Karnataka

Kolar

CC/88/2018

Sri.Krishnamurthy C - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

14 Mar 2019

ORDER

Date of Filing: 09/11/2018

Date of Order: 14/03/2019

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

 

Dated: 14^TH DAY OF MARCH 2019

PRESENT

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

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

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 88 OF 2018

Sri. Krishnamurthy C,

S/o. Chinnappa Gowdar,

Aged About 46 Years,

Kyasambahalli Village &

Panchayathy, K.G.F. Taluk,

Kolar District.                                                         ….  COMPLAINANT.

(In Person)

 

- V/s -

1) The Manager,

Universal Sompu General Insurance

Company, K.V. Samrat Building,

Kasthuri Nagara,

Bangalore.

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

 

2) The Manager,

S.B.M Urigam,

K.G.F.

(Exparte)                                                                       …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant has filed this complaint against OPs and prays to issue direction to the OPs to pay the insurance claim amount of Rs.10,000/- per acre, for 06.35 guntas along with 18% interest and compensation of Rs.30,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

 

02.   The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that, on 29.06.2016 he has paid premium amount of Rs.4,360.88 paise towards Mango Crop grown in his land bearing Sy. No.72 to an extent of 02 acres 35 guntas and so also paid premium of Rs.6,070.50 paise towards Mango crop grown in Sy. No.73 to an extent of 04 acres of Kajimittahalli Village, at State Bank of Mysore, Oorigum Branch, K.G.F.  For the period of 2016-2017 and there was loss in the crop. The insurance company had paid claim amount to the neighbor farmers as Rs.10,000/- per acre and he enquired about his insurance claim in the Bank, he got reply that, they have already sent all the information to the Insurance Company.  The complainant approached the insurance company and he did not get any positive response and the complainant has come up before this Forum with this complaint by seeking the above set-out reliefs.

 

03.   OP No.2 did not appear before the Forum in spite of service of notice and OP No.2 has been placed as exparte.

 

04.   In response to the notice issued by this Hon’ble Forum OP No.1 has put its appearance through its learned counsel and submitted written version. 

 

05.   OP No.1 in its written version has submitted detailed information about the said scheme.  The main contention of OP No.1 to the case on hand at Para-26 is that, the complainant application proposal No.50407, the Bank Manager has verified and provided the proposal form, but the same was not forwarded to the insurance company/OP No.1 and OP No.2 has failed to find out any claim in the Samrakshna Portal about this application Number of complainant.  That if the Banks had failed to perform its role in accordance with scheme norms there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

06.   The complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief and produced seven documents as Annexure-1 to 7.

 

07.   One Sri. Ramesh.P, Senior Executive has submitted his affidavit evidence on behalf of OP No.1 and produced one document i.e., Samrakshane Portal. 

 

08.   Heard arguments of complainant and counsel of OP No.1.

 

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

(1) Is there deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

 

(2) If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the claim as he sought?

 

(3) What order?

 

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

POINT (1):-      Partly Affirmative as against OP-1 &

                        Negative as against OP-2.

 

POINT (2):-      Partly Affirmative as against OP-1.

       

POINT (3):-      As per the final order

for the following:-

REASONS

POINTS (1) & (2):-

11.   These points are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts and reasonings.  We have perused the complaint, affidavit evidence and the documents produced by the complainant and OP No.1.  On perusal of proposal form data i.e., Annexure-4 it reveals that, the complainant has taken crop insurance and had paid premium of Rs.4,360.88 paise towards Mango Crop growing in his land bearing Sy. No.72 situated at Kajimittahalli Village, Kyasambahalli Hobli, and the sum assured is Rs.87,217.50 paise and so also he has paid premium of Rs.6,070.50 paise towards Mango Crop grown in Sy. No.73 situated in the said village to an extent of 04 acres and the sum assured is Rs.1,21,410/-.  The complainant has also produced the RTC extract with respect of the said survey numbers as per Annexure-6 & 7 and so also produced extract of Bank Pass-Book showing his Bank account number in State Bank of India, K.G.F, as per Annexure-2 and Aadhar Card as per Annexure-1.

 

12.   On perusal of copy of Samrakshna Portal i.e., Annexure-5 it reveals that, data entry was completed and verified and approved by the Bank Manager with this it is confirm that, OP No.2 bank has verified the proposal form of the complainant and approved and entered in the said portal and data entry is completed and the OP Bank has done his part of work by completing the date entry on 30.06.2016 itself and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Bank.  The said copy of Samrakshne Portal does not disclose detail amount of claim pertaining to the complainant’s proposal form as it may be due to technical problem.  Now it is the duty of the OP No.1 to verify with the Samrakshne Portal, but OP No.1 has failed to do so with an intention to escape from his liability and hence the contention of the OP No.1 that, the Bank has not forwarded the application form is goes in vain and there is deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1 Insurance Company.  The OP No.1 has with-hold the claim amount and he is liable to pay the compensation and cost of litigation to the complainant.  Hence as discussed above, we answer these points accordingly.

 

POINT (3):-

13.   In view of our findings on Point Nos.1 & 2 and the discussion made thereon, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed against OP No.1.  The complaint against OP No.2 is dismissed.

 

02.   The OP No.1 is directed to release the approved claim amount towards crop insurance of the complainant’s application No. 50407 to the complainant with cost of Rs.1,000/- and compensation of Rs.2,000/- 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 14^th DAY OF MARCH 2019)

 

   LADY MEMBER                            PRESIDENT