Karnataka

Kolar

CC/32/2018

S.V.Manjunatha - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

10 Aug 2018

ORDER

Date of Filing: 02/04/2018

Date of Order: 10/08/2018

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

 

Dated: 10^th DAY OF AUGUST 2018

PRESENT

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

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

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 32 OF 2018

Sri. S.V. Manjunatha,

S/o. S.C. Venkateshappa,

Aged About 34 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,

Rajpet Road,

J.K.Puram, Bangarpet Taluk

Kolar District.

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

-: ORDER:-

BY SMT. A.C. LALITHA, LADY MEMBER,

01.   The complainant in-person having submitted this complaint as envisaged Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for issuance of directions to Ops to pay claim amount of Rs.20,256=75 and compensation of Rs.30,000/- and for his health problem he suffered Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/-.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is contention of the complainant 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.147 situated at Srinivasasandra Village, during 2016-2017, premium amount of Rs.3,376=13 towards the said insurance was paid at Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank.

 

(b)    And during the said period since there was no rain in Kolar District he had lossed the crop.  So he approached Ops for several times for insurance claim, since they did not reply he along with other farmers have approached D.C. of Kolar, this approach was also not useful.  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 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 mainly contended as, as per the complainant’s application No.57782 the bank branch account details are not updated in Samrakshane Portal.  As per state Government Agriculture department we have 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.  That 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.  So contending this OP No.1 has 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 apart from this there is no any other part of this OP.  Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

(c)    The contention of OP No.3 is that, by admitting the receipt of premium amount from the complainant and there is no any premium amount brought by the complainant of his account in this OP No.3 Bank and the OP No.3 is no way concerned and not a necessary party and there is no any claim or settlement by the OP No.1 and no insurance policy amount settled by the OP No.1 nor credited to OP No.3.  In view of the same there is no deficiency in service on the part of this OP thus 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.

(ii) Copy of Check status of Samrakshane NIC portal

(iii) Copy of Insurance and proposer data

(iv) Copy of Aadhar Card

(v) Copy of 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 the version of it as its evidence and written arguments too and 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.   To avoid repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time.

 

(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, he approached Ops several times by requesting Ops to settle the claim, when these Ops have not responded he along with other farmers also approached District Commissioner, Kolar.  There also he did not get any positive response, hence he 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 his visit to Ops because of his illiteracy.  Moreover consumer Forum mainly follows the natural justice and other documents of complainant is admitted by the Ops and also complied the claim of insurance.  Therefore from the above discussion we come to conclusion that, there is an cause of action to file this complaint.

 

(c)    On perusal of copy of Samrakshane Portal it reveals that, the complainant has paid premium at Kyasamballi Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank.  The complainant has made OP No.3 unnecessarily as party to this case.  He has not made any payment of premium from this OP No.3.  Therefore OP No.3 is unnecessary party to this case.

 

(d)    On perusal of entire records of the case it is clear that, the complainant has paid premium at PKGB they have remitted the said premium to OP No.1 i.e., insurance company.  In Samrakshane Portal it is very clear that towards application No.57782 the claim amount Rs.20,256.75, claim status – claim approved, actual amount paid Rs.20,256.75/- for mango crop 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 bound duty of OP No.1 to verify clearly in the said portal.  This shows act of negligence in service on the part of OP No.1.  Therefore we hold OP No.1 has rendered deficiency in its service and liable to pay compensation and claim amount to the complainant with costs.

 

POINT (4):-

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

ORDER

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

 

02. OP No.1 is herewith directed to pay claim amount of Rs.20,256.75/- towards crop insurance application No.57782 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 10^th DAY OF AUGUST 2018)

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                PRESIDENT