Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/76/2020

Sri M.Kallappa S/o Late Machikere Kallappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Executive/Secretary, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.H.S.Maheshwarappa

02 May 2023

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:28/10/2020

DISPOSED ON:02/05/2023

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

 

C.C.NO:76/2020

 

DATED: 02^th  May 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	1).Sri M.Kallappa S/o Late      Machikere Kallappa,      Age:85 Years,      Occ:Agriculturist,      R/o.Bashthihally Village,      Bharamasagara Hobli,      Chitradurga Taluk,   (Rep by H.S. Maheswarappa, Advocate,)           1). (Rep by K.R.Rangaswamy, Advocate,)
V/S
OPPOSITE PARTIES	1). Chief Executive /      Secretary, Primary Agriculture Credit Co-         Operative Bank Niyamitha, Chitradurga.       (Deleted)       2 (Rep by K.Mohan Bhat, Advocate,)
	2). The Manager,      United India Insurance Co.,Divisional      Office, MMK Complex, P.J.Extension,         Akka Mahadevi Road, Davangere.   (Rep by Sri.K.Mohan Bhat, Advocate,)
	3.  The Branch Manager,       C.D.C.C. Bank, Town Branch, Near Sub-         Registrar Office, Vasavi Circle, Town Co-        Operative society Building Beside Taluk         Office,  Chitradurga   (Rep by Sri.Khalid Ahamed, Advocate,)

 

 

:: ORDER ::

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

 

This is a complaint alleging deficiency of service filed U/s.35 of C.P.Act 2019 by Kallappa, the complainant against Opposite Parties (for short OP) praying to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- insurance premium assured amount and mental agony and  financial loss incurred by the complainant to get good crop due to non-falling of rain well in time, payable by OPs to complainant.

 

       2. Brief facts of the complaint:

 

        The complainant is an agriculturist having land bearing Sy.N.11/4 measure 3 acres 00 guntas in Basthihally village, and he use to grow crops such as maize.  In the year 2018-19 he sown the maize in the above said land by investing huge amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards purchase of maize seeds, manure and fertilizers and chemicals and labour charges, cultivation to grow more maize crops and get more income from the above said crops.  If he succeed in getting good maize crops the complainant getting more than Rs.3,00,000/- from the said maize crop.

 

3. The complainant having S.B.Account holder under the 3^rd OP bearing No.199000750822 under Pradhana Mantri Suraksha Bhima Yojana (PMSBY).  The complainant had paid Rs.1,214/- cash No.0123 towards crop insurance premium to the 3^rd OP dated:31/07/2018 and assured sum of Rs.60,703/- towards maize crop insurance and collected the amount from all the farmers and the same was paid to 3^rd OP bank.  The OP-3 bank tied with 2^nd OP United India Insurance Co.Ltd., under proposal No.CSC001-1027409.  Further, the complainant states that the complainant sowing the maize seeds in good whether condition and the same was growing anticipate that the rain was fallen well in time, then the said crop was not grown due to non fallen of drain well in time, due to complete failure of bore well water, the complainant unable to provide sufficient water to the maize crop, thereby the said maize crop completely dried up, thereby the complainant suffered loss and mental agony.

 

4. Thereafter the concerned government authorities made survey and declared 88 taluks of Kardnataka as draught area including chitradurga Taluka and District.  That inspite of several requests and issuance of legal notice the OPs have failed to pay compensation amount to the complainant.  As per the policy terms and conditions the OPs are bound to indemnify the failure of crops due to natural calamities, but the OPs failed to do so.  The act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence this complaint.

 

        5. After hearing on admission, the complaint was admitted and issued notices to OPs.  After service of notices, the OP.2 did not appear and hence placed ex-parte on 20.01.2021.  As per filing to memo of complainant dated:30.03.2021, this Hon'ble Commission deleted the OP.1.  Further, as per the I.A filed U/o. 1 Rule 10(2) R/w. 151 CPC dated:30.03.2021 OP No.3 came to be impleaded.  As per order of this commission, the complainant has filed amended complaint on 31.03.2021 and OP No.3 appeared through their counsel and filed written version, OP No.2 filed application U/O 9 rule 7 of CPC  along with Vakalath through there advocate, that application was allowed on payment of cost of Rs.100/-, version of OP No.2 is taken as nil.

 

6. The OP No.3 submitted in his version that, the complaint is not maintainable and complainant has not remitted the insurance amount through this OP No.3 on the contrary he had remitted the amount through CSC Centres, Bangalore.  The complainant has not made him as necessary party.  The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.  Since the OP No.3 has not collected insurance amount from complainant, there is no question of deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3.  It is true that the complainant is having SB A/C with OP No.3, the complainant is a loanee farmer and the complainant insured maize crop for the year 2018-19.  This OP is not aware that the crop is utterly failed due to rain.  This fact has to be provide by complainant.  Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost. 

 

7. The complainant got himself examined as P.W-1 by filing examination chief and also documents were got marked as Ex.A-1 to A-9 and closed his evidence.  OP No.2 has examined one Sri Nagalingachari, the divisional manager as D.W-2 and also documents were got marked as Ex.B-3.  The OP No.3 got himself examined by filing his examination in chief and documents have been marked as Ex.B-1 and B-2 and closed the evidence.  The complainant and OP.No.2 and 3 have filed their written arguments we have heard and perused the written arguments.

 

     8. The points that arise for our determination are;

 

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OPs?

2. Whether the complainant proves he has obtained and produced survey report for the loss incurred from the concerned department?

3. Whether the complainant proves that he is entitled for the relief sought?

4. What Order?

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

 

Point No.1 :-  In the negative

Point No.2 :-  In the negative   

Point No.3 :-  In the negative

Point No.4 :-  As per final order

 

                   :: REASON ::

 

        10. Point No.1: There is no dispute that the complainant being the owner and insured his Maize crops in bearing Sy.NO. 11/4 measuring 3 acres situated at Basthihally Villege, Bharamasagara Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk and District.  On 31/07/2018, the complainant has paid Rs.1214/- in cash vide challan No.0123 towards crop insurance premium amount to OP No.2 i.e., insurance company under PMBFY Scheme. As such the complainant became consumer of OPs. Due to failure of rain well in time results in complete failure of borewell water thereis complete failure of maize crop. Complainant suffered lot of financial loss and mental agony. The complainant got marked documents Ex.A-1 to A-9, Ex.A-1 is the RTC, Ex.A2 is Insurance premium paid receipt, Ex.A-4 and A-5 are copies of legal notice, Ex.A-6 to A-9 are postal receipts and acknowledgements. The OP No.3 has produced Ex.B-1 premium paid copy and Ex.B-2 bank statement of complainant. Even though the complainant has paid the Insurance premium of Rs.1,214/- to the OP No.3, to be payable to OP No.2. The complainant has not produced any supporting documents of area survey report, crop failure report and short rain fall report from the concerned departments in support of his claim. So, there is no deficiency in service by OP No.2 and 3. As such this commission considered the Point No.1 as Negative.

 

 

        11.Point No.2 & 3 :- The Hon’ble commission perused that the complainant and OP No.2 and 3, Chief affidavits, written arguments and supporting all documents, that the complainant has not made party of agriculture department and not  produced the survey report nor crop inspection report by the concerned department.

 

As per the citation of Hon’ble State Commission, Karnataka in the matter of ….. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited Vs C. Venkataramana and others Appeal Nos.1863 to 1870 of 2018 reported in 2022 (1) CPR 1 (Karnataka) “Complainants were covered under the Crop Insurance Scheme, on failure of rain & other related natural calamities, complainants have suffered loss- Amount unsettled – Complaint filed – OP’s were directed to pay Insured Amounts to the Farmers/Complainants-OP’s filed appeals against orders of District Commission.

 

       “Whether the Complainant/Farmers have furnished the required details with regard to the loss of their Insured Crop in their respective lands “Forum has not made efforts to get the Report with regard to the alleged loss of the Insured Crops assessed by the OPs. On examination of the records, we could not find any Report with regard to the loss of Crop submitted by the Government. In the absence of such particulars, awarding compensation by the District Commission/Forum on hypothetical basis cannot survive.  In order to award compensation on the basis of assessment of loss of crop suffered by each one of the Farmer/Complainant, some evidence is required”. Therefore, remanded to the district commission to re-consider afresh.

 

12. In view of the authority referred to above, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove that point No.2 & 3 in complainant favour. Hence the Point No.2 & 3 are answered in the Negative.

 

13. Point No.4: In view of the facts discussed Point No.1 to 3 and for the reasons stated therein we proceed to pass the following:

 

::ORDER::

       The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 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 02/05/2023)

 

 

 

     

  Sd/-                                            Sd/-                                      Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                      MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

 

Witness examined on behalf of Complainant:

 

PW-1: M.Kallappa S/o Late Machikere Kallappa, by way of affidavit evidence.

 

 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:-

 

01	Exhibit A-1	Certified Copy of RTC Sy No.11/4
02	Exhibit A-2	Pradhan Manthri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) dated:31/07/2018
03	Exhibit A-3	Certified Copy of C.D.C. Bank Pass Book dated:22/09/2021
04	Exhibit A-4	Copy of Legal notice
05	Exhibit A-5	Copy of Legal notice
06	Exhibit A-6	Registered Post acknowledgement dated:16/10/2020
07	Exhibit A-7	Registered Post acknowledgement dated:16/10/2020
08.	Exhibit A-8	Post Acknowledgement dated:19/10/2020
09.	Exhibit A-9	Post Acknowledgement dated:19/10/2020

 

Witness examined on behalf of OP No.2 :

 

DW-1: Nagalingachari S/o K.M.Thyarachamallachar by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Documents marked on behalf of OP No.2:

 

01

Exhibit B-3

Samrakshane online copy of dated:09/03/2023

 

Witness examined on behalf of OP No.3:  

 

DW-2: Sri Shivakumar S/o B.M.Shanthaveerappa by way of affidavit evidence

 

Documents marked on behalf of opponent No.3:-

 

01	Exhibit B-1	Certified copy of PMFBY Insurance application No.1027409
02	Exhibit B-2	Certified copy of Chitradurga D.C.C bank statement summary dated:26/04/2021

 

      Sd/-                                            Sd/-                                      Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                      MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

 

 

 

GM*