Complaint filed on: 21-02-2021

                                                      Disposed on: 12-12-2022

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

DATED THIS THE 12^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

PRESENT

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LLB., MBA., MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., LLB. (Spl)., LADY MEMBER

CC.No.53/2022

Sri, Eswaraiah S/o Basavegowda,

A/a 76 years, Anekatte Village,

Kasaba Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli

Taluk, Tumkur District.

……………….Complainant/s

(By Smt/Sri. D.H.Sanjeev, Adv.)

                                                V/s                             

1.       The Manager,

Agriculture Insurance Company

Of India Limited,

3^rd Floor, C/o Karnataka

Pradesh Krishi Samaj, No.18,

Nrupatunga Road,

Corporation Circle,

Bangaluru-560 001.

2.       The Manager, State Bank of India,

          Huliyaru Branch,

          Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk,

          Tumakuru District.

……………….Opposite Party/s

(OP1 By Sri. Mohamed Afroze Ahamed, Adv.,)

(OP2 By Sri. C.N.Krishnamurthy, Adv.,)

:ORDER:

BY SRI.KUMARA.N., MEMBER

This complaint was filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, with a prayer to direct the OPs to pay total crop insurance amount of Rs.46,945.20 along with interest @ 18% from the date of legal notice issued by the complainant till realization.

2.       The Opposite Parties were, The Manager, Agriculture Insurance Company Of India Limited, 3rd Floor, C/o Karnataka Pradesh Krishi Samaj, No.18, Nrupatunga Road  Corporation Circle  Bangaluru-560 001, and  The Manager State Bank of India, Huliyar  Branch, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumakuru District. (Hereinafter called as OP Nos. 1 and OP No 2 respectively)

3. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant is an Agriculturist, having farming land of 07 acres, 27 guntas in survey No.12/P-P1 at Yerenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District and the OP No 1 created the awareness on crop insurance by doing campaign, in turn as per the direction/ advise of the OP No 1 / Insurance Company, the complainant  obtained  the crop insurance from the OP No 1 for the green gram crop grown in his said land by paying crop insurance premium of Rs.938.80 and the sum assured was Rs 46,945=20. The complainant further submitted that, due to bad season / weather the complainant sustained heavy crop loss, accordingly the OP No 1 /insurance company has to pay crop insurance amount of Rs.46,945=20, but the OP No 1 / Insurance Company has not paid the said amount though, the complainant approached the OP No 1, several times.  The complainant issued legal notice through his counsel asking the OP No 1 to pay the said crop insurance amount, but the OP did not turn up.  Hence, this complaint.     

4. After the service of the notice, the OP Nos. 1 & 2 appeared through their respective counsels.  But subsequently the OP No.2 did not filed version and affidavit evidence.

 4(a)  The OP No.1 in his version has contending that, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1, and Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana is being implemented in the Country under the orders of Government of India w.e.f. 07/10/2016 i.e. Kharif 2016 onwards.  The complainant has demanded for claim settlement in respect of Green gram pertaining to Kasaba Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District under Kharif for 2018 – 19. The OP No 1, submitted that, It is the specific case of insurer that as per the assessment made by the Nodal officers consisting of State Government department of Agriculture, Horticulture, Revenue, Insurer and other Authority, based on weather factors / Rain fall, said authority, decides and fix the crop insurance payable to the farmers after conducting crop cutting experiments, accordingly actual loss suffered by the farmers in respect of crop raised in their lands, the insurer directly crediting the compensation / crop insurance amount to the farmers account through Aadhar enabled payment service (AEPS), accordingly in this, as such there was no shortfall in the yield in respect of the green gram crop, the OP No 1 is not liable to pay the insured amount to the complainant with respect to the green gram crop. As such there was no deficiency on the part of OP No 1 / insurance company and asked to dismiss the complaint. 

5.       The complainant filed his affidavit evidence. One Mr.Praveen Kumar B.R. Deputy Manager of OP No 1 filed affidavit evidence. The OP No.2, not filed the version and affidavit evidence.  Complainant and OP No 1 counsels, produced some copies of documents, but not marked the same.

6.       We have heard the arguments from counsel for Opposite Party No.1.  In spite of sufficient opportunities and imposed cost of Rs 500-00, the complainant and the OP No.2 not advanced their arguments, hence, posted for orders. The points that would arise for determination are as here under:

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

2. Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for?

3. What order  ?

7.       Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1:  in the negative

Point No.2:  in the negative

Point No.3: As per the final order

:REASONS:

8. The OP No 1 counsel argued that, the OP No 1,received the premium of Rs 938=90 from the complainant towards green gram crop insurance under PMFBY, and as per the scheme, the  assessment made by the authority, for the period 2018-19, there was no shortfall in yield of green gram crop in that particular area, hence there is no claim pending to be settled as per scheme, and prayed to dismiss the complaint against the OP No 1,The OP No 1,counsel produced Copy of the Operational guidelines and other relevant documents.

9. In this case the complainant in his complaint stated as insured crop was Green gram in survey No.12/P-P1 which was situated at  Yerenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk,Tumkur district, ( Copy of the insurance view proposal produced by the complainant), on contrary the copy of the RTC of said survey number, crop recorded was coconut and period was 2019-20.

10.     The complainant counsel produced copy of legal notice, postal receipts / acknowledgements, copy of OP No 2 reply to legal notice dated 03-01-2022, Copy of crop insurance view proposal, and Copy of RTC of Survey number 12/P-p1 for the period 2019-2020. Copy of Adhar.

11. By considering the above discussion in our view the complainant not proved any deficiency on the part of OPs, Hence, we proceed to pass the following;

The complaint against OPs (OP No 1 and OP No 2) is dismissed with no costs

 Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite parties at free of cost.