Karnataka

Kolar

CC/33/2018

Geetha.N - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Sompo General Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

29 Sep 2018

ORDER

Date of Filing: 02/04/2018

Date of Order: 29/09/2018

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 29^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL, LLB.,  ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 33 OF 2018

Smt. Geetha.N,

W/o. Manjunatha S.V,

Aged About 30 Years,

Srinivasasandra Village,

Bangarpet Taluk,

Kolar District-563 121.                                            ….  COMPLAINANT.

(In-person)

 

- V/s -

1) The Manager,

Universal Sompo General Insurance

Company, K.V. Samrat Building,

Kasthuri Nagara, Bangalore.

(Rep. by Sri. B. Kumar, Advocate)

 

2) The Deputy Director,

Horticulture Department,

D.C. Office Premises,

Kolar.

(Rep. by Sri M. Lokesh Murthy, Advocate)

 

3) The Manager,

Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank,

Rajapet Road, J.K. Puram,

Bangarpet Taluk,

Kolar District.

(Rep. by Sri. N.G. Vasudev Moorthy, Advocate)                     …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, PRESIDENT,

01.   The complainant in-person has filed this complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for issuance of directions to Ops to pay claim amount of Rs.22,983.75 paisa with interest @ 18% per annum and compensation of Rs.30,000/- and for her health problem she suffered Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/-.

 

02.   The brief facts of the complainant case is that, she being an agriculturist, under the reference of OP No.2 she had availed crop insurance under “Pradana Mantri Fasal Bhima Yojane” for the Mango crop grown in the land bearing Sy. No.148 situated at Srinivasasandra Village, during 2016-2017 premium amount of Rs.3,830.63 paisa towards the said insurance was paid at Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank (PKGB).

 

(a)    During the said period since there was no rain in Kolar District she had lossed the crops and she approached Ops for several times for insurance claim and they did not reply she along with other farmers have approached Deputy Commissioner of Kolar District, the same is also goes in vain. The complainant has come up with this complaint by seeking the above set-out reliefs.

 

03.   In response to the notice issued by this Forum, Ops have put in their appearance and submitted their written version.

(a)    The contention of OP No.1 is that, there is no cause of action to file this complaint since the complainant has not issued or given any notice to this OP and further mainly contended that, as per the complainant’s application No.57971 the bank branch account details are not updated in Samrakshane Portal.  As per State Government Agriculture department this OP has to remit claim to the concerned bank branch in case of wrong account detail of the farmer updated in samrakshne.  As of now, these bank branches did not update their account detail and if the banks had failed to perform its role in accordance with scheme norms, the complainant at best can proceed against banks and not against this OP-insurance company.  There is no deficiency of service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

 

(b)    The contention of OP No.2 is that, as per the Karnataka Government order vide No.ThoEe/38/KruUE/2014, Bengaluru dated: 15.05.2018 this OP has issued the paper advertisement dated: 30.06.2016 to inform the farmers to avail the insurance through their respective bank accounts and apart from this there is no any other part of this OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

(c)    The contention of OP No.3 is that, the averments made in the complaint are not within the knowledge of this OP No.3 and there is no any premium amount brought by the complainant of his account in this OP No.3 branch and the OP No.3 is no way concern and not a necessary party and there is no any claim or settlement by the OP No.1 and no insurance policy amount was settled by the OP No.1 nor credited to the OP No.3 and there is no deficiency in service on their part. This OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

04.   The complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief and also submitted below mentioned documents:-

(i) Copy of RTC extract of Sy No.148

(ii) Check status issued by Samrakshane NIC Digital India (ii) Copy of Insurance and Proposer Data

(iv) Copy of Aadhar Card

(v) Copy of Bank Pass-Book.

 

 

05.   One Sri. Vinay Kumar.M, Executive of OP No.1 has sworn the affidavit evidence on behalf of OP No.1 by way of examination-in-chief and no documents were filed.

 

06.   OP No.2 has filed a Memo dated: 25.07.2018 praying to adopt their version as its evidence and written arguments.  No documents were filed.

 

07.   Heard arguments of complainant and the learned counsel appearing for Ops too.

 

08.   Now the points that do arise for our consideration are:-

POINT NO.1:-   Is there cause of action to file this complaint?

 

POINT NO.2:-   If so, is there deficiency in service on the part of Ops in complying the complainant’s claim of crop insurance?

 

POINT NO.3:-   If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the compensation?

 

POINT NO.4:-   What order?

 

09.   Our findings on the above stated points are:-

POINT (1):-      In the Affirmative

 

POINT (2):-      In the Affirmative as against OP No.1

                             And in the Negative as against OP Nos.2 & 3.

 

POINT (3):-      In the Affirmative as against OP No.1

only.

 

POINT (4):-      As per the final order

for the following:-

REASONS

POINTS (1) to (3):-

10.   These points are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts and reasonings.  We have perused the complaint, version and affidavit evidence submitted by both the parties so also the documents produced by the complainant.

 

(a)    The OP No.1 has contended that, there is no cause of action to file this complaint because the complainant has not issued any notice to this OP No.1.  On perusal of pleadings of complainant this complainant has clearly pleaded as, she approached Ops on several times by requesting Ops to settle the claim, when these Ops have not responded she along with other farmers approached Deputy Commissioner, Kolar and there also she did not get any positive response, and she approached this Forum. 

 

(b)    On perusal of the records, this complainant is an illiterate farmer.  Therefore we hold the pleadings of complainant is sustainable because we cannot except any documentary evidence for her visit to Ops because of her illiteracy.  Moreover consumer Forum mainly follows principles of natural justice. The documents produced by the complainant are admitted by the Ops.  Therefore from the above discussion we come to conclusion that, the said contention of OP No.1 that, there is no cause of action for the complaint is not sustainable and it goes in vain and there is a cause of action to file this complaint.

 

(c)    The counsel for OP No.1 has vehemently addressed his arguments with respect to documents produced by them and taking shelter under Class XVII (1) & (2) of Operational guidelines of Pradhana Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana and other documents.  The said documents are applicable depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, but here in this case on hand the said documents and the said provision as stated above are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.  As here in this case OP No.3 has remitted the premium to OP No.1, as per the document produced by OP No.3.  Hence the said arguments of OP No.1 is also goes in vain and OP No.1 cannot escape from the liability.  

 

(d)    On perusal of entire records of the case it is clear that, the complainant has paid premium from PKGB i.e., OP No.3 of her SB Account No.10920101003758 and OP No.3 remitted the said premium for the year 2016-2017 to OP No.1 i.e., insurance company.  On perusal of documents submitted by complainant i.e., Samrakshane Check status it is very clear that, the application was acknowledged by the insurance company on 02.09.2016 and on 21.07.2016 approved by the bank and forwarded to insurance company and the claim was approved towards application No.57971 of the complainant, the claim amount Rs.22,983.75 paisa has been approved with respect to Mango Crop and all the details clearly updated during 2016-2017 itself, then how come the OP No.1 contended as, the details not updated in the said portal.  It is bounded duty of OP No.1 to verify in the said portal but OP No.1 has failed to do so.  This shows the act of negligence in service on the part of OP No.1 Hence as discussed above, we hold OP No.1 has rendered deficiency in its service and liable to pay compensation and claim amount to the complainant with costs.  OP No.2 is the formal party to this adjudication we hold no liability on the OP No.2 and so also no liability on OP No.3.  Hence as discussed above we answer the above points accordingly.

 

POINT (4):-

11.   In view of the above discussions on Point (1) to (3) we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   The complaint is allowed with cost of Rs.500/- against OP No.1 and the same is dismissed as against OP Nos.2 & 3.  No costs.

 

02. OP No.1 is hereby directed to pay claim amount of Rs.22,983.75 paisa towards crop insurance application No.57971 to the complainant with compensation of Rs.5,000/- within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

 

03.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 29^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018)

 

 

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                PRESIDENT