Karnataka

Gadag

CC/81/2018

Veeranagouda. K. Patil - Complainant(s)

Versus

The DC, Gadag and Others - Opp.Party(s)

C.V.Hiremath

01 Feb 2020

ORDER

ORDER

 

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SMT.SAMIUNNISA. C.H. PRESIDENT:

        This complaint is filed by the complainant against the OPs claiming certain reliefs by invoking Sec 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

          2.  The above complaint filed by the complainant, states that he had sowed Greengram and Maize crops etc., in 2016-17 in his land and insured for the Khariff Season yield and paid the premium.

         3.    The averments of the complaint in brief are:

       That the complainant has sowed Greengram and Maize crop in 2016-17 Khariff in his land bearing sy. No.36/1B measuring 3-13 Acres situated at Karkikatte and Bhopalapura villages, Hole-Alur Hobli and insured the same with Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., for the yield and paid the premium amount of Rs.1,291-58 in 2016-17 under PMFBY for a sum assured amount of Rs.64,579-20.  The said crops were good and healthy and the complainant hoped that he would get good yield from the above said crops for the said year.  It is further submitted that, the crop failed completely due to shortfall of rain. The complainant is a non-loanee farmer.  The Government has released the crop insurance amount to the farmers, but not released the insurance amount to the Panchayat limits of complainant.  The complainant approached the OP No.2 and requested to release the crop insurance, but it went in vain, which shows the deficiency in service.  The complainant enquired about the notice issued to the farmers of the surrounding area to conduct CCE with the OP No.1, but, OP No.1 gave evasive reply and told the complainant to take legal action against OP No.3.  The complainant is having an A/c with the OP No.2 and obtained the insurance by accepting all the conditions of OPs.  But the OPs have not conducted any experiments during 2016-17 Khariff Season.  The complainant has purchased the policy to the said year and eagerly waited to receive the crop insurance compensation for the total loss of the crops under the said scheme by all the OPs, but the complainant has not received the insured amount till today.  Therefore, the complainant got issued legal notice to the OPs on 11.06.2018 calling upon them to pay the insured amount, but the OPs have given evasive reply for the same.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 20.08.2018 when the OPs have given evasive reply to the notice.   Hence there is a deficiency in service and prayed to order the OPs to pay the total loss and damages of the crop for Rs.64,579-20 with interest @ 18% p.m, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and hardship and court expenses.

         4.   In pursuance of the notice issued by this Forum, the OPs appeared through their counsels.  OP No.2 and 3 filed their written version, but OP No.1 failed to file written version.

The brief facts of the Written Version of OP No.2:-

          5.  OP No.2 submits that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is frivolous and concocted.  It is submitted that, OP No.2 is a banking institution, and there is no agreement entered into with regard to the crop insurance.  OP No.2 received the crop insurance premium  from  the  complainant  for  the   2016-17  khariff  season  under  non-loanee farmer and sent the same to OP No.3   within   the   time   limit  as  an agent and it has no right to disburse the crop insurance amount.  Its duty is only to collect the premium amount and send the premium amount to OP No.3 insurance company, the right to disburse the insurance amount is with the No.3.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on their part in sending the crop insurance premium amount to OP No.2 and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

            The brief facts of the Written Version of OP No.3:-

        6.   OP No.3 stated that the above complaint is not maintainable both in law and also on facts as there is no deficiency of service on their part. The complainant has paid the premium to his crop as stated in his complaint under Acknowledgement No.KCC15019-371460 for Greengram and Maize crops.  It is further submitted that, the CCE yield is higher than the threshold yield, hence there is no crop loss of the farmer and hence, no claim is reflected in the portal.    The Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bhima Yojana is being implemented in the country under the orders of Government of India with an objective to provide insurance coverage and financial support to the farmers in the event of failure of any of the notified crop as a result of natural calamities.  The time lines for coverage, submission of yield data, price data etc., shall be decided by the SLCCI strictly keeping in mind the onset of monsoon, sowing period, crop cycle as per the operational guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bheema Yojana, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers welfare book mentioned.  Once the yield data is received from the State/UT Government as per the prescribed cut-off dates, claims will be processed, approved and settled by IA.  If the Actual Yield per hectare of the insured crop for the defined (on the basis of requisite number of crop cutting experiments (CCEs)) in the insured season, falls short of the specified that crop in the defined area deemed to have suffered shortfall in their yield. 

            Claim shall be calculated as per the following formula:

            Claim pay-outs= (Shortfall in Yield X Sum insured of the farmer

     Threshold Yield)

It is further submitted that, threshold yield and actual yield is to be entered by State Government in SAMRAKSHANE portal and this OP has only access to download the same and based on the entry in the said portal if a claim has been registered in that case it would be treated as admissible or inadmissible. The CCE yield is higher than the threshold yield, hence there is no crop loss of the farmer and hence, no claim is reflected in the portal.   The final claim is calculated as per the term sheet and the same is mentioned in the SAMRAKSHANE Portal which is maintained by the State Government.  The claims are settled as per the norms of PMFBY/WBCIS operational guidelines of Central Government for which all insurance companies are adhere to the policy and no further claims are admissible after the settlement.  The complainant has not produced any documents before this Forum that, the concerned authorities have declared the   above said  area  is  hit  by draught and not produced any documents  to show that, he has suffered heavy loss due to improper yielding of crops in his lands.  As per the data, there is no shortfall in the area claimed by the complainant and claims that the complainant is hiding the material facts and fraudulently claiming the undue amount and prays to dismiss the complaint.

            7.  The complainant filed Chief affidavit along with 06 documents.  On the other hand, the Manager of OP No.2 filed Chief Affidavit and Relationship Manager of OP No.3 filed chief affidavit and 02 documents have been produced.

    COMPLAINANT FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

	Particulars of Documents	Date of Document
	Record of Rights
	Proposal Form
	Aadhar Card
	Record of Rights
	Chief affidavit of District Statistical Officer, Gadag

 

OP No.3 FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

	Particulars of Documents	Date of Document
OP-1	Authorization letter
OP-2	Shortfall percentage Report

8.      On pursuance of the materials, placed by the complainant and OPs, the following points arises for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant have proved the deficiency in service

on the part of the OPs as averred in the complaint?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
3. What Order?

9.         Our findings to the above points are:-

Point No. 1:  Affirmative

Point No. 2:  Partially Affirmative

Point No. 3:  As per the final Order

R E A S O N S

             10.  POINT NO.1 AND 2:  Both the points are inter-linked and identical. Hence we proceed both the points together.

 11.      The Complainant filed this Complaint against the OPs for claiming crop insurance 2016-17 on failure of weather.

 12.      The Complainant/s submits that they have insured their crops with OP’s in the year 2016-17 for the Maize and Greengram crops for Khariff season in the PMFBY which is Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme. The Complainant/s on good faith and for protection of their crop as per publications and advice of OPs insured their crop dry land bearing sy. No.36/1B measuring 3-13 Acres situated at Karkikatte and Bhopalapura villages, Hole-Alur Hobli and insured the same with Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., for the yield and paid the premium amount of Rs.1,291-58 in 2016-17 under PMFBY for a sum assured amount of Rs.64,579-20.   In this year, Complainant/s experienced less rain and suffered loss, but OPs failed to deposit the insurance amount in the Complainant/s account.  Meantime, the Complainant/s approached OP No.1, but OP No.1 failed to deposit the claim amount.  Hence, Complainant/s submits that they have not got the claim amount from the OPs. On the other hand, OP No.1 submits that as per the Scheme Conditions, the calculation is on the formula of threshold yield i.e., mainly based on the CCE and submits that, this complainant is not entitled for the claim as reflected in the SAMRAKSHANA Portal that the CCE yield is higher than the threshold yield and in Khariff 2016-2017 PMFBY and WBCIS is governed by the term sheet designed by the State Government which has triggers of deficit rainfall, dry days and excess rainfall etc.

13. OP No.2 submits that, they have acted as a mediator between the OP No.3 and complainant and after receiving the premium amount, entire total premium amount had been transferred to OP No.3. 

14.       On-going through the records on file, it is an undisputed fact that complainant/s has insured his crops with OP No.3 and it is also undisputed fact that they have received the premium amount from the complainant/s as well as the Government that means OP No.3 received entire premium amount from the complainant/s. The disputed fact is that OPs are not paid the sum assured amount in spite of loss occurred to the complainant as per the complaint.    We have to discuss clearly about the scheme to conclude the case as per the pleadings of the complaint and OPs as stated supra.   

15.       The OP No.3 i.e., insurance Company taking defence that in this field, there is no  shortfall of yield as per the SAMRAKSHANA Portal which has been formed by the Government, it should be monitored by OP No.1 i.e., Deputy Commissioner and the Joint Director of Agriculture.  It is very much important to say that, the OP No.1 has not actively participated in the proceedings and not filed any written version to say that whether data in the Portal of SAMRAKSHANA is correct, to substantiate the same, they should have to place the documents before the Forum, it is the bounded duty of both OP No.1 to present before the Forum to say the truth.  The OP No.3 taken defence that the policy is only based on the CCE i.e., crop cutting experiment and actual yield and threshold yield will be calculated by taking CCE only and it is explained by them that, as per the SAMRAKSHANA there is no loss on yield.  Anyhow, complainant filed a document i.e., pertaining to the CCE which has been issued by Statistical Department, Gadag, the counsel for complainant made an IA to receive the document from the Statistical Department and summon the Statistical Officer before the Forum to depose the same in   C.C.No.39/2018   and   Advocate   for   the   complainant  filed certified copy of the

evidence of Statistical Officer, Gadag to prove their case,.  In this evidence, the witness (Statistical Officer) admitted some of the fact that, he received the report from their representative who made the CCE on the field and in question No.5 to 7, the answer given by the Statistical Officer is not acceptable and answered vaguely that they are not present in the field during the CCE.  Advocate for the complainant place a question that, the witness i.e, Dyamappa Malawad was died before 25 years.  In the CCE, this person is the witness for the same.  To this question, the Statistical Officer said that, he did not know about this matter.  Such being the fact, the CCE said to be done is not acceptable because it is not made properly as per the terms and condition of the policy. 

16.       It is clear in the policy that, the person who had made CCE should be a qualified and he should be experienced in the field.  If one made CCE by sitting in somewhere and issuedth3e same report that is the previous years CCE, then it is clear that, the OP No.1 vicariously liable for the act made by his agent.

17.       Such being the case, how the OP No.3 received the data from SAMRASKHANA portal that to be saying that there is no loss of yielding.  This document is a mirror to say that, the OPs are made some blunder mistake by filling the data.  The OP No.1 had taken action against the officer and the agent who made this mistake. 

18.       Anyhow, complainant also failed to produce the document stating that, the entire crop is vanished and it is also a bounded duty of the complainant also to produce the document is said that they sow the particular crop during 2016-17(Crop Yielding Certificate) from the concerned authority and in the RTC produced by the complainant there is no such crop is mentioned in the RTC.  While arguing the matter, the learned counsel for complainant submits that, the Revenue Department were not changed the crop after informing the same to the concerned authority and they leave the column of the crop as it is what it is in previous years.  Hence, the RTC is not at all changed.  Anyhow, the Forum comes to the conclusion that, the claim of the complainant is to be settled in a nonstandard basis.  Hence, we answer Point No.1 in Affirmative and Point No.2 in partly Affirmative. 

             19.  POINT NO. 3: In view of our findings on the above points, the complaints filed by the complainants are partially allowed. In the result, we pass the following: 

//O R D E R//

           1.  The above Complaint is partially allowed against OP No.1 & 3.

           2.   The OP No.3 is directed to pay 75% of the Sum Assured to Complainant/s within one month, failing which OP No.3 is liable to pay 18% interest from the date of filing this complaint till realization.

 

3.  OP No.1 are liable to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant/s towards compensation.  Further, OP No.3 is directed to pay litigation charges of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant/s.

4.  Complaint against OP No.2 is dismissed.

           5.  Send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

           (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 1^st day of FEBRUARY-2020)

 

                  (Shri B.S.Keri)                               (Smt.C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar)

                  MEMBER                                              PRESIDENT