Karnataka

Kolar

CC/20/2018

Sri.R.Changalaraya 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. 20 OF 2018

Sri. R. Changalaraya Reddy,

S/o. Ramareddy,

Aged About 57 Years,

Karadaguru Village,

Kangandlahalli Post,

Kyasambhahalli Hobli,

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. 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.29,589.75 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 Mango crop grown in his land bearing Sy.No.116 to an extent of 03 acres 10 guntas, situated at Dalavaihosahalli Village, Kyasambahalli Hobli, Bangarpet Taluk.  He paid premium amount of Rs.4,940/- towards the said insurance.  During the said year there was no rain in Kolar District and he lost the entire Mango crop.  After one year in the Samrakshane Portal he came to know a sum of Rs.29,589.75 paisa was remitted to his account and he enquired in the Bank, 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 is 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 the complaint:-

(i) Copy of Samrakshane Portal Check status

(ii) Xerox Copy of Aadhar Card

(iii) Xerox copy of Bank Pass-Book

(iv) RTC Extract pertaining to Sy No.116

(v) Requisition letter given to Deputy Commissioner, Kolar.

(vi) Xerox copy of View Proposal

 

03.   In response to the notice issued by this Forum, OP Nos.1 to 3 appeared through their counsel and filed their version.

 

(a)    OP No.1 has contended that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and there is no deficiency in service on the part of this OP No.1.  OP No.1 has specifically contended that, as per the complainant’s application No.56571 this OP No.1 has already paid Rs.29,589.75 paisa vide No.BARBC18054303522 to the concern Bank on 23.02.2018 and there is no cause of action arise to the complaint to register the complaint against this OP No.1 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 submit application through online to OP No.1 insurance company through their bank accounts and that apart there is no any other part of this OP and prays to drop the proceedings against this OP No.2.

 

(c)    OP No.3 has filed version and contended that he is not a necessary party to this proceeding as there is no any deficiency of service on the part of this OP No.3.  This OP after receiving the amount has forwarded the same to OP No.1 and so far OP No.1 have not settled the policy claim.  This OP No.3 is not a necessary party and in view of the same there is no deficiency in service on the part of this OP and prays for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

 

04.   The complainant has filed affidavit evidence and so also the Executive of OP No.1.  On 01.08.2018 OP No.2 has filed Memo prays to treat their version as its evidence and so also filed written arguments.  OP No.3 did not adduce any evidence but filed Memo with two below mentioned documents:- 

(i) Statement of Account of complainant

(ii) Xerox copy of the Proposal Form

 

05.   Heard arguments of complainant and OP No.1.

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 complainant and OP No.1 and the documents produced by complainant and OP No.1 and 3 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 and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1.  The OP No.1 has already paid Rs.29,589.75 paisa vide UTR No.BARBC18054303522 to the concern Bank on 23.02.2018 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 totally lost Mango crop.  He approached the Ops for several times 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 and he 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 OP No.1 has vehemently addressed his arguments that, the OP has already paid the assured amount of Rs.29,589.75 paisa to the complainant and there is no deficiency of service on their part.  In the version OP No.2 has also that, as per the Karnataka Government Order No. ThoEe/38/KruUE/2014, Bangalore, Dated: 15.05.2016 it has issued paper advertisement dated: 30.06.2016 informing all the farmers to avail the insurance through their respective bank accounts apart from that there is no any other part of this OP No.2.  OP No.3 has also stated in its version that, after receipt of the amount it has forwarded the same to OP No.1 and so far OP No.1 have not settled the policy claim and there is no deficiency in service on the part of this OP No.3.  The contention of OP No.3 is not sustainable as OP No.3 itself has filed Memo dated: 28.08.2018 and produced copy of statement of account of the complainant and proposal form.  The said statement of account reveals that, OP No.1 has remitted a sum of Rs.29,590/- to the account of the complainant on 23.02.2018 and in spite of that, the complainant has suppressed the said material fact and in his affidavit evidence he sworn that on 24.04.2018 a sum of Rs.29,589/- was remitted his account.  Hence there is no dispute in that regard.

 

12.   Now the only dispute arises is, whether 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 in the year 2016 itself before cut-off date, but OP No.1 has remitted the assured amount only on 23.02.2018 and there is no any reason for the delay in payment of the said assured amount and there is a delay in remitting the amount by the OP No.1 and OP No.1 is the 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