Karnataka

Kolar

CC/14/2019

Sri.Vekataramappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sri.G.Ravindra Babu

29 Nov 2019

ORDER

Date of Filing: 20.02.2019

Date of Disposal: 29.11.2019

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.14 OF 2019

Sri. Venkataramappa,

S/o. Venkatappa,

Aged About 48 Years,

R/at: Neelakantapura Village,

Huthur 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.49,520/- with travelling expenses of Rs.2,000/- and compensation of Rs.35,000/- with interest @ 20% pa and prays to allow the complaint.

 

02.   The brief facts of the complainant case is that, the complainant has raised Thogari crop in Sy. No.42 to an extent of 01 acres 14 guntas, Sy No.45/P52 to an extent of 0.30 guntas and in Sy. No.58/P4 to an extent of 0.36 guntas situated at Thambahalli Village, Huthur Hobli, Kolar Taluk & District, for the year 2016-2017 vide application No.1011469 and paid premium amount of Rs.994.41 with the OP No.1 at Kolar.  The proposal has been accepted and OP No.1 assured to pay Rs.49,520/- 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.  As per the complainant’s application No.1024575 and 1011469 the applications are under Non notified area as per Samrakshane portal and OP No.1 is not liable to pay claim amount 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 proved the deficiency of service on the part of OPs?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed?

 

3.  What order?

 

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

 

POINT Nos.1 & 2:    Are in the Negative.

 

POINT No.3:            As per final order for the

following:-

 

REASONS

POINT Nos.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 Thogari crop in Sy. No.42 to an extent of 01 acres 14 guntas, Sy No.45/P52 to an extent of 0.36 and in Sy. No.58/P4 to an extent of 0.36 guntas situated at Thambahalli Village, Huthur Hobli, Kolar Taluk & District, for the year 2016-2017 and paid premium amount of Rs.994.41 vide application No.1011469 with OP No.1 at Kolar for crop insurance.  The OP No.1 has assured to pay the sum assured amount of Rs.49,520/-.

 

12.   The complainant has made allegation against OP No.1 that, after loss of crop due to draught at Kolar Taluk, the complainant contacted the Ops personally and thereafter he issued legal notice and in spite of that, the Ops have failed to pay the sum assured amount but to support the said fact of issuing of legal notice to Ops the complainant has not produced acknowledgment for service of notice.  The complainant has produced xerox copy of legal notice, xerox copy of the crop insurance view proposal, xerox copies of the RTC extract, xerox copy of the Aadhar card, copy of crop confirmation letter.  But on the other hand, the OP No.1 has specifically 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.1024575 and 1011469 the applications are under Non notified area as per Samrakshane portal and OP No.1 is not liable to pay claim amount against the said application numbers.  The said fact clearly reveals that, there is no any deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1.  The complainant has not produced any document issued by the State Government with respect to draught area declaration of Thambahalli Village, Huthur Hobli, Kolar Taluk & District.  Hence the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and hence the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed by him from OP No.1.  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 Nos.1 & 2 are in the negative.

 

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 hereby dismissed with cost.

02.   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