Karnataka

Kolar

CC/21/2018

Sri.K.Gangi Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

12 Oct 2018

ORDER

Date of Filing: 23/03/2018

Date of Order: 12/10/2018

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

 

Dated: 12^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2018

PRESENT

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

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

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 21 OF 2018

Sri. K. Gangireddy,

S/o. Krishnareddy,

Aged About 44 Years,

Karadaguru Village,

Srinivasasandra Panchayathi,

Bangarpet Taluk-563121.                                           ….  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.Sri.M.Lokesh Murthy, Advocate)

 

3) The Manager,

Pragathi Krishna Gramina Bank,

J.K. Pura,

KGF Taluk,

(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.29,590.75 paisa with interest @ 18% per annum and compensation of Rs.30,000/- for and his health problem he suffered Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

02.   The brief facts of the complainant case is that, he is a poor agriculturist, under reference of OP No.2 had availed crop insurance for the year 2016-2017 under “Pradana Mantri Fasal Bhima Yojane” for Ragi crop grown in his land bearing Sy. No.61/2, land measuring to an extent of 03.10 acres situated at Karadaguru Village.  He paid premium amount of Rs.4,940/- towards the said insurance.  During the said year there was no rain in Kolar and he lost the entire Mango crop.  After one year in the Samrakshane Portal he came to know a sum of Rs.29,590.75 paisa was remitted to his account and he enquired in the Bank and the said amount is not remitted.    Thereafter the complainant approached the Ops on several times and there was no any response.  Himself, along with other farmers approached the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, on 13.09.2018 and gave representation, the same was also goes in vain.  The complainant has come up with this complaint by seeking the above set-out reliefs.

(a)    The complainant has submitted below mentioned documents along with his complaint:-

(i) RTC extract of Sy. No.61/2

(ii) Requisition letter to Deputy Commissioner, Kolar.

(iii) Xerox Copy of Samrakshane Portal Check status

(iv) Xerox copy of Certificate issued by Vikram Hospital (v) Xerox copy of Aadhar Card

 (vii) Xerox copy of Election ID Card

(viii) Xerox copy of Challan pertaining to payment of Rs.4,940/- in Pragathi Gramin Bank.

 

03.   In response to the notice issued by this Forum, OP Nos.1 & 3 appeared through their counsel and filed their version.  OP No.2 appeared in-person and filed version.

(a)    OP No.1 has contended that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  OP No.1 has specifically contended that, as per the complainant’s application No.116151 this OP No.1 has already paid Rs.29,589.75 paisa vide No.BARB201801102000390217 to the concerned Bank on 10.01.2018 and there is no cause of action arise to the complaint to register the complaint against this OP No.1 and there is no deficiency of service and prays to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

 

(b)    OP No.2 has contended 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 and that apart there is no any other part of this OP and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

 

(c)    OP No.3 admitted about the premium amount made by the complainant with respect to Mango crop of Sy No.61/2 and the claim was settled Rs.29,589.25 paisa only and not paid the full claim amount. The complainant has already withdrawn the amount and there is no deficiency of service on the part of this OP No.3.  This OP No.3 is not a necessary party and prays to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

 

04.   The complainant has filed affidavit evidence and so also the Executive of OP No.1 has filed affidavit evidence. OP No.2 has filed Memo dated: 01.08.2018 submitting that its version may kindly be treated as its affidavit evidence.  OP No.3 did not adduce any evidence.

 

05.   Heard arguments on both sides.

 

06.   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?

 

07.   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):-      Partly in the Affirmative as against OP No.1

only.

 

POINT (4):-      As per the final order

for the following:-

REASONS

POINTS (1) to (3):-

08.   These points are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts and reasonings.  We have perused the complaint, version and affidavit evidence of the complainant and OP No.1 and the documents produced by complainant and OP No.1 and 2 and taken in to consideration.

 

09.   OP No.1 has contended that, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as there is no cause of action arises to the complaint to register the complaint and there is no notice has been given, OP No.1 has already paid Rs.29,589.75 paisa vide UTR No.BARB201801102000390217 to the concerned Bank on 10.01.2018 itself and there is no deficiency in service on the part of this OP. 

 

10.   The complainant has specifically contended that, as there was no rain in the Kolar District he has totally lost his entire Mango crop and he approached the Ops for several time for insurance claim and they did not respond thereafter, himself along with other farmers approached Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, on 13.09.2018 and given representation and the same was also goes in vain.  On perusal of these facts the complainant is a poor agriculturist and for approaching the Ops they could not get any documents due to the illiteracy.  However the complainant has produced document for approaching the Deputy Commissioner dated: 13.09.2018. The said document reveals about cause of action to the complaint and we can accept the said document to come to the conclusion about the cause of action arise to file the complaint.  Hence the contention taken by the OP No.1 are all goes in vain.

 

11.   The counsel for OP No.1 has vehemently addressed his arguments that, OP No.1 has already paid the assured amount of Rs.29,589.75 paisa to the account of the complainant on 10.01.2018  and there is no deficiency of service on their part.  OP No.2 in his version has contended 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.  OP No.3 in its version has contended that, OP No.3 has sent the premium amount and the claim was settled by the OP No.1 for Rs.29,589.75 paisa and the same was credited to the account of complainant and the complainant has already withdrawn the amount and absolutely there is no deficiency of service on the part of this OP No.3 and there is no dispute with respect to remitting of the premium amount of Rs.29,589.75 paisa to the account of the complainant.

 

12.   Now the only dispute that arises is, who has to pay the compensation to the complainant?  In this regard it is relevant to state here that, the above crop insurance is of the year 2016-2017 and as per the Samrakshane portal check status produced by the complainant it reveals about the application acknowledged by the Insurance Company and approved by the Bank and forwarded to insurance company, verified and approved by the Bank Manager during the year 2016 itself.   The complainant in his affidavit evidence has stated that, on 21.04.2018 the said amount has been credited to his account, but he has not produced his account extract and suppressed the material fact.  On perusal of the complaint it reveals that, the complainant has filed this complaint on 23.03.2018 after remitting the amount by OP No.1 i.e., on 10.01.2018 of Rs.29,589.75 paisa was credited to the account of the complainant and it clearly shows that, though the complainant has paid the premium amount during the year 2016 itself the OP No.1 has remitted the amount to the complainant’s account on 10.01.2018 and there is a delay in remitting the amount by the OP No.1.  Hence OP No.1 is sole responsible to pay the compensation to the complainant and there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 only.  OP No.2 is a formal party to the proceedings and we hold that, there is no liability on OP No.2 and so also no liability on OP No.3.  Hence as discussed above we answer the above points accordingly.

 

POINT (4):-

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

ORDER

01.   The complaint is allowed against Op No.1.  The complaint against OP Nos.2 & 3 is dismissed.

 

02. OP No.1 is hereby directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.500/- and compensation of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant 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 12^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2018)

 

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                PRESIDENT