Karnataka

Kolar

CC/74/2018

Sri.C.Nanjundappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sri.Srinivasa Gowda

30 Apr 2019

ORDER

Date of Filing: 04.09.2018

Date of Order: 30.04.2019

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

 

Dated: 30^th DAY OF APRIL 2019

PRESENT

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

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

C.C. NO. 74 OF 2018 IS COMBINED WITH C.C.NO. 75 OF 2018

C.C.NO.74 OF 2018

Sri. C.Nanjundappa,

S/o. Late Chikka

Venkataramaiah,

Aged About 65 Years,

R/at: Bangavadi Village,

Kasaba Hobli,

Srinivasapura Taluk.                                                  ….  Complainant.

(Rep. by Sri.Srinivasa Gowda, Advocate)

 

C.C.NO.75 OF 2018

Sri. Muneendra,

S/o. Late Chikka

Venkataramaiah,

Aged About 40 Years,

R/at: Bangavadi Village,

Kasaba Hobli,

Srinivasapura Taluk.                                         ….  Complainant.

(Rep. by Sri.Srinivasa Gowda, Advocate)

 

- V/s -

1) The Manager,

Universal Sompo General Insurance

Company Limited, No.217/A, 3^rd Floor,

K.V.V Samrat, 3^rd Main,

Outer Ring Road, Kasthuri Nagara,

Bangalore-560 043.

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

 

2) The Hon’ble Deputy Commissioner,

Kolar District, Kolar.

(OP-2 Deleted as per order dated: 18.09.2018)

 

3) The Manager,

SBI Bank, Rajarpalli Branch,

Srinivaspur Taluk, Kolar District.

(Rep. by Sri. N.G. Vasudev Moorthy, Advocate)                ….  Opposite Parties.

(In both the above cases)

                       

-:COMMON ORDERS:-

BY SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA,PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant in the above said two cases filed complaint against the OP Nos.1 to 3 and prays to direct the OPs to release the insured amount as awarded by the Government.  The complainant in C.C. No.74/2018 is entitled to Rs.38,600/- and compensation of Rs.30,000/- and the complainant in C.C. No.74/2018 is entitled to Rs.9,400/- and compensation of Rs.8,000/- and prays to allow the complaint in the ends of justice and equity.

 

 

02.   The brief facts of the above two cases are that, the complainants are the agriculturist and so also he used to raise seasonable crops.  In the year 2016 the complainant in C.C. No.74/2018 applied for crop insurance in the name and style of “Pradhana Manthri Pasal Bheema Yojana” for the year 2016-2017 with respect to Sy. Nos. 91/3 measuring 0-16 guntas, 91/2 measuring 0-15.08.00 guntas, 234/2 measuring 01 acre 31 guntas, 235/B measuring 0-34.08.00 guntas, 258/1 measuring 37 guntas and 257/3 measuring 0-20 guntas and the complainant has paid the insurance amount of Rs.1,500/- through his account to OP No.3 Bank and accordingly the complainant in C.C. No.75/2018 has paid 399/- as insurance amount on 21.07.2016, pertaining to Sy. Nos.90 measuring 01 acre 07 guntas through his account before OP No.3.  

 

02(a).       Further the Revenue Department and other authorized agents declared drought at Kolar district and also declared failure of Ragi crop due to natural defect and the Government has announced that, the farmers who have applied for crop insurance are entitled for the benefits of crop insurance and announced crop insurance award at Rs.8,000/- per acre and the same has been released to farmers.  The OPs released the insured amount to the beneficiary through farmers account, but they have not released the amount to the complainant and to other farmers.  The complainant approached OP No.1 and Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, to release the amount, but till today the insurance amount were not released to the complainant.  The complainants are the aged and poor farmer and their family entirely depending upon the agriculture and there is no any other source except the agriculture to lead their family life.  The complainant issued legal notice on 15.06.2018 and the same was served to the OPs.  OP No.1 has not given any reply and without any other option the complainant filed the above complaint for seeking the above set-out reliefs.

 

03.   In C.C.No.74/2018 the complainant has submitted following 10 documents:-

(i) The Legal Notice Copy – Annexure-C.1

(ii) Postal Acknowledgement – Annexure-C.1

(iii) Deputy Commissioner reply copy – Annexure-C.3

(iv) Horticulture Office letter copy – Annexure-C.4

(v) Copy of statement of account - Annexure-C.5

(vi) Copy of bank pass-book – Annexure-C.6

(vii) Copy of voter ID – Annexure-C.7

(vii) Copy of Application for insurance – Annexure-C.8

(viii) Copy of RTC (06 in numbers) – Annexure-C.9 to C.14.

(ix) Paper publication – Annexure-C.15

(x) Copy of View proposal copy – Annexure-C.16

 

04.   In C.C.No.75/2018 the complainant has submitted following 08 documents:-

(i) The Legal Notice Copy – Annexure-C.1

(ii) Original Bank Statement – Annexure-C.2

(iii) Deputy Commissioner reply copy – Annexure-C.3

(iv) Insurance application – Annexure-C.4

(v) Computerized RTC – Annexure-C.5

(vi) Copy of voter ID – Annexure-C.6

(vii) Horticulture Office copy – Annexure-C.7

(viii) Paper publication – Annexure-C.8

05.   In response to the notice issued by this Forum in both cases, OP Nos.1 & 3 have put in their appearance and submitted their similar written versions in both cases.

(a)    The OP No.1 has contended that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, there is no cause of action to file the complaint and there is no deficiency of service on the part of this OP.  This OP has narrated about the alleged scheme of “Pradhana Manthri Pasal Bheema Yojana” (PMPBY)  and this OP has specifically contended that, as per the complainant Aadhar No. 359816822211 in C.C. No.74/2018 and as per the complainant’s application No.275552 in C.C. No.75/2018, this OP has already paid the amount as entered in the portal to the complainant through the concerned Bank Branch and produced copy of the Bank account extract for making payment of the said amount to the complainant in the above said cases and copy of the samrakshna check status in C.C. No.75/2018 and prays to dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

 

(b)    The contention of OP No.3 is that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and same deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable.  This OP is not aware of the averments made in Para-2 of the complaint and with respect to para-3 the complainant has paid insurance amount of Rs.1,509=84 paise in C.C. No.74/2018 and the complainant in C.C. No.75/2018 has paid Rs.399=34 paise before this OP on their account and this OP is not liable to pay the insurance amount to the complainant.  The OP No.3 is not aware of the averments made at Para-4 to 7 of the complaint and there is no deficiency of service and prays to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

 

(c)    In both cases the OP No.3 has filed 03 documents:

 

1. Statement of accounts showing debit of insurance amount through complainant’s account number.
2. List of persons with their respective account number and the amount debited from their account
3. Copy of RTGS/NEFT/SBGRPT application form for having credited the insurance proceeds to the account of the 1^st OP at Corporation Bank, Mumbai.

06.   The counsel for complainant has filed affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief in both cases. One Sri. Bharath Raj Singh, Zonal Claims Manager, of OP No.1 has filed his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief in both cases. 

07.   On 27.03.2019 the counsel for complainant has filed Memo with copies of documents but which were already produced at the time of filing of complaints.

 

08.   On 16.04.2019 the counsel for OP No.1 has filed Memo for payment of the amount to the complainant in the above said cases.

09.   Heard arguments of the counsel for the complainant and OP Nos.1 & 3.

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

POINT NO.1:-   Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the OP Nos.1 & 3 in both cases?

 

POINT NO.2:-   Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in both the cases?

 

POINT NO.3:-   What order?

 

11.   Our findings on the above points are that:-

POINT (1) & (2):-      Are in the Negative

 

POINT (3):-      As per the final order

for the following:-

REASONS

12.   POINTS (1) & (2):-

These points are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts and reasonings.  Perused the complaint, version filed by OP Nos.1 & 3, affidavit evidence of complainant and OP Nos.1 & 3 and the documents produced in both the cases.  On perusal of the same it is an admitted fact that, the complainant in the above said two cases have taken two insurance policy under PMFBY scheme for the year 2016-2017. The OP in C.C. No.74/2018 has paid Rs.1,509=84 paise and the complainant in C.C. No.75/2018 has paid Rs.399=34 paise to OP No.1 through their Bank account of OP No.3 and had paid the insurance amount for the year 2016-2017 and to that effect the complainant has also produced copies of the documents and so also OP No.3.  The complainant has contended that, in the said year the Government has declared drought area on Kolar District and declared amount for those who paid the crop insurance and who sustained loss in the crop.  But the OP did not pay the amount to the complainants in spite of approaches made by them. The complainant in both cases has also produced documents to support their cases, but they have not produced Samrakshne Check Status to know about the actual amount payable to them.

 

13.   But on the other hand, OP No.1 has specifically contended that, the threshold yield and actual yield is to be entered by State Government in Samrakshne portal and as per the complainant’s Aadhaar number 359816822211 in C.C. No.74/2018 and as per the complainant application number 275552 in C.C. No.75/2018, OP No.1 has already paid the amount assessed, claimed and entered in the portal to the complainant through the concern bank branch and the copy of the same is produced.  On 16.04.2019 the counsel for OP No.1 has filed Memo in the above said cases and submitted that, a sum of Rs.3,108/- has been paid to the complainant’s account on 15.04.2017 in C.C. No.74/2018 and a sum of Rs.89/- has been paid to the complainant’s account on 15.04.2017 in C.C. No.75/2018 and prays to dismiss the complaint in the ends of justice and equity.  To support the said Memo OP No.1 has also produced Bank extract of the complainant in both the cases.

 

14.   On perusal of the above said fact as discussed above, it clearly goes to show that, the OP No.1 has paid a sum of Rs.3,108/- to the complainant in C.C. No.74/2018 and Rs.89/- to the complainant in C.C. No.75/2018 on 15.04.2017 itself and there is no any deficiency of service and in spite of that, the complainant has filed above said frivolous complaint by suppressing the material facts about depositing the amount by OP No.1 to Bank account of the complainants.  The complainant has also not produced their bank account detail dated: 15.04.2017 and withhold the same and the complainants are not entitled for any amount as prayed by them and the said two complaints filed by the complainants are to be dismissed.  Hence under these circumstances as discussed above we answer point Nos.1 & 2 are in the Negative.

 

POINT (3):-

15.   In view of the above discussions on Point (1) & (2) we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   The complaint filed by the complainant in C.C. No.74/2018 and the complaint filed by the complainant in C.C. No.75/2018 are hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.

02.   The original of this order shall be kept in C.C. No.74/2018 and a copy thereof in C.C. No.75/2018.

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

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 30^th DAY OF APRIL 2019)

 

 

   LADY MEMBER                         PRESIDENT