Karnataka
Chitradurga
CC/343/2019
Smt. Vanajakshamma W/o K.B. Kenchappa - Complainant(s)
Versus
The Manager, Axis Bank - Opp.Party(s)
Sri.S.G.Dileepkumar
01 Jul 2023
ORDER
COMPLAINT FILED ON: 18/05/2019
DISPOSED ON: 01/07/2023
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.
CC.NO:343/2019
DATED: 1st July 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/S |
The Complainants No.1 to 4 are Agriculturists R/o Sondekere at post, Aimangala hobli, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga Dist.
(Rep. by Advocate Sri. S.G.Dileep Kumar)
| ||
V/S | |||
OPPOSITE PARTY/S |
| ||
:JUDGEMENT:
Order Delivered by Hon’ble President, Kum. H.N. MEENA.
The complainant filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opponents. The complainant has prayed for direct to pay the insurance premium assurance amount of Rs.4,76,969.60/- and also Rs.3,00,000/- towards mental shock, agony and pain, and deep sorrow Rs.2,00,000/- towards great financial loss incurred by the complainants to get the good crops in all total sum of Rs.9,76,969/- together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. till the date of payment of admissible policy amount. And to grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble commission deems to grant in the circumstances of the above case in the interest of justice.
2. BRIEF FACTS OF CASE:
The complainants submits in his complaint that, the complainant having agriculture land bearing Sy.No. 38 measuring 17 acres, 6 guntas, including Kharab of 21 guntas, situated at Jodipura Village, Aimangala hobli, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga Dist. The said land property is the ancestral and joint family property of the complainants 1 to 4. Said land is the block soil irrigated land having 4 borewell the complainants are growing sunflower, onion, cotton, Jawar and other commercial crops during the year 2016-17 the complainants are sowing the onion seeds to the above said land and invested huge amount of Rs.05 Lakhs towards purchase of onion seeds, manure and fertilizer and chemicals and labour charges cultivation to grow more onion crop and get more income from the above said onion crop if the complainants are succeeded in getting good onion crop, the complainants are getting more than 20,00,000/- from the above said onion crop.
3. The complainant No.2 having the S.B. Account under the opponent no.1 having S.B. Account bearing no.916010005190624 getting crop loan amount for sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from the opponent no. 1 and the OP No.1 credited to the loan amount to the complainant No.2 loan account no.916030006734322 under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bhima Yojana (PMFBY) and the OP No.1 firstly remitted sum of Rs.23,847-48/- to the complainant No.2 loan account, and the same is credited to complainant loan account dated: 5/7/2016 and the said loan insurance amount tied with the OP. No.2 TATA-AIG general insurance Co, and OP No.2 received the loan amount, and OP No.2 assured to pay sum of Rs.4,76,949-60/-in case of crop is destroyed due to natural calamities, and non-falling of the rain well in time, caused draught arises, and due to incurable disease arises to get good crop in that area other reasons. For that, OP. No.2 issued the acknowledgement bearing no.UTIB001019-1017769 for the year 2016-17.
4. The complainant further submits in the complaint that the complainants sowing the said onion seeds in good whether condition, anticipate that the rain was fallen well in time, then the said crops are grown up very well, due to non-fallen of the rain well in time, due to draught there is insufficient of water, and bore well water also completely stopped due to said reason the complainants are unable to get good water sources, lower water sources from the borewell and complete failure of the rain, the existing onion crop completely dried thereby the complainants are suffered lot, put into great mental shock, agony and pain, deep sorrow, and the complainants are put into great financial loss, loss of their earnings, and they are facing very hard-days, The complaints expectation are completely spoiled due to non-fallen of the rain well in time.
5. Then the concerned revenue authorities like Department of agriculture, Horticulture, revenue authorities and others after survey entire region, of Karnataka state, and declared that 88 taluks are fallen under draught area including the area of Hiriyur taluk, Chitradurga District is one among them . For that when the farmers are paid the premium under the above said scheme in Chitradurga District, the OP No.1 had paid the policy assurance insurance admissible amount to the farmers to their loan account, who are all effected to grow more crops due to draught condition. But some areas of Hiriyur taluk the farmers have not received the insurance admissible assured amount, why the OP have not paid the assured amount under the above said schedule to the complainants and others even to this date, thereby the complainants are awaiting to receive the admissible policy amount, but even to this date, the complainants are not received any amount even to this date, all the efforts made by the complainants are went in vain. Further the OPs have collected the more than crores of rupees from the farmers and assured them to pay the amount in case of failure of crops due to natural calamities’ but the OPs have failed to pay the assured insurance amount, to the complainants, and other famers even to this ate, this is against the principle of natural justice.
6. Due to nonpayment of the insurance admissible amount and give necessary particulars about the nonpayment of the sum assured, then the complainants are requested and demanded the OPs orally, on several times, in spite of the same they have neither paid the assured amount to the complainants nor give proper reply to the complainants well within time. The complainants are got issued legal notice to the OPs through their Advocate by RPAD dated: 5/9/2018 the said notice was served to the OPs necessary office copy of the legal notice and acknowledgement are herewith filed. As per the policy terms and conditions issued by the opponents to the complainants the opponents have liable to pay insurance assured admissible amount of compensation of Rs.4,76,969.60/-
7. That opponents have bound to indemnify the failure of crops due to natural calamities and to pay the benefit claims to the complainants without delay even the matter immediately impact with them. The opponents never discharged their deliberate service by the deficiency of the service of the OPs. The complainants have demanded and requested the opponents to settle the claim and submitted the application that the opponents without any valid, bonafide and reasonable grounds repudiate the claim the complainant’s sustained financial loss and without reasonable ground opponents have refused the claim hence this complaint.
8. After registered the complaint, notice issued by this Hon’ble Commission was served to the opponents. OP No.1 and 2 appeared through its counsels. Wherefore, opponent No.1 and 2 have filed their versions.
9. The opponent No.1 stated in the version that
10. The opponent No.2 stated in the version that the allegations of the complaint in para No.1 to 14 are which are not specifically admitted in this version all hereby denied as false.
11. The averments made in para No.3, OP-2 submits that averments related to the fact that, complainant No.2 has an SB account in OP No.1 bank and he has obtained a loan of Rs.8,00,000/- and opposite party No.1 and opponent No.2 have collected insurance premium towards PMFBY scheme and collected premium of Rs.23,847/- and insured value of the policy was Rs.4,76,949.60/- from the complainant towards crop insurance premium to the OP No.1 Bank and these are a matter of record and need to reply.
12. The averments made in para No.4 to 7 it is submits that, the answering respondent was not aware of the fact that, Jodipura Village, Imangala Hobli, Hiriyur Taluk Region did not receive adequate rainfall and there was a drought in the region and the onion crops were failed and the complainants have to suffer severe loss due to crop failure and also as per the Govt. survey there was entire crop loss and around of Jodipura village, Imangala Hobli, Hiriyur Taluk. It is submitted that the Govt. has implemented the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yozana to the farmers who were facing huge loss due to inconsistent weather conditions. The said Policy which covers risk due to Minimum Rainfall or no rainfall in the cover period and as per the parameters.
13. However it is submitted that the eligibility of the farmer for insuring his crop is governed by the rules and regulations of the policy and only on fulfilling the required criteria and acceptance of the application, the risk covered during the period of policy becomes payable as per operational Guidelines and Govt. Notification on the happening of parameters laid down in it. It is submitted that as per notification any loss occurred due to local calamity, then loss should be intimated immediately. That as per the guidelines channel of reporting, Intimation may be given within 48 hours by farmer either directly to the insurance company, concerned bank, local agriculture department government/district officials or through toll free number to the insurance company. First mode of intimation will be centralized toll free number. In absence of such as facility, the report can be given to banks or Government officials and the same would be forwarded/intimation to the insurance company immediately. Subsequently, it is further submitted that as per the government guidelines assessment of claim amount is on the basis of the loss assessed data (on the basis of CCEs conducted by government) submitted by the government to Insurance Company. On submission of same data actual yield was recorded as 19960.00 kg/Ha whereas threshold yield was recorded as 7896.42 kg/Ha. As actual yield was recorded more than threshold yield then there was no shortfall for the insurance unit of complaint. As there was no shortfall then also complainant’s claim becomes not admissible for Yield/CCE based payment.
14. The complainant have to produce documents like shortage of rainfall which will be issued by the survey department to know the actual shortfall of the rain and also the complainant has to produce data towards Samrakshane Portal for enrollment and also for claim settlement purpose and in that it will be mentioned the actual and correct information and claim amounts are lodged in ID of Samrakshana Portal. Until and unless they have not produced the Hon’ble Court cannot allow the complaint since on the basis of Samrakshana Portal itself, each and every insurance company has to settle the claim towards loss of insurance. Hence, at this opponent No.2 prays for dismissal of the complaint.
15. The complainant No.2 has examined as PW-1 and the documents were got marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-5 and the opponent-1 has examined as DW-1 and the documents were marked as Ex
B-1 to Ex.B-4. And opponent-2 has examined as DW-2 and the no documents were marked. Closed the evidence on both side parties. Heard the arguments.
16. Now, the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaint are that:
- Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency of service on the part of OPs, on account of not settling the claim of complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the complaint?
- What order?
14. 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:
15. We have gone through the pleading of complaint and documents submitted by the both parties. The complainant examined as PW-1 and got marked documents as Ex.A-1 to 5 i.e., Ex.A-1 is RTC copy, Ex.A-2 is Proposal form (PMFBY), Ex.A-2(a) is Proposal form (PMFBY), Ex.A-3 is Acknowledgement (PMFBY), Ex.A-4 is Legal Notice dated 05/09/2018, Ex.A-5 is Postal receipts and Acknowledgements. OP-1 examined as DW-1 and got marked documents Ex.B-1 to B-4 i.e., Ex.B-1 is Proposal form (PMFBY), Ex.B-2 is Acknowledgement (PMFBY), Ex.B-3 and 4 are Axis Bank Statement of Sri S.K.Shivamurthy, A/c: 916030006734322 and the opponent No.2 examined as DW-2 and no documents were marked.
16. The crux of the matter in the present case is whether the complainant has been able to prove any deficiency of service on the part of OPs, on account of not settling the claim of complainants in their complaint. In the present case, the complainant has sown onion crop in the above land in the year 2017-18 with a huge investment and under PMFBY the premium for the said crop is Rs. 10,329.66/- paid. The complainants have suffered huge loss in crop yield in their lands covering Hiriyur taluk area, they urged the OPs for insurance claim, which they are postponing despite getting legal notices in this regard.
17. The OPs contended that the complainant have to produce documents like shortage of rainfall which will be issued by the survey department to know the actual shortfall of the rain and also the complainant has to produce data towards Samrakshane Portal for enrollment and also for claim settlement purpose and in that it will be mentioned the actual and correct information and claim amounts are lodged in ID of Samrakshana Portal. As per the government guidelines assessment of claim amount is on the basis of the loss assessed data (on the basis of CCEs conducted by government) submitted by the government to Insurance Company. On submission of same data actual yield was recorded as 19960.00 kg/Ha whereas threshold yield was recorded as 7896.42 kg/Ha. As actual yield was recorded more than threshold yield then there was no shortfall for the insurance unit of complaint. As there was no shortfall then also complainant’s claim becomes not admissible for Yield/CCE based payment.
18. The same similar case is CC/342/219, Order dated: 28/04/2023 ordered in this Commission, the document submitted by the opposite party will be applicable to this case, accordingly the Proceedings of the Government of Karnataka, Government Order No.KRUEI/75/KRUKAIU/2017, Bengaluru, Dated 29/08/2017 in the said order as follows….
For reasons mentioned in the preamble, the provision for prevented/failed sowing and prevented planting/germination claims is hereby invoked for the Gram Panchayaths of Hiriyur and Challakere taluk for the “Groundnut (RF) crop”, Chitradurga taluk for the Maize (RF) crop and Hiriyur taluk for the Sunflower (RF) crop of Chitradurga District during Kharif 2017. That the Complainant’s Grama Panchayath area is coming under the said Guidelines for the crop of Ground nut, and not an Onion and hence the complainant is not entitled for the crop Insurance.
19. 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”
20. In view of the authority referred to above, we are of the considered opinion that the complainants has failed to prove that point No.2 - 3 in their favour. 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. It is the case of the complainant that the claim was not settled till now. Admittedly, the complainant did not specifically mention the particulars regarding the yielding and the percentage of loss, which he had suffered. The OP said that as per data given by Govt. there is no losing of crops in the said village in the year 2017 and further stated that on verification of application of complainant, they found that, CCE yield is higher than the threshold yield, hence there is no crop loss of the former and no claim is reflected in the portal. In view of the above, and according to the guidelines of NAIS there is no liability in payment of crop insurance amount to complainant on the part of OPs as alleged. Hence the Point No.1 and 2 is answered in the Negative. The complaint is devoid of merits and needs to be rejected. Hence the following.
21. 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 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 1st July 2023.)
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
-:ANNEXURES:-
Witness examined on behalf of Complainant:
PW-1:- S.K. Shivamurthy S/o Late Kenchappa, by way of
affidavit of evidence.
Witness examined on behalf of opponents:
OP-1 DW-1: Sri Umesh Rathod S/o Megharaj, by way of affidavit of
evidence.
OP-2 DW-2: Sri Yallappa B.P. S/o Puttanaik, by way of affidavit of
evidence.
Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:
01 | Ex-A-1:- | RTC copy |
02 | Ex-A-2:- | Copy of Proposal form-UTIB0001019-171063 |
03 | Ex-A-2(a):- | Copy of Proposal form-UTIB0001019-1017769 |
04 | Ex-A-3:- | Copy of Proposal form-UTIB0001019-1017769 Acknowledgement |
05 | Ex-A-4:- | Copy of Legal Notice dated 05/09/2018 |
05 | Ex-A-5:- | Postal receipts and Postal acknowledgement |
Documents marked on behalf of opponent No.1:
01 | Ex-B-1:- | Copy of Proposal form-UTIB0001019-1017769 |
02 | Ex-B-2:- | Copy of Proposal form-UTIB0001019-1017769 Acknowledgement |
03 | Ex-B-3:- | Bank Statement dated 10/09/2016 and 09/09/2017 |
04 | Ex.B-4:- | Bank Statement dated 12/09/2015 and 10/09/2016 |
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
*GM.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.