Karnataka

Kolar

CC/12/2019

G.M.Rajanna - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, The Universal Sompo General Insurance Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

G.Ravindra Babu

29 Nov 2019

ORDER

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

 

Dated: 29^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019

PRESENT

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

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

 

C.C.NO.12 OF 2019

Sri. G.M. Rajanna,

S/o. Munivenkatappa,

Major, Aged About 68 Years,

R/at: Huthur Village & Hobli,

Kolar Taluk.                                                                     ….  Complainant.

(Rep. by Sri. G. Ravindra Babu, Advocate)

 

- V/s -

1) The Manager,

The Universal Sompu General Insurance

Company Limited, No.217/A,

4^th Floor, KVV Samrat,

3^rd Main Outer Ring Road,

Kasturinagara, Bangalore-43.

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

 

2) The Joint Director,

Department of Agriculture,

Old D.C. Compound, Kolar District,

Kolar.

(In-person)

 

3) The Deputy Commissioner,

D.C. Office, Tamaka, Kolar.

(Exparte)                                                               ….. Opposite Parties.

: ORDERS :

BY SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, PRESIDENT,

01.   The complainant has filed the above complaint against the Ops and prays to direct the Ops to pay Rs.41,429/- with travelling expenses of Rs.2,000/- and compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 20% pa and prays to allow the complaint.

 

02.   The brief facts of the complainant case is that, the complainant has raised Ragi crop in Sy. No.18 to an extent of 37 guntas, Sy No.17 to an extent of 02 acres 03 guntas situated at Huthur Village, Huthur Hobli, Kolar Taluk, for the year 2016-2017 and paid premium amount of Rs.828.59 with the OP No.1 at Kolar vide application No.999198.  The proposal has been accepted and assured to pay Rs.41,429/- and the complainant has produced documents to that effect.  The complainant approached the Ops personally after loss of crop due to draught at Kolar Taluk and requested the Ops to pay the sum assured amount, but the Ops have failed to pay the said amount in spite of approaching them on several times.  The complainant issued legal notice to the Ops and in spite of service of legal notice the Ops not cared to give reply nor come forward to pay the assured amount and the complainant approached this Forum and prays to allow the complaint.

 

03.   OP No.1 appeared through their counsel and filed its version and OP No.2 appeared in-person and filed its version.  OP No.3 did not appear before the Forum in spite of service of notice and placed exparte.

 

04.   OP No.1 has filed its objections and denied the allegations made against OP No.1 which are specifically admitted as false.  This OP has stated about the implementation of the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) and liabilities of the said scheme.  This OP has also contended that, the threshold yield and actual yield is to be entered by State Government in Samrakshne portal and this OP has only access to download the same and based on the entry in the said portal if a claim has been registered in that case, it would be treated as admissible or inadmissible and as per the complainant’s application No. 999198 the status of the complainant on Samrakshane portal is “Data entry in progress”.  The OP No.1 has not received any document i.e., copy of the RTC, copy of Aadhar Card, Copy of Bank passbook, copy of the premium acknowledgement slip from the complainant.  Hence no claim has been paid.  This OP has further contended that, as per verbal communications with the complainant and the information received over phone, the tentative claim calculation has been done with respect to Survey No.18  Rs.12,700/- and Survey No.17 Rs.28,550/- and if OP No.1 get the relevant documents from the complainant, the claim calculations and decision towards the claim may be taken accordingly.  The cause of action does not arise and the complainant has not issued any notice and prays to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

 

05.   OP No.2 has filed its version and contended that, this OP is not a necessary party to the proceedings.  The complainant has not approached this OP at any point of time as contended by the complainant and no notice has been issued against this OP and as per Samrakshane Portal no data found and there is no any deficiency of service on their part and prays to dismiss the complaint.

 

06.   The complainant has filed affidavit by way of examination-in-chief with list and following 03 documents:-

(i) Insurance copy issued by the OP

(ii) RTC extracts

(iii) Crop confirmation letter

 

and so also produced 04 documents at the time of filing complaint with list.

07.   The Senior Executive of OP No.1 has filed affidavit by way of examination-in-chief.  OP No.2 did not adduce any evidence. 

 

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

 

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

1. Whether the complainant has made out case for deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.1?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the amount as calculated by OP No.1?

 

3.  What order?

 

10.   Our findings to the above points are that:-

 

POINT No.1:            is in the Negative.

POINT No.2:     is in the Affirmative.

 

POINT No.3:    As per final order for the

following:-

 

REASONS

POINT No.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 of the complainant and the version of OP Nos.1 & 2 and affidavit evidence of OP No.1 and so also the documents produced by the complainant and OP No.1.  It is an undisputed fact that, the complainant has raised Ragi crop in Sy. No.18 to an extent of 37 guntas, Sy No.17 to an extent of 02 acres 03 guntas situated at Huthur Village, Huthur Hobli, Kolar Taluk, for the year 2016-2017 and insured the said crop vide application No.999198 and paid premium amount of Rs.828.59 with the OP No.1 at Kolar.  The OP No.1 has accepted the proposal and assured to pay Rs.41,429/-.  The complainant after loss of crop due to draught approached the OP Nos.1 & 2, but OP Nos.1 & 2 have declined to pay the assured amount and thereafter the complainant has issued legal notice dated: 13.08.2018.  OP No.3 is impleaded later on. But to support the said fact of issuing legal notice to OP Nos.1 & 2 the complainant has not produced acknowledgment for service of notice.  The complainant has produced xerox copy of draught area declared for the year 2016-2017, Xerox copy of the legal notice, Xerox copy of the crop insurance & View proposal, Xerox copy of the RTC extract, Xerox copy of the Aadhar Card, Insurance copy issued by the OP and xerox copy of the crop confirmation letter. 

 

12.   On the other hand, the OP No.1 has specifically contended that, threshold yield and actual yield is to be entered by State Government in Samrakshne portal and this OP No.1 has only access to download the same based on the entry in the said portal if the claim has been registered in that case it would be treated as admissible or inadmissible and as per the complainant application No.999198 the status on Samrakshane portal is “Data entry in progress”.  The OP No.1 has not received any document i.e., RTC copy, Aadhar card, bank passbook, premium acknowledgment slip from the complainant and no claim has been paid.  Further OP No.1 contended that, as per the verbal communications with the farmer and the information received over phone, the tentative claim calculation has been done with respect to Sy No.18 Rs.12,700/- and with respect to Sy. No.17 Rs.28,550/- and if the OP No.1 get the relevant documents the claim calculation may be taken accordingly.  The said fact clearly reveals that, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1 and the complainant in spite of taking the said contention by the OP No.1, the complainant has not bothered to take the said amount by producing relevant documents called by OP No.1.  The complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.  As OP Nos.2 is the only formal party to the proceedings and no case is made out against OP No.2.  Hence under these circumstances as discussed above, we answer point No.1 is in the negative and Point No.2 is in the affirmative.

 

POINT No.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 allowed-in-part.  No order as to costs.

02.   The complainant is at liberty to collect Rs.12,700/- with respect to Sy. No.18 and Rs.28,550/- with respect to Sy No.17 with OP No.1 by producing relevant documents to the OP No.1 as called by OP No.1

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 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019)

 

 

   LADY MEMBER                         PRESIDENT