manager,

Canara Bank,

Chikkanayakanahalli,

 (OP No.2- Reptd.by Advocate

Sri.Jagadeeshappa)

ORDER

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K., PRESIDENT

Since the 1^st OP in all cases are one and the same, but the 2^nd OP and complainants are different and the facts of these cases are identical, so in order to avoid confusion, repetition of discussion of facts and also to avoid conflict of the opinion, all the complaints are clubbed together and disposed off under a common order.

2. The complainants have filed these complaints under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OP No.1 and 2 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 and 2 and pray to direct the OP No.1 and 2 to pay crops insured amount as mentioned below; 

along with 18% interest per annum and damages of Rs.50,000=00 each to the complainant.

3. The common brief facts of the complaints are as under.

The complainants are agriculturist and they have insured their crops grown in their lands with the 1^st OP through 2^nd OP for the year 2016-2017.  However, there is a difference with regard to the survey numbers & villages, insured crops grown in the lands, premium amount & date and insured amount.  Therefore, the same have been mentioned in the below mentioned table.

          The complainant further submitted that, on account of failure of rain during the year 2016-2017, their entire grown crops were dried up and spoiled. As a result, the complainants suffered loss and this fact was brought to the notice of the OP No.1 and 2 and requested them to compensate the loss suffered by them. The OP No.1 and 2 have not taken any steps to settle the claim. Hence, the complainants have come up with the present complaint.

4. After service of notice, the OP No.1 and 2 have appeared through their counsel. The 1^st OP prays time to file version. Despite granting sufficient time, the 1^st OP did not file version and it is taken as not filed version.

          5. In CC. No.109/2017 and 116/2017, the 2^nd OP-State Bank of India has filed version, contending interalia as under:  

The complaints are not maintainable either in law or on facts. There is no cause of action to file the complaints. The complainants have not come before the forum with clean hands and they have suppressed the real facts. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd OP. Hence, the complaints filed by the complainants are false, frivolous and it is liable to be dismissed.

          The 2^nd OP further submitted that, the complainants were a loanee farmers and account holders in the 2^nd OP bank. The complainants have debited the crop insurance premium for their crops in the bank and the 2^nd OP bank has paid the said premium to the 1^st OP Universal Sompo General Universal Company Ltd by way of demand draft. As such the 2^nd OP has promptly performed its part of duty as per norms.

          The 2^nd OP further submitted that, in the above said circumstances and facts that, it is crystal clear that, there is no any kind of deficiency of service in any way and in any form. The complainants have approached this forum simply misusing and making their own untenable calculation with false allegations which is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost under section 27 of the CP Ac and also under Section 35 of CPC for false allegations. The 2^nd OP is statutory body and acting in accordance with law and procedure without any personal gains, grievance or interest. Hence, the 2^nd OP prays to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost, in the interest of justice and equity.

          6. In CC. No.111/2017, 113/2017 to 116/2017, the 2^nd OP-Canara Bank has filed written version, contending interalia as under: 

          The complaints are not maintainable either in law or on fact. There is no deficiency of service and negligent act on the part of the 2^nd OP and there is no cause of action to file the complaints.

          The 2^nd OP further submitted that, insurance scheme was introduced in the year 2016 and this scheme is called as Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Youjana (PMFBY) and whether based crop insurance scheme (WBCIS) and the 1^st OP was entrusted the work of settlement of insurance claims. Accordingly, the 2^nd OP has collected insurance premium from various applicants of bank customers and remitted to the 1^st OP through RTGS on different dates. After receipt of the premium amount and accepted the insurance proposal of the complainants, the 1^st OP is liable to settle the claim of the complainants.

          The 2^nd OP further submitted hat, the 2^nd OP remitted the insurance premium on behalf of the complainants, the said remittance is only a free service rendered by the 2^nd OP on persuasive ground without having any obligation to pay any compensation to the complainants. The said service of the 2^nd OP is only an intermediary between the complainants and the 1^st OP. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaints with cost, in the interest of justice and equity.

7. In the course of enquiry in to the complaints, the complainants and the 2^nd OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaints and version. The complainants have produced documents which were not marked. We have heard the arguments of both parties and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both sides scrupulously. 

8. Based on the above materials, the following points arise for our consideration;  

1.      Whether the complainants have proved there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

2.      What order?

9. Our findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1:          In the affirmative

Point No.2:          As per order below

REASONS

10. Admittedly, the complainants are the agriculturists and they have insured their crops with the 1^st OP Insurance Company through the 2^nd OP bank for the year 2016-2017.  The insured crops were dried up and spoiled due to failure of rain during the year 2016-2017.

11. The main contention of the complainants is that, after failure of crops, the complainants have approached the OP No.1 and 2 for their insured amount, but the OPs have not released the insured amount till date.

12. On perusal of the documents produced by the complainant and the 2^nd OP, wherein it is seen that, the complainants have paid the insurance premium to the 2^nd OP bank. The 2^nd OP bank was remitted to the 1^st OP Insurance company. The 1^st OP has received the premium amount from the complainants, hence, it is bounden duty of the 1^st OP to release the insured amount, but the 1^st OP has not released the amount to the complainants. Hence, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st OP.

13. Further, the 1^st OP has appeared before this forum but not filed version, in the sense, the 1^st OP either admits the averments in the complaints in toto or they have nothing to say contrary to the complaints averments if the matter is viewed on this line, it proves that the 1^st OP has agreed the same impliedly.  Based on the above, we have no legal impediment to disbelieve the say of the complainants that they have established the deficiency in service on the part of 1^st OP. Therefore, we hold that, the complainants are entitled for the insured amount and compensation along with litigation cost. Further, with regard to the 2^nd OP, as a mediator between the complainant and the insurer and the 2^nd OP has done their duty, hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd OP.  Hence, the complaints filed against the 2^nd OP is hereby dismissed.  Accordingly, we answer point No.1 in the Affirmative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The complaint Nos.109/2017, 111/2017 and 113/2017 to 116/2017 are allowed.

The 1^st OP is directed to settle the crop insured amount to the complainants along with 9% interest per annum from the date of complaints to till the date of realization.

The 1^st OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000=00 each to the complainants and litigation cost of Rs.3,000=00 each to the complainants.

This order is to be complied by the 1^st OP within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.  

The complaints filed against the 2^nd OP is hereby dismissed.

          Supply free copy of this order to both parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this, the 28^th day of May 2018).

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT