Karnataka

Kolar

CC/28/2018

Krishnamurth C - 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. 28 OF 2018

Sri. Krishnamurthy.C,

S/o. Chinnappa Gownder,

Aged About 42 Years,

Kangandlahalli Village,

Kyasamballi Post,

Bangarpet Taluk,

Kolar District-563 121.                                                     ….  COMPLAINANT.

(In-person)

 

- V/s –

(1) The Manager, Universal Sompo General

Insurance Company, K.V Samrat

Building, Kasturinagar, 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,

State Bank Of India,

K.G.F, Kolar District.

(Rep. by Sri.Kusuma Krishnamurthy, Advocate)           …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

 

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, PRESIDENT,

01.   The complainant in-person having submitted this complaint  Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for issuance of directions to Ops to get the crop insurance claim amount with interest @ 18% per annum Rs.30,000/- towards compensation, Rs.10,000/- for his health problem he suffered and cost of Rs.5,000/- against OPs.

 

02.   The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that, being an agriculturist, under the reference of OP No.2 he had availed crop insurance under “Pradana Mantri Fasal Bhima Yojane” for the Mango crop grown in the land bearing Sy. No.72/2, 73/3  situated at Kanchimittahalli Village, for the year 2016-2017 and paid premium amount of Rs.10,430/- towards the said insurance crop at State Bank Of India on 04.04.2016.  During the said period there was no rain in Kolar District, he totally suffered loss of the said crop.  The complainant approached Ops for several times for insurance claim and they did not respond, he along with other farmers approached Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, on 13.09.2018 and given representation, the same was also goes in vain.  So contending, 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 appeared through their counsel and submitted their written version.  The contention of OP No.1 is that, there is no cause of action to file this complaint as the complainant has not issued or given any notice to this OP.  This OP No.1 has mainly contended that, as per the complainant’s application bearing No.50407 it was not forwarded to Insurance company by the Banker and hence this OP is not liable to pay any claim as the application is still within banker login and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

 

04.   The contention of OP No.2 is that, as per the Karnataka Government order vide No.ThoEe/38/KruUE/2014, Bengaluru dated: 15.05.2016 this OP has issued the paper advertisement dated: 30.06.2016 to inform the farmers to avail the insurance through their respective bank accounts apart from this there is no any other part of this OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

05.   This OP No.3 admitting the receipt of premium amount of Rs.10,430/- from the complainant and has insured Mango crops for the year 2016-2017 under application bearing No.50407 in respect of Sy Nos. 72/2 and 73/3 of Kanchimittahalli Village to an extent of two acres of land.  Accordingly this OP No.3 has visited the land of the complainant bearing Sy. No.72/2 & 73/3 of Kanchimittahalli and collected the premium amount and sent the same to OP No.1 under Samrakshne online.  The particulars of the proposal is available in “Samrakshane the Site” and it is for the OP No.1 to verify the same under the said site.  There is no necessity for the OP No.3 to send further particulars to OP No.1.  In view of the same there is no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  The OP No.3 has produced Xerox copy of View Proposal of complainant.

 

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

(i) Two Copies of RTC Extract pertaining to Sy. No.73 & Sy No.72.

(ii) View Proposal Copy

(iii) Copy of Aadhar Card

(iv) Copy of Bank Pass-book

(v) Copy of voter ID

 

07.   One Sri. Vinay Kumar.M, Executive of OP No.1 has filed sworn affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief and submitted below mentioned documents:-

(i) Letter dt. 20.12.2017 by the company to SLBC for having not entered in Samrkshane Portal.  That the proposal is pending at bank level.

 

08.   OP No.2 has filed a Memo dated: 25.07.2018 praying to adopt the version as its evidence and written arguments.

 

09.   One Sri. Amith Kumar, S/o. Late Sakal Deep Singh, Manager of OP No.3-Bank has filed affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief.

 

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

 

11.   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:-   Whether the complainant is entitled for the compensation?

 

POINT NO.4:-   What order?

 

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

POINT (1):-      In the Affirmative

 

POINT (2):-      In the Negative

 

POINT (3):-      In the Negative

 

POINT (4):-      As per the final order

for the following:-

REASONS

13.   POINT No.1:-  The OP No.1 has contended that, there is no cause of action to file this complaint as the complainant has not issued any notice to this OP No.1.  On perusal of pleadings of complainant this complainant has clearly pleaded as, he is an poor agriculturist and he approached Ops several times by requesting Ops to settle the claim and the Ops have not responded.  On 13.09.2018 he along with other farmers approached Deputy Commissioner, Kolar and it went in vain and he did not get any positive response and he approached this Forum.  The above said facts discloses about the cause of action for the complaint.  Hence the contention of OP No.1 that, there is no cause of action for the complaint is not sustainable and it goes in vain and accordingly we answer Point No.1 is in the Affirmative.

 

14.   POINT NOs. 2 & 3:- These points are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts and reasonings.  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 facts and circumstances of each case.  The OP No.1 has also produced copy of the document dated: 20.12.2017 i.e.,

“XVII. Important Conditions/Clauses Applicable for Coverage of Risks:-

1. Insurance companies should have received the premium for coverage either from bank, channel partner, insurance intermediary or directly.  Any loss in transit due to negligence by these agencies or non-remittance of premium by these agencies, the concerned bank/intermediaries shall be liable for payment of claims.”

 

but herein in this case on hand 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 in that regard OP No.1 has produced proposer data with respect to complainant’s application No.50407.  The complainant has also produced the said document and so also Samrakshane Check Status.  Hence the said argument of OP No.1 is also goes in vain.

 

15.   Now it is relevant to state here that, on perusal of the complaint it reveals that, the complainant has paid the premium amount with respect to Sy No.72/2 and 73/3, but he has not produced the RTC extract to that effect.  Further OP No.3 has also taken up the said contention that, the complainant has insured for Sy No.72/2 and 73/3 to an extent of 02 acres under application bearing No.50407 for Mango crop, but the complainant has not stated about the extent of insured land and in that regard there are some contradictions.  On perusal of proposer data Sy No.72 is to an extent of 02 acres 35 guntas and Sy No.73 is to an extent of 04 acres, but the complainant has not stated the extent of Sy No.72/2 and 73/3 and in that regard the complainant has not produced any document to that effect with respect to extent of sub number of the said two survey numbers. Hence as stated above the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and the complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no any deficiency of service on the part of the Ops.  Hence as discussed above the complainant has failed to prove the above said points and accordingly we answer these points are in the Negative.

 

POINT (4):-

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

ORDER

01.   The complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

 

02.   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